None of the interference matters to the broadcasters pushing this because local stations are spaced far enough apart that they won't affect each other ... Since nearly all AM stations in the US are owned by a handful of Corporations they don't gave a damn about long distance communication because chances are anywhere you are in the US they'll already own a nearby local station
It also makes sure that the Independents wouldn't be able to get an audience and hence advertising dollars, outside their immediate area .... It's all about a Corrupt Administration and the Corrupt Son of a former US General named Powell My advice (For Americans anyway but I suggest Canadians and Mexicans complain too since this undeniably affects them also)is to contact your local Democrat Representative or Senator and hopefully they will force a rewrite of Bush/Powell's rules I'm sure someone will gripe about me being Political but the issue is ENTIRELY POLITICAL and that's not my fault JR --- In [email protected], "Daniel Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "In-band on-channel (IBOC) is a method of transmitting digital radio > and analog radio broadcast signals simultaneously on the same frequency. > > By utilizing additional digital subcarriers or sidebands, (?) digital > information is "piggybacked" on a normal AM or FM analog signal, thus > avoiding any complicated extra frequency allocation issues. However, > by putting extra RF energy beyond the edge of the station's > normally-defined channel, interference with adjacent channel stations > is increased when using digital sidebands....." from wikipedia > > These fellows here in the USA are doing it wrong! > > "... by putting extra RF energy beyond the edge of the station's > normally-defined channel, interference with adjacent channel stations > is increased when using digital sidebands..." Thats a no no under > accepted practice terms. Widebanded ...
