Time to expand FM

[Steven Green]

You may be right about the 40's and 50's.  I have been in Austin for sixteen years and have not watched television.  LBJ did his thing in congress/Senate but he did block channels. He kicked new stations up to UHF.  

I live in South Austin, about 75 miles from San Antonio and I can not get any of their TV stations (the few times I watched TV).  I could not get Philadelphia TV when I grew up in Brooklyn, 90 miles away either.  I was only able to dx on AM radio and I did .



> > As an aside, it would not be much problem here in Austin.
>
> > We still only have one station below channel 14, thanks to
>
> > the efforts of our representative Lyndon Johnson in the
> > sixties. That station is channel 7 and their call letters
> > are still KLBJ!
>
> Sixties?  Don't you mean '40s & '50s?  He was in the House
> from 1937 to 1949 and the Senate from 1949 to 1961.  Did he
> block any channel allocations while he was in the White
> House?
>
> Also, isn't Austin close enough to San Antonio to get their
> Channels 4 & 5, plus the UPN station in between them on Ch.
> 2, as well as the San Antonio FMs?
>

______________
peppertree5706@hotmail.com

[KMRichards]

Please, everyone, get this thread back on-topic.  This is the national radio board, not television.

If the off-topic posts continue, the thread will be closed.

______________

[-TJ-]

> Nope, it won't happen right above 107.9 because you get into
> the aviation band.

In case you missed it, i DID say move (the aviation band) up.

Or expanding FM lower would work too : )

Anything to get a larger FM radio band.

[jason97]

> > Nope, it won't happen right above 107.9 because you get
> into
> > the aviation band.
>
> In case you missed it, i DID say move (the aviation band)
> up.

The aviation band has nowhere to move up to.

> Or expanding FM lower would work too : )

As said before, TV channel 6, and maybe 5 as well, would go away.

> Anything to get a larger FM radio band.

I like that idea, too, I doubt it will happen.  But, if it does, I think it would be great if the band went from 76-108 MHz.  Couple of issues though:

Let's say Corporate MegaConglomo Broadcasting owns channel 6, and were actually planning on using that after the digital TV changeover, so now they have to re-think their plans.  Would they demand the FCC say they are still the license holders of what would become 82-88 FM?  If so, you could fit 7 FM stations within that space. Same thing for anyone with a channel 5 with 76-82.  Would they then have an instant radio cluster in the market, or forced to sell?  Please, keep all comments on this related to radio - I don't want to see this thread locked, either, there's been some great radio discussion here.

And, if all this new FM space were opened, would this start a somewhat-similar-to-Canada exodous of small (and not-so-small) AM operations petitioning to move to FM?

______________
"Oregon, welcome to California!" - Bob Barker
Moderator at Freedomlist (not radio related)

[Mediabrat]

> Let's say Corporate MegaConglomo Broadcasting owns channel
> 6, and were actually planning on using that after the
> digital TV changeover, so now they have to re-think their
> plans.  Would they demand the FCC say they are still the
> license holders of what would become 82-88 FM?  If so, you
> could fit 7 FM stations within that space. Same thing for
> anyone with a channel 5 with 76-82.  Would they then have an
> instant radio cluster in the market, or forced to sell?

I imagine it would work just like the planned elimination of channels over 51.  The FCC would say that TV channels 2 through 6 are now out of core and that anyone currently using those channels must move or turn in their license.

> And, if all this new FM space were opened, would this start
> a somewhat-similar-to-Canada exodous of small (and
> not-so-small) AM operations petitioning to move to FM?

Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.  There are far too many tiny AM operations whose signals are useless beyond their transmitter sites, especially at night.  If the expansion of the FM band will help relieve the overcrowding of the AM band, go for it.

[jason97]

> > And, if all this new FM space were opened, would this
> start
> > a somewhat-similar-to-Canada exodous of small (and
> > not-so-small) AM operations petitioning to move to FM?
>
> Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.
> There are far too many tiny AM operations whose signals are
> useless beyond their transmitter sites, especially at night.
>  If the expansion of the FM band will help relieve the
> overcrowding of the AM band, go for it.

This is actually something I agree with, too, which is why I brought it up.

Here's my idea:
AM stations would be allowed to move to the new FM band, priority given as follows:
1. Daytime-only stations
2. stations broadcasting with less than 1,000 watts nighttime power
3. stations broadcasting with *exactly* 1,000 watts nighttime power
4. everyone else, except
5. The former "clear channel" AM stations (meaning 50kw, not the ones run by the company CC) would be forbidden to move to FM.

Then, a new changes to AM:  no more AM licenses with less than 1,000 watts of nighttime power.

I think this would probably directly reduce a lot of the interference that AM has today, but will it ever happen... my guess is no.

______________
"Oregon, welcome to California!" - Bob Barker
Moderator at Freedomlist (not radio related)