[Hrgeeks] Save the Internet: Support Net Neutrality!

[Scott Dorsey]

> 
> One interesting thing. During the low power FM movement days, there was a 
> push to close the adjacent channel spacing rules, since modern receivers 
> have no problems if the gap isn't as wide. But the National Association of 
> Broadcasters fought tooth and nail, on behalf of all the radio stations 
> that are members, to block this.

This is because third adjacent interference issues are still very significant
in urban environments.

And, in fact, modern radios tend to have much sloppier front ends than typical
FM radios in the sixties and seventies, mostly due to attempts at cutting
costs.  Some of them don't even have tuned front ends at all, just a wideband
mixer stage feeding the IF.

You can't in all honesty bring in technical standards for receivers, so you
just have to live with the average listener having a really godawful receiver.
And if you think it's bad for FM, it's even worse for AM where you can have
a nice 10KC audio channel but the average receiver cuts off at 5KC.

> They produced a CD to warn of what will happen if things were moved from 
> 3rd adjacent channel to 2nd adjacent channel. Since lab tests wouldn't 
> work (since there wasn't an issue), they made this CD (which was presented 
> as real lab evidence) but it was totally faked in Sound Forge.

It was not, it was presented as a simulation, which it was.  

Relaxing technical standards is NOT the solution, it does not solve anything
and it results in more stations on the air not being heard.  You cannot change
the physics.  You cannot change the available bandwidth.  All you can do is
to shut down the thousands of stations that are broadcasting crap and are not
actually providing any benefit to the public.  The NAB absolutely hates that,
but it's got to happen, and it's going to happen just because the money will
run out to keep them going.
--scott