[BC] Alternative reality

[Mike McCarthy]

As used by one of my counsels this week, the axiom of: "What the government 
wants, the government gets" applies here.

MM

At 03:49 PM 10/6/2007 -0400, Dana  Puopolo wrote
>There's something routinely used called a caveat. The FCC and state dept uses
>them all the time for the military. Why not use them once for radio?
>
>-D
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:43:51 PM EDT
>From: Mike McCarthy <Towers at mre.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] Alternative reality
>
>There are ITU treaties in Region 2 which makes that effort extremely
>difficult if not functionally impossible.
>
>I prefer a reallocation of the TV 6 band with protected contours to greater
>distances for those how choose a pioneering band.  TV 6 is already
>allocated for FM in many areas outside the USA and receivers have the
>channels already programmed into the firmware.  The D/U ratios will be very
>different than what we know today in that digital will offer much tighter
>spacing options.
>
>Anyone who enters into a pioneering band should be given added and
>irrevocable contour protections.  At least then stations can have a chance
>at covering their existing areas TO their current protected contours
>without impairment.  Thus even my Class C station has a chance at covering
>most of the metro Chicago area from it's existing less than stellar
>location.  And the investment isn't THAT great.
>
>MM
>
>At 12:14 PM 10/6/2007 -0700, Dana  Puopolo wrote
> >Why not refarm 30-50 mHz as well? It's literally unused these days...or at
> >lease refarm 40-50 mHz and kick the few users there down 10 mHz. There's
> >plenty of space for those still left there in 30-40 mHz. Now you have either
> >32 or 22 mHz of spectrum. Granted, the 6 meter ham band sits between it, but
> >with digital radios, who cares? They can be programmed to simply skip over 6
> >meters. Require DRM  with software upgradeable codecs. If they use OGG, not
> >only will it sound good, it'd have no licensing fees-keeping the cost of
>both
> >the transmitters and raecivers down to a reasonable cost.
> >
> >Also, there's no reason why channel 4 can't be refarmed as well...unless you
> >want to keep it clean for all the ATSC/NTSC converters that will be out
> >there.
> >
> >If radio is to survive, we need REAL solutions that use forward thinking-NOT
> >the same one same ond we always seem to find...
> >
> >The NAB is one of the big luddites here-all they want is the status quo-it's
> >time to blow them out of the equation and begin thinking "out of the box".
> >
> >Unfortunately, so is the FCC...
> >
> >-D
> >
> >
> >    As a listener only, I think it would be better if all AM stations
> > would migrate to the TV channels 2 and 3, with FM and digital signals,
> > like FM IBOC.
> >With large guard bands and many channels across the 12 MHz no two stations
> >would need to use the same channel within 250 miles, it's not a waste of
> >spectrum it's clean long distance listening.  (What will it be used for
> >after 2-2009?)
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>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