[BC] Alternative reality

[Dana Puopolo]

Which is exactly my point. The FM band id mature! Co location of second
adjacents, ratio/co location of IF's and allotments basedmon contours and
terrain should be routinely allowed!  In the psst, the NAB bitched incessantly
about the AMization of the band....problem is, AM is dying quickly and needs
to move to FM-just like they're doing in Canada!

-D

------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:41:33 PM EDT
From: Mike McCarthy <Towers at mre.com>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] Alternative reality

In reality, we offer contour protection.  Look at 73.307.  It's available 
as an option for actual building.  Only the allocation needs to be meet the 
standard spacing standards.

MM

At 12:18 PM 10/6/2007 -0700, Dana  Puopolo wrote
>Canada is MUCH more forward thinking-look at how they're in the process of
>moving most of the AM's over to FM. And YES, they are using things like
>terrain blocking, directional antennas and variable power levels (like we
have
>with AM) to do it. Then look at us in the USA-we still use purely mileage
>separations, a fixed (30 meter) terrain variable, non directional antennas,
>and only a few power levels. Our method of FM allotment is a JOKE! The FM
band
>for the most part is mature, and creative methods need to be be used to help
>AM stations migrate there. As an example of how bad it is, look at the hoops
>that Clear Channel is jumbing through in Denver! Their FM stations there are
>on a foothill East of the Rockies, and to the East of the site (where Denver
>is) they have a HUGE HAAT, but to the West the Rockies cut it in half. As a
>result, when you look at HAAT with all 8 radials, it's a lot lower due to
the
>Mountains. Some other stations have a "Denver waiver" which grandfathers
them
>to full class C status. Those stations goththeir waivers almost 30 years
ago.
>Problem is, these waivers keep other FM stations (on the West side of the
>Rockies) from being allotted (because since we use purely mileage
separations,
>the fact that the Rocky Mountains completely block FM signals doesn't factor
>into the equation). Clear Channel has spent almost a million dollars to fix
>this somehow. In Canada there wouldn't even HAD BEEN a problem-Canada simply
>would have allotted them as class C's and required them to use  irectional
>antennas aiming east. Other stations to the West would do the same in
>opposite. Problem solved!
>
>The USA is decades behind Canada in allotting FM's!  The major reason why is
>they have ENGINEERS making decisions instead of lawyers!
>
>-D
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:34:06 AM EDT
>From: "Dave Dunsmoor" <mrfixit at min.midco.net>
>
> > HOWEVER, I also believe that something needs to be done to give AM 
> stations something more.
>
>The "something more" that's needed has been hashed up and turned over and
>over here many times would be INTERESTING, intelligent content. I cite the
>CBC as one example of programming that is usually interesting to listen to.
>For me anyway. There the programs are well thought out and produced. They
>actually provide entertainment or education (or both) that's worth listening
>to.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
>Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Test Gear-Tools-Lots More + Now Barix too!
>www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>

_______________________________________________

The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Test Gear-Tools-Lots More + Now Barix too!
www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com