Finally, a Solution to the AM “Problem” : 45-50 MHz?

[w2xq]

"WRNJ, Hackettstown, N.J., will be filing a petition with the FCC requesting they explore moving AM band stations to the near-vacant 45 to 50 MHz VHF band."
Interesting idea, but obviously new receivers will be required. Perhaps the stations would distribute fixed-tune receivers as I can't imagine there being a large market penetration.
https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/guest-commentaries/drm-solution-am-problem/amp

 

[mmckenna]

Seems like a silly approach.
Remove some (or all) of the lower VHF TV channels and expand the FM broadcast band. That would create plenty of room for more broadcasters. Limit to local ownership (No monster broadcasting ). Make space for non-profit/local stations.

Keep AM radio, since it still serves a purpose in the sparsely populated western USA. Not like anyone is really clamoring for that spectrum.

Not sure low band VHF is going to fare much better. It still suffers from skip when conditions are right. If digital technology can reduce the impact of skip, then why not use that technology on VHF low band and revitalize it.

As for "Also, Motorola and Kenwood, it is reported, no longer manufacture low-band equipment." This would be partially false. Kenwood has announced a low band deck for the NX-5000 line of radios, including digital capability.

I'd have no issue with this being researched, but that research should include expanding the FM broadcast band as an alternative.

 

[krokus]

I think the American Red Cross would dispute the "unused" aspect of 47 MHz.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

State of Florida has a fully functioning statewide multicast system in the 45/47 MHz band. Yes part of the TV band would be more sensible. Use the channel 6 allocation is adjacent below the current FM broadcast band. Could it be expanded and avoid image responses? With careful engineering I would say so.

A historical note, the current FM broadcast band had its start in the 45-50 Megacycle band.,

 

[kruser]

State of Florida has a fully functioning statewide multicast system in the 45/47 MHz band. Yes part of the TV band would be more sensible. Use the channel 6 allocation is adjacent below the current FM broadcast band. Could it be expanded and avoid image responses? With careful engineering I would say so.

A historical note, the current FM broadcast band had its start in the 45-50 Megacycle band.,

Are any of todays DTV stations even using channels 2 thru 6 any longer? I'd imagine some are but around here, they all relocated to the UHF range when they broadcast analog and digital during the transition. I figured some would move back once they shutdown the old analog signals but nope, they seemed to all stay on UHF channels now. Some slight shifting took place but all within the UHF segment.
If this is the case nationwide, I don't know why that low analog TV band could not be used for AM broadcast radio.
I guess there are a lot of analog channel 3 and 4 modulators still out there that may receive interference or even interfere if someone accidently hooks their output to an antenna but I'd think it would be minimal.

 

[Boombox]

Any time I read of a new broadcast band I hate to say it -- as a radio fan -- but I almost want to laugh. No one under age 40 buys radios anymore, unless they're part of a car. So, no one is going to buy a 45-50 MHz broadcast receiver.

A new broadcast band might have been an option half way through the 1990's, but that ship has long sailed. What broadcast bands we have are the ones we have. DTV went over OK because the government had everyone over a barrel. It just won't happen with radio, although I applaud stations like the one in the OP for trying.

The only 'improvement' I see happening is all-digital AM options, for stations that desire that and think they can make it work -- but if he AM band goes mostly digital expect the recording and music industry to demand more money for music broadcast rights, maybe killing that idea in the process.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Any time I read of a new broadcast band I hate to say it -- as a radio fan -- but I almost want to laugh. No one under age 40 buys radios anymore, unless they're part of a car. So, no one is going to buy a 45-50 MHz broadcast receiver.

A new broadcast band might have been an option half way through the 1990's, but that ship has long sailed. What broadcast bands we have are the ones we have. DTV went over OK because the government had everyone over a barrel. It just won't happen with radio, although I applaud stations like the one in the OP for trying.

The only 'improvement' I see happening is all-digital AM options, for stations that desire that and think they can make it work -- but if he AM band goes mostly digital expect the recording and music industry to demand more money for music broadcast rights, maybe killing that idea in the process.

I bought an HD radio receiver for $2.99 at Goodwill. I thought to myself, why didn't I buy one of these before? Took it home and turned it on and it was more digital channels of the same old.

Sad to say but TV and "radio" have a future only as streaming services.

The music I tend to listen had "no commercial potential" when released.


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[spongella]

Ah, WRNJ, used to listen to them when I lived in Warren County, they used to have a rooster crow when the station first signed on, wonder if that is still done, hi hi. Aren't they on 1510 kHz?

Also, there used to be an AM station on Route 31 just South of Washington, NJ, it was house with a picture window and while driving home you could see the DJ in the window, I think it was WCRV? Long gone now.

 

[GB46]

Ah, WRNJ, used to listen to them when I lived in Warren County, they used to have a rooster crow when the station first signed on, wonder if that is still done, hi hi. Aren't they on 1510 kHz?

Also, there used to be an AM station on Route 31 just South of Washington, NJ, it was house with a picture window and while driving home you could see the DJ in the window, I think it was WCRV? Long gone now.

The FCC listing I obtained about a year ago still shows WRNJ in Hackettstown, NJ on 1510 kHz. As for WCRV, that's listed in Collierville, Tennessee on 640 kHz.

When I lived in Central Jersey as a kid I used to listen to WCTC out of New Brunswick on 1450. Dave Marash, who has since been an anchorman on a national TV network got his start at WCTC, where I appeared as a guest on his late night folk music program during the 1960s. He and his wife Megan used to sing blues, and performed at Rutgers U. during my freshman year.

According to WCTC's website they now have a totally different program format. Most of the AM stations sound the same to me now, anyway, esp. those carrying feeds from the big networks.

 

[spongella]

WCRV was at one time in Washington, NJ but the call sign must have gotten recirculated. It was on 1580 kHz.

 

[OgreVorbis]

This is a dumb choice of frequency. There are still a lot of portable things that use 49 MHz. In addition, like you said, new receivers would need to be built. It has been suggested for so long and I agree that some AM stations should move to 76 - 88 MHz. There are already receivers that carry this range. In fact, most of them do, but it's just disabled by default. This is part of the broadcasting spectrum in Japan. I really think the FCC should make a move on this. It would be a pretty easy transition.

In a perfect world, however, I think what you said would be a good choice of frequency. Maybe 30-50 MHz. You'd get the most bang for your buck range wise because it's just above the HF band. Do FM on these frequencies. Perfect.

 

[com501]

When you are driving through Nevada and your FM auto-scan just searches for 100's of miles, AM is still viable.

 

[Boombox]

I bought an HD radio receiver for $2.99 at Goodwill. I thought to myself, why didn't I buy one of these before? Took it home and turned it on and it was more digital channels of the same old.

Sad to say but TV and "radio" have a future only as streaming services.

The music I tend to listen had "no commercial potential" when released.


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I have two HD radios, and found the HD channels on FM to have some good programming. The two rock stations in town have better formats on HD-2 than they do on the main FM channel. TV and radio will still have some life left in them as long as the streaming services have trouble turning a profit. Cable still didn't kill OTA TV, although eventually internet may kill both. But I think it's a long ways off. FM and OTA TV are free.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Whoever suggested 45-50 MHz as being "vacant" obviously did not do their research.

 

[krokus]

This is a dumb choice of frequency. There are still a lot of portable things that use 49 MHz. In addition, like you said, new receivers would need to be built. It has been suggested for so long and I agree that some AM stations should move to 76 - 88 MHz. There are already receivers that carry this range. In fact, most of them do, but it's just disabled by default. This is part of the broadcasting spectrum in Japan. I really think the FCC should make a move on this. It would be a pretty easy transition.

In a perfect world, however, I think what you said would be a good choice of frequency. Maybe 30-50 MHz. You'd get the most bang for your buck range wise because it's just above the HF band. Do FM on these frequencies. Perfect.

76 to 88 MHz is going to be blasted by anyone using VHF tv channel 6. Yes, there are still stations on VHF.

30 to 50 MHz is used for a lot of commercial, mitary, NGO, and public safety radio traffic.

 

[jaspence]

The Red Cross in Michigan has access, talk groups, and equipment to operate on the MPSCS in Michigan.