|[AMRadio] Re: future of AM radio|
youngbob53 at msn.com
Sun Oct 21 05:58:14 EDT 2007
I'm not sure where you live Steve, but here in MA I nightly get co-channel
interference big time, for example I can't listen to WSM anymore on 650
because of WFAN NY which on most nights completely covers it up, WOR 710
kills two channels, as does WLW 700 which effectively kills three channels
(they cover each other up many nights) and there are very few IBOC AM
stations on at night at this point, in fact some such as Citadel
Broadcasting which owned 15% of the AM IBOC stations have shut it down
because of interference problems, I could go on and on but I won't. IBOC is
one of the worst examples of FCC sanctioned harmful interference ever
concocted and it is worse than BPL because there is no organized opposition
yet and the rollout has been sneaky, it will kill the AM and FM BCB bands
not help, and the radios are selling like lead balloons. If IBOC is ever
deployed widespread at night on AM all you will hear is a loud whooshing
noise from one end of the band to the other unless you happen to live near a
50 KW station and then at least, you may get one. There will be no AM band
left, digital needs it's own spectrum and a new system if it is ever to
succeed. A non-monoploy might help also, a little competition perhaps may
have killed this noise maker. On FM the range has been cut down severely and
the channels which are erroneously referred to as "channels between your
other channels" are usually third rate throw aways such as the polka channel
etc. What this is doing to broadcast radio is a shame.
Hey at least iBiquity will be laughing all the way to the bank until there
are no more fees to be collected because everyone has shifted to internet
radio because of the noise, this FCC we have should be run out of town on a
rail along with their rich buddies who own the big companies.
>Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:44:31 -0400
>From: "Bob Young" <youngbob53 at msn.com>
>Subject: [AMRadio] future of AM radio
>To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <BAY101-F38E8798ACF39349865BDF7C6980 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Speaking of IBUZ, iBlock, IBAC or whatever you want to call the FCC
>sanctioned harmful sideband interference on AM BCB radio check this out,
>they need all the help they can get:
>With real AM radio having a limited future, going digital like DRM and
>long will amateur AM be a viable form of communication? Well, not 'viable'
>bandwidth efficiency, but in excitement, you know what i mean.
>Maybe it will continue like CW has. Just thoughts to ponder..... Meanwhile,
>bring on the big iron and the large boxes. May the richest win all.
>Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:59:58 EDT
>From: SBJohnston at aol.com
>Subject: Re: [AMRadio] future of AM radio
>To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
>Message-ID: <c90.19477b50.344c0c9e at aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>I *love* AM, both professionally and amateur-ly, but I've come to see that
>the future of the standard broadcasting band is digital. In my dream world
>AM band would carry on the same forever, but that is not a viable way to go
>listeners leave in droves year after year.
>"In-Band, On-Channel", IBOC, better known as "HD Radio" - the present
>analog and digital system for both AM and FM stations - is a good way to
>that change without making all the existing radios obsolete. It's not
>perfect, but it is a decent compromise.
>The small number of nightime adjacent channel interference issues can be
>addressed by adjustment of one set of digital carriers or the other, just
>have used antenna patterns to protect distant stations. The very few folks
>listen to distant stations via skywave (and I am one of them) and will no
>doubt have more interference to contend with.
>I am literally on both sides of this issue. I have been a broadcast-band
>DXer, and broadcast engineer, nearly all my life. And now I listen to HD
>service on AM and FM stations every day, and interact with many listeners
>get new radios and try them out. The overwhelming consensus, especially
>is very positive.
>And I am very pleased that it allows regular AM to continue even as we add
> See what's new at http://www.aol.com
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 19 Oct 2017.