[BC] BUREAU ADOPTS ORDER TO MODIFY FM DIGITAL

[Broadcast List USER]

No, I'm not ignoring anything.

If you move sick AM stations to FM (or digital) you get more sick FM  
stations.

It does nothing to fix the problem of there being far too many  
stations for the advertising available.

Sorry, but the industry is sick, and near death.

If you open up 12 MHz of FM or digital, nothing good is going to  
happen.  Radios will be slow to adapt, and everyone will lose money.

--chip

On Feb 1, 2010, at 1:20 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 22
> From: Jerry Mathis <thebeaver32 at gmail.com>
>
> You're ignoring or forgetting the fact(s) that the suggested primary  
> use of the Channels 5 & 6 additon is to provide a place for **AM**  
> stations to migrate to, and in an all digital format. This would be  
> followed by moving short-spaced stations into it. This is BEFORE any  
> NEW stations are allowed to use the space.
>
> --
> Jerry Mathis
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:47 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