Many people are looking forward to that.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "T Behler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: FCC aproves HD A M broadcasting 24 hours a day


>    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
>>