Amen, Tom!  40 was fabulous until they let the broadcasters in.  I'd like to
see a return to that era, even if it's only below 7.200.  Lou
----- 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
> >