[BC] Assessing the first adjacent problem.

[Dana Puopolo]

If that be the case, Clay then let the daytimers all sign on at night.

A client of mine runs 9 watts at night. It covers his COL quite well, due to
his low dial position. An adjacent channel class A is about 150 miles away.
When they turn on IBOC at night, they will make his 9 watt signal USELESS!
But even worse, their SIX HUNDRED WATT buzz generator will affect the co
channel he protects MUCH MORE then his paltry 9 watt signal does. In fact,
their 600 watt IBUZ signal will be 150 miles CLOSER to the class A station on
his frequency.

Explain to me how this is fair?

FCC, if you're going to allow IBOC buzz generators on at night, then in the
spirit of fair play, allow analog AM stations with class A adjacents to run at
night with 500 watts or their licensed power, whichever is less. After all,
the 50% average duty cycle interference they produce will interfere a lot les
sthen a 100% duty cycle buzz jammer!

-D

------ Original Message ------
Received:
From: "k7cr" <k7cr at blarg.net>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: [BC] Re: Skywave dying

I love to read the coments about Skywave dying as a
result of the recent IBOC announcement.

Seems to me, looking back, that the FCC started
this process many years ago when they declared that
the historic Clear Channels were no longer needed.

What I am saying is - This is nothing new but rather
a continuation of a long process that is based on the
contention that you do not need to get your Radio
from skywave when you can likely get the same
programming via ground-wave from a local station
that just happens to be playing the same tune.

Today's Cookie-Cutter Radio is likely a
contributor to the continuation of this thinking. Not
to mention the fact that some have derated one
time big skywave generators just to get more local
coverage in a large market (no names or calls here)

Bottom line - Don't blame the FCC...Broadcasters
need to look in the mirror!