--- If it was only in the U.S. ,i would certainly agree especially if we lost some nuisance stations in more heavily populated states and gained some new targets in places like the New England states,Delaware,Maryland,Oregon, Alaska and Hawaii.I especially do not like what the FCC did in placing stations from already over represented states in the "x" band.That should have been reserved for stations in the places i mentioned plus maybe some others like the more sparsely populated western states that are hard to hear east of the Mississippi.Of course we might gain some channels for dx outside the U.S. also.Also the channels that used to be designated Mexican or Canadian clear channels could use less U.S. interference on them. If the U.S. economic situation continues to go south,we may see some more stations go dark which may free up some frequencies that may have stations that are a pest to dxers in some parts of the country.That would be sad for us economically .But ,to paraphrase Rahm Immanuel ,"Dxers should never let a good crisis go to waste ".HI!HI !Not that i would want stations to go dark .I am just saying if they do,we dxers should take the opportunity to catch some dx previously unheard.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
In email@example.com, "mediumwavedx" <mediumwavedx@...> wrote:
Hi Carl and All,
Just a few thoughts here....something that has been on my mind lately as we see Canadian AM drying up, European AM, and now maybe Mexican AM....I have mixed feelings about the demise (let's call it a reduction) of AM radio stations around the world. Sitting here right now in the northeast US, I sometimes think it might be a good thing if we had a few less stations transmitting, and I mean particularly in the US. Maybe we could then actually hear some DX out beyond 1000 miles versus the RF and IBOC storm I am hearing now.
I know when I go out west to Arizona in the winter, distant DX catches seem easier to log because of the thinning out of the band. I often envy those guys like Gary Deacon of South Africa, and those in New Zealand or sparsely populated Australia and the wide open band they seem to enjoy. I picture what it might have been like in the 1920s before the bands got conjested and coast-to-coast DX seemed to be receivable.
Just a question here - and I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, but being very sincere - could this turn out to be a good thing if we had a few less AM stations, especially in the US?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Carl DeWhitt" <carl_elissa@> wrote:
In the InfoCentral column in the August 2009 Popular Communications,the following news item is on page 8:
Mexico Wants AM Stations to Move to FM
"Radio World reports that the Mexican government wants to give the majority of AM stations in the country the opportunity to migrate voluntarily to the FM band,subject to availability of frequencies .However,no FM frequencies have been awarded and the plan is bogged down in administrative complications .It,s unclear when it will move forward.According to SCT ,the agency that sets communications policy , a station that wished to move would have a year from the time of authorization to put an FM station on the air and another year to give up its AM frequency and turn in that license .It,s been predicted that the majority of AM broadcasters in Mexico will shutter operations on that band within five years.There is a total of 1580 radio stations in Mexico,854 are AM and 726 are FM ,according to the SCT ."
(Source :Radio Netherlands Media Network)
Let,s hope their predictions do not come true.But,just in case, we had better log as many Mexican AMers as we can before they are gone .We have seen this happen in Canada.I am sure i have missed logging some Canadian AM dx before it went off the air.