In Band On Channel.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Freeman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "ray t. mahorney" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: clear channel stations, digital AM, and such


Yeah; I suspect that (protests to the despite notwithstanding) there'd 
be quite a howl if AM were totally turned off.

Er, um, what does I B O C stand for?

Mike K7UIJ

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ray t. mahorney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: clear channel stations, digital AM, and such


then there's the engineers view too many engineers I talked to said that
IBOC after sun down was a bad idea and that's been borne out by real 
world
experience which is why you are starting to see stations turn off either 
the
upper or lower side band to avoid adjacent channel interference.  IBOC 
on AM
was a bad idea and on FM it's not much better because you're not allowed 
to
modulate those IBOC carriers at more than 5 percent of total transmitter
power to avoid first and second adjacent interference issues.  as well 
as
avoiding cross talk issues which would result from injecting those 
carriers
too close to the 38 kHz stereo pilot frequency.  Over here in the UK 
they
are planning to totally phase out AM by 2015 they are not planning to do 
any
type of AM DAB over here but I am betting the 2015 date is going to be
pushed back.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Heagy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: clear channel stations, digital AM, and such


Yeah, there is the corporate radio view and then there is the true =
public's view.
Harvey
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Mike Freeman=20
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:15 PM
  Subject: Re: clear channel stations, digital AM, and such


  Er, um, perhaps there is more than one view or definition of what is =
in=20
  the public interest?

  Mike