FCC To Repack Channels

[Titan1a]

I question why FM is still using the same technology developed in the '50's. Why not go full digital with 5.1 using frequencies in the 900 Mhz to 1 Ghz range? Why not convert standard AM to DRM (digital radio mondial) reducing channel allocations and providing high fidelity stereo sound? Once you've heard DRM you'd wonder why it isn't in wide use. I'd also increase transmitter power.

[Jon A.]

Originally Posted by Titan1a

I question why FM is still using the same technology developed in the '50's.

Perhaps it has something to do with what David Sarnoff's infamous greed did to Edwin Armstrong.

[jr_tech]

Originally Posted by Titan1a

I question why FM is still using the same technology developed in the '50's. Why not go full digital with 5.1

Have you heard IBOC digital on the FM band? I think that it is capable of 5.1, but most stations use the digital signal to broadcast multiple programs, just like the TV sub-channels.

jr

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by Titan1a

I question why FM is still using the same technology developed in the '50's. Why not go full digital with 5.1 using frequencies in the 900 Mhz to 1 Ghz range? Why not convert standard AM to DRM (digital radio mondial) reducing channel allocations and providing high fidelity stereo sound? Once you've heard DRM you'd wonder why it isn't in wide use. I'd also increase transmitter power.

I hope this never happens, my collection of working antique radios will become doorstops if it does. I prefer analog audio wherever possible...My ear can average away analog noise, but digital breakup/dropout can not be averaged away so easily...
Audio quality has a lot to do with RX design. There is analog AM HiFi stereo, and it's audio quality can approach that of a decent FM RX. Most newer AM radios don't bother to design for good audio quality since they assume AM is talk only and need only sound as good as an 80's POTs phone line... Many modern FM tuners are rather halfassed too...If you listen to a high end tube or early SS rig from the years when top 40 AM was king, and classic music audiophiles were the FM market, and demanded that FM sound perfect you will never want digital.

[jr_tech]

Couple of repacking updates:

"UHF Channels 38 thru 50 will soon belong to Cell Carriers. The FCC will be putting out a list soon of the upcoming changes."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/new...stage-4/162589

http://repackready.com/spectrum-repack-news/

jr

[Jeffhs]

What will happen to TV stations below channel 36 after the channel repack? Will the repack render streaming video players such as the Roku boxes obsolete? I watch almost all my TV via streaming video instead of OTA, and use a Roku 2 with the Spectrum (formerly Time Warner Cable) app to receive local stations. I still have cable, but I don't use it; the only reason I have cable at all (the cable is connected to my VCR) is so the Spectrum app will receive my area's local TV stations (chalk that up to a crazy quirk in TWC's billing system, which has been there since long before their merger with Spectrum). My favorite channels are the DTV subchannels of channels 5, 8 and 19 from Cleveland (COZI TV, Antenna TV and MeTV, respectively); will these channels be affected at all by the repack? Since these channels are well below channel 36, I don't think it will have any effect at all; the repack only seems to be affecting channels from 36 to 51 (except channel 37, of course), if I understand correctly what I have been reading about it. The VHF stations and channels 51 and up won't be affected at all, so existing VHF channels and their subchannels will almost certainly be exempt from this action.

[lnx64]

Originally Posted by Titan1a

I question why FM is still using the same technology developed in the '50's. Why not go full digital with 5.1 using frequencies in the 900 Mhz to 1 Ghz range? Why not convert standard AM to DRM (digital radio mondial) reducing channel allocations and providing high fidelity stereo sound? Once you've heard DRM you'd wonder why it isn't in wide use. I'd also increase transmitter power.

I'm sorry, but I just half a year ago, built a software defined radio on my own, that picks up anywhere between 40MHz and 1.7GHz. It only has about 3MHz bandwidth (2MHz without any skipped "frames"), and I really don't want to have to redesign it to pick up some silly digital signal it probably can't decode anyway. I like FM as it is, and all of my radios in the house already support it.

[jr_tech]

Originally Posted by lnx64

I'm sorry, but I just half a year ago, built a software defined radio on my own, that picks up anywhere between 40MHz and 1.7GHz. It only has about 3MHz bandwidth (2MHz without any skipped "frames"), and I really don't want to have to redesign it to pick up some silly digital signal it probably can't decode anyway. I like FM as it is, and all of my radios in the house already support it.

Is there presently available software for SDRs that will decode the digital signals already in use in the FM band? I suspect that you have noticed the IBOC "sidebands" attached to many analog FM signals, and *perhaps* are already decoding them.
Or perhaps not?

jr

[KentTeffeteller]

Originally Posted by Titan1a

I question why FM is still using the same technology developed in the '50's. Why not go full digital with 5.1 using frequencies in the 900 Mhz to 1 Ghz range? Why not convert standard AM to DRM (digital radio mondial) reducing channel allocations and providing high fidelity stereo sound? Once you've heard DRM you'd wonder why it isn't in wide use. I'd also increase transmitter power.

Transmitter Power would be less, reception glitchy in cars. And sound quality would be horrible. And you'd have to replace millions of receivers. FCC went with backwards compatible HD Radio and 900 Mhz would be filled with interference from so many consumer wireless devices using the spectrum. Not all content is in 5.1 either. Not a good idea. DRM on SW broadcast channels I am in favor of as a means of reviving SW listening. On AM again, get rid of NRSC, ban HD and use full bandwidth and require quality tuner sections.

However, I would like to see a new added second FM band in some vacated TV spectrum post repacking. Then your DRM suggestion would make sense. And 5.1 capability could be built into that standard. It could be a second tuner add on for existing radio set owners. Digital radio still has downsides however, portable sets are battery eaters, and much more expensive to run. I would love to see the new DRM FM second band have adaptive bandwidth (and second or third channels) and narrow band channels for talk and voice content. A vacated TV channel or two would make spectrum sense for this. Don't abandon HD Radio on FM as the two coexist and existing tuners still function.

[wa2ise]

Originally Posted by KentTeffeteller

...

However, I would like to see a new added second FM band in some vacated TV spectrum post repacking. ...

Well, how about 42 to 50MHz? Not much there nowadays. And I have a radio that can receive that all ready to go.

[jr_tech]

New rule making from FCC will allow sharing of a TV channel by different station classes.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/000...sharing/280655

It will be interesting to observe the odd combinations that may occur as repacking will force a real scramble for "air space" in many areas.

jr

[centralradio]

Since the stations now lack in power with digital signal.Maybe they can add some translators like we are getting all the clutter of FM translators lately.

I used too get all stations here .Some just only with the ant terminals .Not I get a 1/2 a station if I jump on the roof.Yes we got a screw job in 2009.

[WISCOJIM]

Originally Posted by centralradio

Yes we got a screw job in 2009.

Yes, some got screwed, but I think a whole lot more benefited from the change. I had 7 analog channels, now I get 21 digital channels with better reception and picture than before. Gone is the snow, normal interference, and the flutter from the planes going to and from the local airport when I had the analog OTA. The digital OTA reception is far more reliable than the service I previously had from cable and satellite, with a far superior picture.

.

[centralradio]

Originally Posted by kf4rca

Most station management were hoping the digital thing would just go away. They had all their equipment paid for and they were making money.
If you think you got screwed, think about the cost the stations incurred. In some instances the entire tower had to be replaced.
Many felt this was an attempt to cull the herd, driving some stations out of business. And some would cry for subsidies allowing the government to control them further.

Got a point there.Yes stations suffer the cost of the upgrades.To bad the engineering design of DTV could not be multiplexed into the analog signal and we have a choice like Iboc on AM /FM radio.

They could find another band for the telecom and wireless communications instead of picking away of the current TV band.Leave it to greed and pockets filled with green grease and they can get away with it.Where is the emergency response channels as they were pitching when they were pushing for the switch over.No new emergency response channels here.
Probably mostly wireless it all went too.

Originally Posted by WISCOJIM

Yes, some got screwed, but I think a whole lot more benefited from the change. I had 7 analog channels, now I get 21 digital channels with better reception and picture than before. Gone is the snow, normal interference, and the flutter from the planes going to and from the local airport when I had the analog OTA. The digital OTA reception is far more reliable than the service I previously had from cable and satellite, with a far superior picture.

.

Yes .You got a point there Jim.DTV has the sub channels and better reception better for some.It was great for 2 to 3 years of co-channel issues after the switch on cable before Comcast switched the all digital.Digital cable sucks here and its more out then on.I have to keep rebooting the cable boxes .I remember it was a complete mess when the New York channels co-channel with other stations.

[Jeffhs]

I was all but dead set against DTV at first, but now I see it completely differently. I get a much better picture and more channels (even with basic cable) than I ever did with analog NTSC. I live in a semi-fringe area for Cleveland TV (35-40 miles from the stations), but that doesn't seem to matter with digital; however, with analog, I could only get one channel with a picture good enough to watch. I now get eight stations (somewhat more with their subchannels), with picture quality easily 100 times better than I ever thought possible.

I don't use my cable connection for anything but to be able to get local TV on my Roku Spectrum application, as a cable account is a must to receive local channels on this app; the cable need not be connected directly to the TV, but the cable company must at least have, for your service address, a cable account on file. This is so the cable operator can pay for carrying an area's local TV channels, and is a requirement on all Roku installations with the Spectrum app anywhere in the US that has an option to stream local TV. In my area, the cable operator is Spectrum, formerly Time Warner, which does stream the locals (eight stations plus their subchannels), but other cable companies may not unless their own version of the Spectrum app, if available, has this capability.

The only problem I have with DTV right now, however, is I cannot get two important network affiliates on channels 8 and 19, using an indoor antenna. I have been told with the latter channel, the problem is its DTV assignment on a VHF channel (channel 10); with the former, the problem seems to be my sheer distance from the station's transmitter. I could get the missing channels with an outdoor antenna, but since my Roku seems to work so well with streaming video, I don't feel I need it.