Is Low Frequency FM Radio A Good Idea?

[TechJumper]

Low Frequency FM Radio Programming
----------------------------------
Author: Michael Morelli (TechJumper)
Date: July 8, 2001
-----

The following excerpt was taken from today's Dallas Morning News:

"It began as a simple idea: Free up some of the FM dial for the little guy. But it didn't take long for Low-Power FM to sparke arguments over everything from class warfare to physics."

The thought of Low-Frequency radio was sparked by the lack of inner city radio broadcasting. Currently, the closest comparrison is a college radio station. Minorities want their own radio waves to broadcast in their language, playing whatever music they want, and discussing whatever the want. The problem was, FM Radio was commericalized almost immediatly, and the government got knee deep in it, making it a mecca for market infultration, and threw out the 'little guy' it was created for almost immediatly.

This is an issue that is now back on the table.

During the last year of his term, Fmr. Pres. Clinton signed a bill into office that catored to this movement, but it was struck down by congress due to many aledged FCC violations. When this idea started, back in the early '90's, when technology was on the rise, many thought it was a wonderful idea, and no one even considered the commercial and market disruptions such a service could cause.

Whats the problem?

Commercial radio stations saw low-frequency as a way of clogging their already choked air space, and opening the door for vigilantes to become very viable competition. Because the low bandwith will only allow for inner city, or close range broadcasting, many could not see the problem with this. But, the companies hired the usual lobbiests to transform the bill into the gargoyle it is today. Congress has torn this up, digested it, and spit it back out as something of ....nothing, as they took away all the privilages the idea was to grant to begin with.

Is there a solution?

If companies and commercialization, along with the government would step aside for a few months and let these garage radio shows get into gear, then all would see that the problem is not nearly as substantial as previously conceived. There is no possible way that two college kids in their bedroom could at all affect the market of commercial radio. The freedom that America offers is readily displayed by low-frequency radio broadcasting because it blatently provides the basic foundations of this country: freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and freedom of the press.


---Michael Morelli (TechJumper)

What do you think of all this? Please post your comments here!

[RobRich]

Low power FM is a great idea, though I find that many abuse the technology. FCC limits output to an extremely low level, though many LP transmitters are illegally modified to transmit several hundred watts, thus usually interfering with the normal operation of legal FM operations.

A better solution would be to open the upper ranges of the shortwave HF band to non-commercial broadcasters. Most large stations have already vacated this segment in favor of the lower frequencies for improved signal propogation through ionoshperic ducting during the night-time hours.

Opening the upper shortwave ranges would allow for a freelance operator to transmit on a near regional basis (50-200 miles) with a mere 100-300 watt transmitter. The equipment is readily available for low costs, both for the station's transmitter and listners' receivers. The average station could be equipped for under $500 at most.

Assuming the FCC wished to regulate this range, then it could institute a minimal fee liscense, such as is incurred with business bands. The liscense could grant the user access to a specified frequency range, plus assign a maximum wattage output level according to location.

Catch ya' later,
Robert Richmond

[Goldwingnut]

The upper range of the HF bands - I assume you mean <30 Mhz - is regulated by international treaties. It also is in use by radio amateurs, who believe that too many people are trying to horn in on their limited spectrum.

Putting low power stations there would require listeners to obtain shortwave radios. Which don't come in stereo.

Everybody has an FM receiver, in stereo. So low power FM is right where it belongs.

[TechJumper]

My solution is simple, and it is also the solution of companies like Philips.

Put the so called "low broadcast fm" on the internet. Philips is making a stereo that has preprogrammed 1000 online radio stations.


Wave of the future, and it could be applied in this case.

TJ

[RobRich]

Most of the HF's in my area operate at extremely low frequency levels, as the 25-30 MHz does not offer the optimum range for signal ducting, thus limiting the effective TX/RX spectrum. As for commercial operators, been there explained that. It is a similar scenario.

As for stereo, it does exist for aplitude modluation (even in the sortwave range). Motorola released the technology several years ago, and modest priced receviers are starting to appear with this capability.

Even with this factor in mind, it would still be possible to introduce stereo FM (if desired) in this frequency range. Even my cheaper $250 Dirland SS3900B supports AM, SSB, and FM through the entire upper HF range. While this transmitter is mono, it would still surfice for most non-commericial radio operations.

As for the cost of shortwave receivers, they are basically dirt cheap these days. Drop by Radio Shack, you can pick up a decent unit for well under $50. You can order even cheaper units online, or possibly shop the local "ham fest" for an even greater deal. While not acceptable for my DX listening needs, you can even purchase units for under $20.

As for international regulation, this is limited in the upper spectrum of HF. As noted, most commercial and amatuer operators are quickly abandoning this segment. Perhaps a few of the older DX'ers in your area still hold onto this range for some unusual reason, but most in these regions have already made the migration. Sadly, we have also lost much of our traffic to 2-meter/220/440, as these bands offer less equipment overhead and minimal radio knowledge. Buying a $200 2-meter transcevier is much more cost effective (esp. when you factor in the massive repeater networks across the US) as compared to me spending well over $400 for just the 6LQ6 tubes in my 400-watt amplifier.

Later,
Robert Richmond