FCC considering expanded FM band

Hoosier Daddy · Post by **Hoosier Daddy** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:29 am

They're looking at reallocating TV Channels 5 and 6 for expansion of the FM broadcast band.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a ... -217A1.pdf

genlock · Post by **genlock** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:38 am

I have seen that idea before.

Digital (DRM), replace AM broadcast daytimers and directional stations, Mostly class a type stations, Require a studio in city of licensew/employees, encourage local ownership. ownership limits, tighten up technical regulations.

Hoosier Daddy · Post by **Hoosier Daddy** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:09 pm

The specifics on the Channels 5 and 6 proposal:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr ... 6519744377

I think it's beautiful. I could have written it myself.

Force Commander · Post by **Force Commander** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:23 pm

This idea has been talked about for many years. I am glad to see the Commission at least take a look at it.

On a separate note, there is a AM station on FM translator comment on page 28 #9 of the first link on this thread.

Condolences offered to Hoosier Daddy.

Tom Taggart · Post by **Tom Taggart** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:14 pm

What may kill the Ch. 5 & 6 proposal is the low power TV advocates. It has considerable technical merit, even more so than IBOC, because the receivers are already available and need merely to be placed on that slow boat from China. Japan, and much of the Far East use 76-88 for FM broadcast.

This proceeding would also mandate that stations certify on their renewal application that they have not entered into contracts for sale of advertising time that discriminate on a race or gender basis.

As if we ever have that much say on contracts with agencies.

Riddle me this, Batman, what if the Jim Crow Advertising agency calls your group of stations to buy time for a September flight this year for the Jefferson Davis for Congress Committee, and specifies "No Urban, No Spanish"?

If you accept this contract you get dinged at renewal. If you refuse the contract, you've violated Federal law because you must offer time for sale to legally qualified Federal candidates.

ALSO note that station sellers must now publicly offer the station for sale, since not to do so would imply discrimination in the sale of the station because minority entities would otherwise not have the opportunity to bid on it. On the other side of that coin, the definition of disadvantaged groups would include any entity with less than 6 million in annual sales (this is the Commissions' dodge to get around Andarand Contracting, the US Supreme Court case that struck done racial/gender preferences in Federal contracts). The proposed rules provide incentives for big groups to sell to these "EDB's" (Economically Disadvantaged Broadcasters).

Hoosier Daddy · Post by **Hoosier Daddy** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:14 pm

Force Commander wrote:On a separate note, there is a AM station on FM translator comment on page 28 #9 of the first link on this thread. Condolences offered to Hoosier Daddy.

I laughed out loud when I read that!

Seriously, I'd have fewer problems with the AM daytimer/FM translator issue if the band was big enough to accomodate them. What burnt my ass was listening to the NAB scream bloody murder about LPFM stations "causing malicious and unacceptable interference to an already overcrowded FM broadcast band" and then arguing for full steam ahead rulemaking to allow FM translators galore for full power FM stations, and then arguing again just as loudly for AM daytimers/low power nighttimers to get one or several FM translators.

Ignorant, self-serving bastards. Either the Law of Physics regarding unacceptable levels of RF interference applies to everyone or it applies to no one. The NAB actually has less credibility and honor than the RIAA.

Expanding into Channels 5 and 6 (basically down to 76.1 MHz) begs a new question: Should AM stations under a certain RF power level, or with daytime-only status, or with a crazy, expensive-to-maintain directional pattern get first dibs on surrendering their AM license as a trade for a Class A or Class B assignment in the expanded FM band?

Hoosier Daddy · Post by **Hoosier Daddy** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:31 pm

Tom Taggart wrote:What may kill the Ch. 5 & 6 proposal is the low power TV advocates.

I always thought Channels 2, 3, and 4 would be excellent low power TV frequencies. They're not good choices at all for high powered, wide area digital television. Another random thought: With TV tuners going digital, you could also actually renumber the TV channels to something a little less hodge-podge.

sportsvoice · Post by **sportsvoice** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:46 pm

Tom Taggart wrote:What may kill the Ch. 5 & 6 proposal is the low power TV advocates. It has considerable technical merit, even more so than IBOC, because the receivers are already available and need merely to be placed on that slow boat from China. Japan, and much of the Far East use 76-88 for FM broadcast.

I didn't even think of that...all you would need in the interim to get such an "expanded" band would be one of those receivers.

I assume using those frequencies is beneficial to LPTV because of better coverage (even though I'm sure they knock the max. power down on those bands vs. UHF). Lo-VHF sucks big time for Digital TV though, because of the skip and impulse noise issues.

genlock · Post by **genlock** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:55 pm

An expanded FM band would be the perfect way to solve some of the AM problems. Offer class a type stations to daytimers and 1 kw night stations and those that have flea power at night. Then offer class b type stations to the stations that have full power at night (like WCHS class stations. Try to clean up AM broadcast so it is usable for some distance at night. This should be the start of migration to digital on AM and FM (not IBOC). When finished the AM band should be composed of digital stations of the old class a and b clear channel types. FCC has a chance to do something very positive here.

Hoosier Daddy · Post by **Hoosier Daddy** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:55 pm

A nationwide, or at least "wide area" listenable AM broadcast band would be a wonderful byproduct of FM broadcast band expansion.

Tom Taggart · Post by **Tom Taggart** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:55 pm

Indeed. The herd of AM stations needs to be thinned.

Dave Loudin · Post by **Dave Loudin** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:47 am

Well, we need to stop the Auction 84 assignments, then. Lots of directional 250 watt nighttime facilities (minimum Class B) are getting CPs. These often have interference-free contours near graveyard channel levels (20 mV/m or so).

AmpedNow · Post by **AmpedNow** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:47 pm

Tom Taggart wrote:What may kill the Ch. 5 & 6 proposal is the low power TV advocates. It has considerable technical merit, even more so than IBOC, because the receivers are already available and need merely to be placed on that slow boat from China. Japan, and much of the Far East use 76-88 for FM broadcast.

Already in Zunes...

They have a Japan/Europe/NA band selector. Japan runs from 76-90Mhz, Europe includes the even frequencies, And NA goes without saying.

All with full display RDS.

So, I'm already good to go with an expanded FM band. The only problem is that it's not continuous from 76 to 108...

Great idea, btw. But I have a sneaky suspicion that they will only take it down to 82.1 Mhz.

Even that would still do a world of good...