Re: [IRCA] FCC to consider FM translators for AM stations?

[Bruce Portzer <bportzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

R. F. Tetro wrote:

 

As I have noted before in this forum and many others, AM broadcasters would be much better off if a new VHF or UHF band were created that is strictly digital and for the sole purpose of providing relief to AMs.  To create such a band would require about 20-25 mHz of spectrum.  It could be handled much the same as the expanded band, giving the broadcasters a 5 or 10 year overlap.  Whether or not to move to the new band would be voluntary.  The advantages:  no more electrical interference; no more skywave issues; the digital audio would place the migrated AMs on a par with their FM counterparts; and the AM band becomes less crowded.   I think those four reasons, in and of themselves, would provide a major impetus to move.

 

It seems like it would be a win-win proposition.  Of course, it will never happen because the FCC more than likely wouldn’t have the backbone.

One possibility would be to expand the existing FM band when the analog TV channels are abandoned in 2009.  Some or all of channels 2-6 could then be reallocated to existing AM broadcasters or new stations.  There would then be a contiguous radio band for all terrestrial broadcast services, which would be nice from a technical standpoint. Some existing radios already tune down to 76 MHz (the Japanese FM band), though this would only be an advantage if analog FM were used in that part of the band.

I don't know if the FCC has decided what to do with the analog TV channels once they are abandoned, other than generalities about Public Safety users (police, fire etc).   I very much doubt they would want that part of the spectrum due to things like skip interference, antenna size, noise, etc. (most such users abandoned the 30-50 MHz band years ago for exactly those reasons).

Bruce

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx