Very interesting, Steve.

This isn't quite related to our current topic, but just popped into my head 
here.

Since short-wave stations are finding it more and more costly to broadcast 
their signals via regular RF paths, won't it be great when, in 2009, 40 
meters supposedly will be free of SWL signals?

I'm looking forward to that greatly.

73 from Tom Behler:  KB8TYJ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: FCC aproves HD A M broadcasting 24 hours a day


> Tom,
>
> Ironically, the low power stations who were supposed to be helped by
> allowing them to run all night don't even reap the benefits.  In our area,
> you can't even hear some of the 500 watt stations (which are supposed to
> have local coverage) at night because of all the QRM underneath them. 
> Said
> QRM is being caused by stations in other areas which probably can't be 
> heard
> either in the areas they're supposed to cover.  I doubt they'll ever do 
> it,
> but a lot of this would get fixed if the FCC were to implement the idea of
> "clear channel" as it was in the old days.
>
> You raise a good point about streaming on line, which has changed the 
> whole
> face of AM radio.  It takes a lot less energy to stream a radio station 
> than
> it does to run a 50,000 watt transmitter.  It also takes a lot less space.
> When I lived in Connecticut, a friend of mine was Chief Engineer at one of
> the local TV stations.  He took me on a tour of the transmitter site 
> which,
> by the way, was fascinating.  After showing me the four final tubes of the
> transmitter, each of which was four feet long, water cooled, and the
> diameter of a small gas water heater, he showed me the box they use to 
> feed
> the cable companies.  It was about the size of a CD player.  Pretty 
> amazing
> when you consider that their entire transmitter installation cost about
> $1500 a month just for the electricity, and served only 30% of their
> audience.  The other 70% was served by that cute little box the size of a 
> CD
> player.  Look how many shortwave stations have given up broadcasting 
> because
> it's just not cost effective to run those 100KW transmitters.  Ultimately,
> all this stuff boils down to how much it costs, and going digital is 
> cheaper
> and much more efficient in the long run.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "T Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 14:49
> Subject: Re: FCC aproves HD A M broadcasting 24 hours a day
>
>
>>    I hear you, Steve.
>>
>> And, you're right.
>>
>> A m  DXING isn't what it used to be.  For example, here in Michigan, say
>> 15
>> years ago, I used to be able to get WBZ in Boston every night, unless
>> conditions were very very poor.
>>
>> Now, I usually have to wait till the Fall or Winter, and even then, it's
>> questionable.
>>
>> The same can be said for many of the New York stations, like WABC, WOR,
>> and
>> WCBS, as well as Philadelphia stations like KYW and WPHT.
>>
>> And, being from the east coast myself, I really miss that.
>>
>> Of course, you can now get most of them streaming "on line", but, in my
>> opinion, it's not quite the same.
>>
>> 73 from Tom Behler:  KB8TYJ
>