[BC] BUREAU ADOPTS ORDER TO MODIFY FM DIGITAL

[Mark Humphrey]

I want to see Channel 5 and 6 designated as the place for AM stations
to put their digital simulcasts, not more new FM allocations.   When
the iBiquity system was formally approved, FCC Chairman Martin said
"Digital radio... holds great promise for the revitalization of AM
service" but IBOC hasn't delivered.  Although the FM translator ruling
is a good interim fix for our station, the Commission should make good
and allow AM broadcasters to adopt a VHF digital system which would
actually solve the biggest problems.

Mark

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Broadcast List USER
<Broadcast at fetrow.org> wrote:
> Jim:
>
> I totally agree, but there are those who want to take TV Channels five
> and six and add that 12 MHz to the 20 MHz of the FM band.
>
> I just don't get it.  Let's make the business less profitable.  Let's
> spread the business over more than 50% more stations!
>
> Now, if we expanded maybe three MHz down, and got rid of the short
> spaced interference problems that plague the NE US, the Chigao area,
> and southern CA, I might support that, but more 50% more FM stations
> in middle market areas?  No way.
>
> Frankly 80-90 is part of the problem today.
>
> It is time to let the weak stations die, and allow the stronger ones
> to improve their signals and MAYBE survive.
>
> --chip
>
> On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:00 AM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:
>
>>Message: 5
>>From: Jim Seaman <james724_ at hotmail.com>
>>
>>There may be a silver lining in this cloud if the law of unintended
>>consequences gets invoked again. This might prove to be the undoing
>>of the infamous Docket 80-90 that saturated the FM band with
>>hundreds of new "drop-in" assignments, and created many marginal and
>>unprofitable radio operations on the fringes of larger markets.
>>
>>As with the AM band, it's long past time to cull the herd of the
>>weak and sickly members. Although this order seems stupid on the
>>surface, I suspect that somebody knows exactly what he is doing. The
>>question now is not whether the terrestial radio business will
>>survive (it will), but "who" will survive the cull.
>
>