On the other hand, those three stations all have this blurb on their query pages:
Use of Channel 200 87.9 MHz is restricted to existing
displaced full service Class D noncommercial educational
stations. See 47 CFR 73.501. Channel 200 is not available for
use by other station classes and services.
...so forget what I just said ... waste of bandwidth ... sorry. They probably get to keep them because they already have an investment in their stations. They're certainly more than 50mw.
There is a difference in power figures from the theoretical to the actual radiated power. It helps to know the mitigating factors related to the distance to the 1mv contour for determining Effective Radiated Power (antenna gain, height above average terrain, station class separation rules, ect.). And as a result, FM stations can go as low as 1 watt ERP for a LPFM, down to ten watts for Class D FM translators and down to 10 watts at night for Class D AM stations that were formerly Daytime Only licenses. New Class D AM licenses are no longer granted but are eligible for the new FM translator for AM ruling. Check out the CDBS (FCC database) for specific stations and their licensed power levels.
At the recent NAB/RAB Radio Convention on the East Coast, a FCC official was questioned about 89.7. He said that the Commission intends to clear out that end of the band for other purposes. No new license grants are being issued. Only very low power short range video field links are being allowed to use that part of the RF spectrum.
There is a difference in power figures from the theoretical to the actual radiated power. It helps to know the mitigating factors related to the distance to the 1mv contour for determining Effective Radiated Power (antenna gain, height above average terrain, station class separation rules, ect.). And as a result, FM stations can go as low as 1 watt ERP for a LPFM, down to ten watts for Class D FM translators and down to 10 watts at night for Class D AM stations that were formerly Daytime Only licenses. New Class D AM licenses are no longer granted but are eligible for the new FM translator for AM ruling. Check out the CDBS (FCC database) for specific stations and their licensed power levels.
At the recent NAB/RAB Radio Convention on the East Coast, a FCC official was questioned about 89.7. He said that the Commission intends to clear out that end of the band for other purposes. No new license grants are being issued. Only very low power short range video field links are being allowed to use that part of the RF spectrum.
"kpah.com is over 100-feet up on the side of a hill overlooking Pahrump, Nevada, and has its 1700kHz antenna on a 60-foot tower, so I'm guessing they have a fair signal down below."
Good grief!! That guy is begging for a KENC-type NOUO some day. The (at least) 60' of ground line is doing all the work. I'm guessing he's getting away with it because Pahrump NV is in the middle of nowhere (I've been there) ... sort of the back door of the infamous Area 51. Notice I said 'back door'.
Don't get me wrong, I love little Nevada towns. They're always glad to see you, hope you brought lots of $$ to spend 😉
I was in Nevada Wing Ciivil Air Patrol, Lake Tahoe Sqdn, for years.
"kpah.com is over 100-feet up on the side of a hill overlooking Pahrump, Nevada, and has its 1700kHz antenna on a 60-foot tower, so I'm guessing they have a fair signal down below."
Good grief!! That guy is begging for a KENC-type NOUO some day. The (at least) 60' of ground line is doing all the work. I'm guessing he's getting away with it because Pahrump NV is in the middle of nowhere (I've been there) ... sort of the back door of the infamous Area 51. Notice I said 'back door'.
Don't get me wrong, I love little Nevada towns. They're always glad to see you, hope you brought lots of $$ to spend 😉
I was in Nevada Wing Ciivil Air Patrol, Lake Tahoe Sqdn, for years.
Morning Ken,
That sounds interesting to me. But I started checking the requirements and came across section 73.501 (FCC Rules) Subpart C, Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations, and found this footnote :
1 The frequency 87.9 MHz, Channel 200, is available only
for use of existing Class D stations required to change frequency.
It is available only on a noninterference basis with respect
to TV Channel 6 stations and adjacent channel noncommercial
educational FM stations. It is not available at all
within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of Canada and 320 kilometers
(199 miles) of Mexico. The specific standards governing
its use are contained in § 73.512.
Looks like this is only available if you are required to change channels. I would like to be able to do this. What's your feelings?
Respectfully,
Mike
Morning Ken,
That sounds interesting to me. But I started checking the requirements and came across section 73.501 (FCC Rules) Subpart C, Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations, and found this footnote :
1 The frequency 87.9 MHz, Channel 200, is available only
for use of existing Class D stations required to change frequency.
It is available only on a noninterference basis with respect
to TV Channel 6 stations and adjacent channel noncommercial
educational FM stations. It is not available at all
within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of Canada and 320 kilometers
(199 miles) of Mexico. The specific standards governing
its use are contained in § 73.512.
Looks like this is only available if you are required to change channels. I would like to be able to do this. What's your feelings?
Respectfully,
Mike
Perhaps I misspoke regarding this idea. The only way I would do this is if the transmitters were spread out far enough so as to not interfere with their individual signals.
So, for instance, the transmitter at my house covers say a one block radius. I would put another transmitter three or four blocks down and have that transmitter air the private stream. The range I mentioned here are just numbers. It's just easiest to use those as an example. As for synching over the Internet as a whole: I really don't think it's a viable option. Latency is too much of an issue.
HOWEVER: I wonder if you could do that with your wireless network. So, let's say you have a stream set up on one of your home computers. Instead of getting it over the Internet, you could use your wireless router. I do this with my iTunes library at home over a LAN and it seems to work well. The only downside is that you'd have to have a computer to decode the stream, set up some high-gain antennas, then cross your fingers hoping the wireless signal doesn't drop off the face of the earth. Of course, I suppose there still could be some latency issues, and the cost for some people might be a bit prohibitive. Just a thought ... for what it's worth. Sounds a little crazy, I know!
-Andre
Perhaps I misspoke regarding this idea. The only way I would do this is if the transmitters were spread out far enough so as to not interfere with their individual signals.
So, for instance, the transmitter at my house covers say a one block radius. I would put another transmitter three or four blocks down and have that transmitter air the private stream. The range I mentioned here are just numbers. It's just easiest to use those as an example. As for synching over the Internet as a whole: I really don't think it's a viable option. Latency is too much of an issue.
HOWEVER: I wonder if you could do that with your wireless network. So, let's say you have a stream set up on one of your home computers. Instead of getting it over the Internet, you could use your wireless router. I do this with my iTunes library at home over a LAN and it seems to work well. The only downside is that you'd have to have a computer to decode the stream, set up some high-gain antennas, then cross your fingers hoping the wireless signal doesn't drop off the face of the earth. Of course, I suppose there still could be some latency issues, and the cost for some people might be a bit prohibitive. Just a thought ... for what it's worth. Sounds a little crazy, I know!
-Andre
Hello Again radioinmyblood.
In a previous message I said I would be back with another idea, and here it is.
While at the moment you have been discussing the desirability of syncing two or more transmitters on the same frequency, this would be a second approach, but ultimately you could employ two different options in your overall setup.
In the glory days of international shortwave the big time players, such as BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, Swiss Radio and many others, simultaneously sent their program on many frequencies spread from low frequencies to high frequencies, i.e., from 2.5kHz up to 17kHz. The reason was that different frequencies reached different parts of the world as the earth/sun relationship changed all day and night. But that was only part of the plan. When certain frequencies were estimated to become ineffective at certain hours, those frequencies would shut down and new frequencies would start up. There would be an announcement like, "Transmission to North America at 2.5kHz is shutting down and service will continue at 9.5kHz."
Obviously we are not dealing with such a wide frequency range with only AM or FM, so we will discuss a modified variation of the multiple frequency approach for service over a small geographic area. You can announce on 1690kHz that some areas are better served at 1670kHz, and transmitters on a staggered arrangement could overlap without needing to be synched. It also sounds "important" to talk about your numerous frequencies serving a web-work of locations.
I hope I've been both clear and brief in this suggestion.
Hello Again radioinmyblood.
In a previous message I said I would be back with another idea, and here it is.
While at the moment you have been discussing the desirability of syncing two or more transmitters on the same frequency, this would be a second approach, but ultimately you could employ two different options in your overall setup.
In the glory days of international shortwave the big time players, such as BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, Swiss Radio and many others, simultaneously sent their program on many frequencies spread from low frequencies to high frequencies, i.e., from 2.5kHz up to 17kHz. The reason was that different frequencies reached different parts of the world as the earth/sun relationship changed all day and night. But that was only part of the plan. When certain frequencies were estimated to become ineffective at certain hours, those frequencies would shut down and new frequencies would start up. There would be an announcement like, "Transmission to North America at 2.5kHz is shutting down and service will continue at 9.5kHz."
Obviously we are not dealing with such a wide frequency range with only AM or FM, so we will discuss a modified variation of the multiple frequency approach for service over a small geographic area. You can announce on 1690kHz that some areas are better served at 1670kHz, and transmitters on a staggered arrangement could overlap without needing to be synched. It also sounds "important" to talk about your numerous frequencies serving a web-work of locations.
I hope I've been both clear and brief in this suggestion.
"Looks like this is only available if you are required to change channels. I would like to be able to do this. What's your feelings?
No feelings at all, it is what it is. What I see is it's a holder for existing stations to be when their assigned frequency has to be pulled for some reason. Rare circumstances to be sure. Put them in the basement until an apartment on the main floor becomes available, I guess.
"Looks like this is only available if you are required to change channels. I would like to be able to do this. What's your feelings?
No feelings at all, it is what it is. What I see is it's a holder for existing stations to be when their assigned frequency has to be pulled for some reason. Rare circumstances to be sure. Put them in the basement until an apartment on the main floor becomes available, I guess.
"Perhaps I misspoke regarding this idea. The only way I would do this is if the transmitters were spread out far enough so as to not interfere with their individual signals."
In that case, you needn't sync at all, but what about listeners in between? Neither station will be listenable.
As for your iTunes example, if the stations are overlapping, all the TX' operating on the same freq will still have to be perfectly synced. I'm using a TH system at present (AM bcb), which has a PLL synth for tuning. Except perhaps by accident, that's not good enough for use with an additional TX where the signals overlap. It doesn't drift much, but it doesn't have to for phasing issues to crop up when trying to use both on the same freq.
I believe individual on-frequency crystal control is really the only reliable method, and since neither of my units have that ability, my second TH will be on a different freq.
"Perhaps I misspoke regarding this idea. The only way I would do this is if the transmitters were spread out far enough so as to not interfere with their individual signals."
In that case, you needn't sync at all, but what about listeners in between? Neither station will be listenable.
As for your iTunes example, if the stations are overlapping, all the TX' operating on the same freq will still have to be perfectly synced. I'm using a TH system at present (AM bcb), which has a PLL synth for tuning. Except perhaps by accident, that's not good enough for use with an additional TX where the signals overlap. It doesn't drift much, but it doesn't have to for phasing issues to crop up when trying to use both on the same freq.
I believe individual on-frequency crystal control is really the only reliable method, and since neither of my units have that ability, my second TH will be on a different freq.