To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement (NARBA, Spanish: Convenio Regional Norteamericano de Radiodifusión) refers to a series of international treaties that defined technical standards for AM band (mediumwave) radio stations. These agreements also addressed how frequency assignments were distributed among the signatories, with a special emphasis on high-powered clear channel allocations.

The initial NARBA bandplan, also known as the "Havana Treaty", was signed by the United States, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti on December 13, 1937, and took effect March 29, 1941. A series of modifications and adjustments followed, also under the NARBA name. NARBA's provisions were largely supplanted in 1983, with the adoption of the Regional Agreement for the Medium Frequency Broadcasting Service in Region 2 (Rio Agreement), which covered the entire Western hemisphere. However, current AM band assignments in North America largely reflect the standards first established by the NARBA agreements.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    2 232
    1 077
    959
    2 587
    1 883
  • ✪ Harvest of Hope: 4 Phil Fontaine
  • ✪ Building Reconciliation: Universities Answering the TRC Calls to Action
  • ✪ Harvest of Hope: 8 Panel Discussion
  • ✪ Kate Hennessy - Repatriation, Digital Media, and Culture in the Virtual Museum
  • ✪ Aboriginal Youth & Media Conference at MOA (Part One)

Transcription

MR. GOVER: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister. Our next presentation is titled “The Apology Breakthrough: Now What?” It will be presented by the Honorable Phil Fontaine, Sagkeeng First Nation and the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations in Canada. Chief Fontaine. MR. PHIL FONTAINE: I’m going to be supported here by Elder Fred Kelly from Onigaming First Nation, Ontario. I want to thank you for inviting us to be here today. Let me especially thank director Kevin Gover for asking me to share a Canadian First Nations’ perspective on healing, truth and reconciliation. I’m here to talk about an important and painful part of Canada’s past. For more than 100 years, First Nations’ children were taken from their homes, their families and their communities to attend church-run government-funded residential schools. The primary purpose of these schools was not education. In the words of the Canadian government, the schools were set up to solve Canada’s Indian problem. The schools were meant to assimilate children by removing them from their families, culture and community, or as the government of the day stated, “To kill the Indian within the child.” One government official predicted in 1928 that Canada would end its Indian problem within two generations. Assimilation broke apart families and personally devastated those who lost their languages and culture. The schools tried to take away their identity, who they were as people. Many young children were also subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of those who were entrusted to care for them. I think it’s important to say that while the system started a long time ago, it is not ancient history. We have, in some cases, three generations or more where families survive the residential school system. Some are elders and grandparents. Some are parents with young children. In too many families, children are being raised by their own parents for the first time in generations. Since 1996, we have received apologies from many of the churches who operated residential schools, but a missing piece was an apology from Canada for their role in designing, funding and promoting this policy. I have brought with me today a presentation that shows some of the history of the residential school system. It also shows perhaps more importantly the historic apology we received on June 11, 2008, from all members of Canada’s parliament. On that day, leaders from each of Canada’s four national political parties expressed a desire for reconciliation, a desire to build a new relationship with our people, a relationship built on common respect. I hope that as you watch, you will have a sense of how survivors felt as they listened in the House of Commons or outside parliament hill. [VIDEO CLIP] [SINGING] MR. STEPHEN HARPER: I stand before you today to offer an apology to former students of Indian residential schools. The treatment of children in these schools is a sad chapter in our history. For more than a century, Indian residential schools separated over 150,000 Aboriginal children from their families and communities. In the 1870s, the federal government, partly in order to meet its obligations to educate Aboriginal children, began to play a role in the development and administration of these schools. Two primary objectives of the residential school system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption that Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child.” Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country…. The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the Aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly. MR. STÉPHANE DION: Today, we representatives of the Canadian people apologize to those who survived residential schools and to those who died as a result of the laws enacted by previous governments and parliaments. By speaking directly to survivors and victims today on the floor of the House of Commons, we apologize to those who died waiting for these words to be spoken and these wrongs acknowledged. Successive Canadian governments and various churches were complicit in the mental, physical and sexual abuse of thousands of Aboriginal children through the residential schools system. As the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that was in government for more than 70 years in the 20th century, I acknowledge our role and shared responsibility in this tragedy. I am deeply sorry. I apologize. It is about being inspired by survivors like National Chief Phil Fontaine and Billy Blackwater who had the courage to speak up and pursue justice. It is about building on the work of former First Nations member of Parliament Gary Merasty, whose motion calling on the government to apologize to survivors of residential schools was unanimously adopted by members of Parliament on May 1, 2007. MALE VOICE 2: [SPEAKING FRENCH] MR. JACK LAYTON: It was this Parliament that enacted, 151 years ago, the racist legislation that established the residential schools. This Parliament chose to treat first nations, Métis and Inuit people as not equally human. It set out to kill the Indian in the child. That choice was horribly wrong. It led to incredible suffering. It denied first nations, Métis and Inuit the basic freedom to choose how to live their lives. For those wrongs that we have committed, we are truly sorry. MR. PHIL FONTAINE: Prime Minister, Chief Justice, members of this House, elders, survivors, Canadians: for our parents, our grandparents, great grandparents, indeed for all the generations which have preceded us, this day testifies to nothing less than the achievement of the impossible. This morning, our elders held a condolence ceremony for those who never heard an apology, never received compensation, yet courageously fought assimilation so that we could witness this day. Together, we remember and honor them for it was they that suffered the most as they witnessed generation after generation of their children taken from their families’ love and guidance. For the generations that will follow us, we bear witness today in this House that our survival as First Nations peoples in this land is affirmed forever. Therefore, the significance of this day is not just about what has been, but equally important what is to come. Never again will this House consider us the Indian problem just for being who we are. We heard the government of Canada take full responsibility for this dreadful chapter in our shared history. We heard the Prime Minister declare that this will never happen again. Finally, we heard Canada say it is sorry. Brave survivors, through the telling of their painful stories, have stripped white supremacy of its authority and legitimacy. The irresistibility of speaking truth to power is real. Today is not the result of a political game. Instead, it is something that shows the righteousness and importance of our struggle. We know we have many difficult issues to handle. There are many fights still to be fought. What happened today signifies a new dawn in the relationship between us and the rest of Canada. We are and always have been an indispensable part of the Canadian identity. Our peoples, our history, and our present being are the essence of Canada. The attempts to erase our identities hurt us deeply, but it also hurt all Canadians and impoverished the character of this nation. We must not falter in our duty now. Emboldened by this spectacle of history, it is possible to end our 00:45:35 racial nightmare together. The memories of residential schools sometimes cut like merciless knives at our souls. This day will help us to put that pain behind us. But it signifies something even more important: a respectful and, therefore, liberating relationship between us and the rest of Canada. Together, we can achieve the greatness our country deserves. The apology today is founded upon, more than anything else, the recognition that we all own our own lives and destinies, the only true foundation for a society where peoples can flourish. We must now capture a new spirit and vision to meet the challenges of the future. As a great statesman once said, we are all part of one “garment of destiny.” The differences between us are not blood or color and “the ties that bind us are deeper than those that separate us.” The “common road of hope” will bring us to reconciliation more than any words, laws or legal claims ever could. We still have to struggle, but now we are in this together. I reach out to all Canadians today in this spirit of reconciliation. [SINGING] MR. FONTAINE: I think you can see in that presentation how profoundly survivors were moved on this historic day. - - so profoundly impacted our people as did the residential school policy. In his apology, Prime Minister Harper stated, and I quote, “The government recognizes that the absence of an apology has been an impediment to healing and reconciliation.” I perceive the apology as a promise from Canada to right the wrongs of our stolen generations of language, culture and identity. It signals for us a new beginning, a new era that will restore the mutual respect our people once had for each other. But an apology must be more than symbolic. Our work is not done. The residential school system left serious gaps between First Nations and Canadians in education, poverty and the health and well being of our people. This legacy is not only our burden. It is the burden of all Canadians. Today, many First Nations children still suffer from the effects of the residential school experience, and let me give you an example. Today, in Canada, one of the richest nations in the world, there are more than 27,000 First Nations children in state care. That is more children than that were in residential schools at the height of the residential school experience. Three times the number. The primary reason children are in state care is neglect due to poverty, not a lack of parental love. We believe there is also a relationship between the way residential schools broke families and the number of children in state care. This is another national tragedy. Reconciliation must mean giving families who will need help the support they need to become strong again. It must mean undoing the mistakes of the past and allowing our communities to become strong again. Reconciliation must restore our original relationship with Canada, a partnership based on mutual recognition and respect. The residential schools experiment was an insult and an injury to this relationship. Reconciliation must repair this relationship by ending the policies that have created gaps in poverty, education and the health of our people. Reconciliation means taking back control of our lives and our nations and taking back the future for our young people. While the apology was a positive first, we have much work to do to ensure that the words spoken create a 00:50:53 meaningful and positive transformative change. We must continue to work with the government to ensure that the health, education, languages and cultures of our peoples are restored. In the spirit of healing, I continue to be hopeful and determined. This does not mean we simply forgive and forget. We must never forget. We will always remember the schools. All Canadians must remember these schools, but the experience must be remembered for what they were – a dark period in our history that we must learn from. But we can and must move forward. We can move forward in a manner that provides for healing, justice and reconciliation. Truth is important, not only for the survivors but to help all Canadians understand how deeply assimilation policies affected our people--the causes and extent of abuse we suffered and the effects that continue to reverberate throughout our communities. One component of the holistic response to the residential school experience is the Truth and Reconciliation commission on these schools. In my opinion, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the most important element of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement. On June 1, 2008, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission officially began its important work. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will provide the opportunity for former students to share their stories and to educate Canadians about the residential schools system and to establish a permanent record of their experiences. In fact, every experience is unique to this story, and all of these unique experiences must be incorporated in this chapter that we are about to write, the missing chapter in Canadian history. This will be important to the healing of our families and communities and to the healing of our relationship with Canada. It is part of an effort, as I said, to write the missing chapter in Canadian history. A chapter that was written by Canada, but that too few Canadians know about or truly understand. That is really where the importance lies in a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in having history accurately told and recorded. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not set up as a court but to embrace our traditional forms of justice, giving everyone an opportunity to speak as equals and, most importantly, to be heard. With knowledge comes power, the power to change and to progress. For survivors, these are also personal milestones that have been decades in the making. We must strive for healing. We owe that to ourselves, to the survivors no longer with us, and to the generations that will follow. Thus, we can go full circle and further can move forward in a way that rejects the “government knows best” way of dealing with our people. - - we interact as equals and where our people make their own decisions and create their own futures. Thank you.

Contents

Background

Organized AM (mediumwave) radio broadcasting began in the early 1920s,[1] and the United States soon dominated the North American airwaves, with more than 500 stations by the end of 1922. Due to a change in the ionosphere after the sun sets, nighttime signals from AM band stations are reflected for distances extending for hundreds of kilometers. This is valuable in providing radio programming to sparsely settled areas using high-powered transmitters. However, it also leads to the need for international cooperation in station assignments, to avoid mutually interfering signals.

In an effort to rationalize assignments, a major reallocation went into force in the U.S. on November 11, 1928, following the standards set by the Federal Radio Commission's (FRC) General Order 40. At that time, the AM band was defined as 96 frequencies, running in 10 kilocycle-per-second (kHz) steps from 550 to 1500 kHz, which were divided into what became known as "Local", "Regional", and "Clear Channel" frequencies. The only provision the FRC made addressing international concerns was that six frequencies — 690, 730, 840, 910, 960, and 1030 — were designated for exclusive Canadian use. On May 5, 1932, through an exchange of letters, the U.S. and Canada informally endorsed and expanded the 1928 standards, including recognition of Canadian use of 540 kHz.[2] During the 1930s, Canada also began using 1510 kHz, while in 1934 the U.S. authorized two experimental high-fidelity stations on each of 1530 and 1550 kHz.[3] By 1939, Cuban stations existed on frequencies as high as 1600 kHz.[4]

As other countries, especially Mexico and Cuba, developed their own radio broadcasting services, the need arose to standardize engineering practices, reduce interference, and more fairly distribute clear channel assignments. Moreover, the development of better frequency control, and especially directional antennas, made it possible for additional stations to operate on the same or close by frequencies without significantly increasing interference. A key objective for the United States was that, in exchange for receiving clear channel assignments, Mexico would eliminate the high-powered English-language "border blaster" stations that had been directing their programming toward the U.S. and causing significant interference to U.S. and Canadian stations.[5] However, an initial international meeting held in Mexico City in the summer of 1933 failed, primarily due to a lack of agreement over how many clear channel frequencies would be assigned to Mexico.[2]

1937 "Havana Treaty"

WLS, Chicago, advertisement promoting its March 29, 1941, move from 870 to 890 kHz[6]
WLS, Chicago, advertisement promoting its March 29, 1941, move from 870 to 890 kHz[6]
Radio dealer advertisements soliciting customers needing help in resetting the mechanical push buttons on their console receivers.[7]
Radio dealer advertisements soliciting customers needing help in resetting the mechanical push buttons on their console receivers.[7]

In 1937, a series of radio conferences, this time successful, was held in Havana, Cuba, and the initial NARBA agreement was signed on December 13, 1937 by representatives from the United States, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Haiti.[8] The most significant change was the formal addition of ten broadcasting frequencies, from 1510 to 1600 kHz, with the 106 available frequencies divided into Clear Channel (59 frequencies), Regional (41) and Local (6) designations.[9] The official lower limit remained at 550 kHz, as it was not possible to add stations at the bottom of the broadcast band due to the need to protect 500 kHz — a maritime international distress frequency — from interference. (Although operation on 540 kHz was not covered by the Agreement, unofficially it became an additional Canadian clear channel frequency.)[10]

Under the Agreement, most existing stations operating on 740 kHz or higher would have to change frequencies. Open frequencies were created throughout the band by "stretching out" the existing assignments, achieved by following a table which in most cases moved all the stations on a common frequency to a new, higher, dial position. This provided gaps of unassigned frequencies, most of which became clear channels allocated to Mexico and Canada. A majority of the frequency shifts were limited to between 10 and 30 kHz, which conserved the electrical height of a station's existing vertical radiator towers, an important factor for readjusting directional antenna parameters to accommodate the new frequency.[11]

Individual stations were specified to be Class I, II III or IV, with the class determining the maximum power a station could use and its interference protection standards. In all of the participating countries Class I and II stations were exclusively assigned to Clear Channel frequencies, while Class III was synonymous with a Regional frequency assignment. In the United States, Class IV stations were only assigned to Local frequencies, although in other countries they were assigned to both Local and Regional ones.[12] A major change was the provision that some clear channels were allocated to be used simultaneously by two stations — those maintaining sole use of a frequency were classified as Class I-A, while stations sharing a clear channel were known as Class I-B.[13] The Agreement assigned six Class I-A frequencies each to Mexico and Canada, and one to Cuba.[14]

Reflecting the existence of improved radio design, the Agreement also reduced the "same market" minimum frequency separation from 50 to 40 kHz. (Mexico elected to further adopt a 30 kHz "same market" spacing, unless this was in conflict with an adjoining nation's "border zone" allocations.) This closer spacing was particularly important in the case of the two highest Local frequencies, 1420 and 1500 kHz, as stations on these frequencies were being moved to 1450 and 1490 kHz, a 40 kHz separation.[11]

According to the Agreement's provisions, its implementation was to take place within one year after its adoption by the pact's four main signatories — the United States, Canada, Cuba and Mexico. Cuba was the first to ratify, on December 22, 1937, and was followed by the U.S. on June 15, 1938 and Canada on November 29, 1938. While waiting on Mexico, in 1939 the U.S. and Canada completed a frequency agreement based on the treaty standards. Mexico finally approved the treaty on December 29, 1939,[15] and work commenced on adopting its wide-ranging provisions.

March 29, 1941 implementation

An engineering conference, with representatives from the U.S., Canada, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Mexico, was held from January 14–30, 1941 in Washington, D.C., in order to coordinate the upcoming changes. With a few exceptions the frequency shifts were scheduled to be implemented at 0800 Greenwich Mean Time (3 a.m. E.S.T.) on March 29, 1941, which was informally known as "moving day".[16] (Philadelphia stations petitioned mayor Robert Lamberton to declare a "Radio Moving Day", but he refused on the grounds that "My experience has been that proclamations by the mayor mean just exactly nothing and I issue as few as I can.")[17]

The frequency changes affected "about a thousand stations in seven countries".[18] The following chart reviews the assignments before and after March 29, 1941, including information about individual U.S. and Canadian stations, and summarizes the most significant changes:

Old Freq.[19]
(kHz)
Station(s) Moved
(kHz)
New Freq.[20]
(kHz)
Notes
new Canadian clear 540 allocated to CBK later shared with Mexico
550–680 all unchanged 550–680
690 all, except CFRB unchanged 690 Canadian clear
CFRB 860
700–720 all unchanged 700–720
730 all, except CFPL unchanged 730
CFPL 1570
new Canadian clear 740 allocated to CBL which moved from 840
740–780 all up 10 750–790
new Mexican clear 800 allocated to XELO
790–830 all up 20 810–850
840 CBL 740
new Canadian clear 860 allocated to CFRB
850–870 all up 20 870–890
new Mexican clear 900
880–970 all up 30 910–1000
new Canadian clear 1010 allocated to CFCN (now CBR) which moved from 1030
980 KDKA up 40 1020
990 WBZ up 40 1030
1000 WHO up 40 1040
1010 WHN (now WEPN) up 40 1050
KQW (now KCBS) 740
WNAD (now KWPN) 640
WNOX (now WNML) 990
new Mexican clear 1050
1020 KYW up 40 1060
1030 CFCN (now CBR) down 20 1010
CKLW 800
1040 WTIC
KRLD
KWJJ (now KFXX)
up 40 1080
1050 KNX up 20 1070 shared with CBA (now silent)
1060 WBAL up 30 1090
WJAG up 40 1110 this was later traded for 780 with KFAB
1070–1150 all up 30 1100–1180
1160 WOWO up 30 1190
WWVA up 10 1170
1170 WCAU (now WPHT) up 40 1210
1180 KEX up 10 1190
KOB (now KKOB) 770
WDGY (now KTLK) down 50 1130
WINS 1010
1190 WOAI up 10 1200
WSAZ (now WRVC) 930
WATR 1320
new Mexican clear 1220 allocated to XEB
1200–1450 all up 30 1230–1480
1460 KSTP
WJSV (now WFED)
up 40 1500
1470 KGA
WLAC
WMEX
up 40 1510
1480 KOMA
WKBW (now WWKB)
up 40 1520
1490 KFBK
WCKY
up 40 1530
1500 all down 10 1490
1510 CKCR (later CHYM) down 20 1490
new Bahamian clear 1540 allocated to ZNS-1 shared with KXEL
new Canadian/Mexican clear 1550 allocated to CBE (now CBEF) and XERUV, both stations "grandfathered" at 10 kW
1530 W1XBS to WBRY
(later WTBY, then WQQW; now dark)
up 60 1590 Since 1934 U.S. frequencies above 1500 had been allocated only to four experimental stations that broadcast with a signal 20 kHz wide for "high fidelity." The stations were converted to regular broadcasting with the NARBA frequency move, having already been allowed to choose normal call signs in 1936.[21]
W9XBY to KITE
(now dark)
up 20 1550
1550 W2XR to WQXR
(now WFME)
up 10 1560
W6XAI to KPMC
(now KNZR)
up 10 1560
new Mexican clear 1570 allocated to XERF
new Canadian clear 1580 allocated to CBJ
new regional channels 1590–1600 1590–1700 after "Rio"

Refinements

A series of modifications would follow the initial treaty, which was scheduled to expire on March 29, 1946. In early 1946, a three-year interim agreement gave Cuba expanded allocations, including the right to share five U.S., three Canadian, and two Mexican clear channel allocations, plus operate high-powered stations on some regional frequencies. The changes also resulted in the Bahamas being granted use of the 1540 kHz Clear Channel by the U.S.[22]

The interim agreement expired on March 29, 1949, and there was great difficulty in agreeing on a replacement, in particular due to Mexican objections, which led to two failed conferences. A new NARBA agreement, to be effective for five years after ratification, was finally signed at Washington, D.C. on November 15, 1950, for the Bahamas, Canada, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and the United States.[23] Mexico, which had withdrawn from the conference, and Haiti, which did not participate, were to be given a chance to subscribe. (The United States and Mexico made a bilateral agreement in 1957.)[24] This agreement formally added 540 kHz as a Clear Channel frequency, and also provided for Cuba to share six, and Jamaica two, of the U.S. clear channel allocations.[25] Some provisions remained controversial, and this version of the treaty wasn't ratified by the United States until early 1960. In 1980, Cuba gave the required one year notification that it was withdrawing from the NARBA treaty.[26]

1981 "Rio Agreement"

The NARBA treaties have been substantially superseded by the "Regional Agreement for the Medium Frequency Broadcasting Service in Region 2" (Rio Agreement), which covers the entire Western hemisphere, and was signed at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1981, taking effect on July 1, 1983 at 08:00 UTC. The interference protection criteria in the Rio Agreement are significantly different from NARBA's, and the concept of clear channel stations is eliminated. In adopting this agreement, the Bahamas and Canada declared their intent to renounce their adherence to NARBA.[27] However, much of the structure introduced by that treaty remained intact.

Additional actions

On June 8, 1988 another conference held at Rio de Janeiro, this time under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union, adopted provisions effective July 1, 1990 to add ten AM band frequencies within Region 2, commonly known as the "expanded band", and running from 1610 kHz to 1700 kHz.[28]

The 1950 NARBA provisions are still in effect for the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, and United States[29] because those countries have not formally abrogated NARBA.[30] The United States also has active bilateral agreements with Canada ("Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Relating to the AM Broadcasting Service in the Medium Frequency Band" (1984)[31] and Mexico ("Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Relating to the AM Broadcasting Service in the Medium Frequency Band" (1986)).[32]

See also

External links

  • Arrangement between the United States of America, Canada, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Mexico, comprising recommendations of the North American Regional Radio-Engineering Meeting (supplemental to North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement, Habana, 1937). Signed at Washington January 30, 1941; effective March 29, 1941.

      • Agreement text (pages 1398–1400)
      • Canadian station assignments by frequency (pages 1408–1410)
      • Cuban station assignments by frequency (pages 1411–1414)
      • Dominican Republic station assignments by frequency (page 1414)
      • Haitian station assignments by frequency (page 1415)
      • Mexican station assignments by frequency (pages 1415–1420)
      • United States station assignments by frequency (pages 1421–1443)

References

  1. ^ FM band stations did not start to appear until the early 1940s.
  2. ^ a b "The Havana Conference and the North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement" by Louis G. Caldwell, Variety Radio Directory, 1938–1939 edition, pages 548–553.
  3. ^ "List of Broadcasting Stations: Additions to List", Radio Service Bulletin, May 15, 1934, page 7.
  4. ^ "North American B. C. Stations by Frequencies", Radio Index, Midsummer 1939, page 75. (americanradiohistory.com)
  5. ^ Border Radio by Gene Fowler and Bill Crawford, 2002, page 209.
  6. ^ "WLS Chicago" (advertisement), Broadcasting March 24, 1941, page 2.
  7. ^ "Radio Moving Day" (advertisement), The Detroit Tribune, March 29, 1941, page 11.
  8. ^ "The Havana Conference and the North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement", Variety Radio Directory: '38*'39, pages 548–553.
  9. ^ "Basic Provisions of North American Agreement", Broadcasting, December 15, 1937, page 9.
  10. ^ "Agreement between the United States and Canada for the use of the frequency of 540 kilocycles" (Agreement between the United States of America and Canada regarding radio broadcasting: October 28 and December 10, 1938), United States Statutes at Large: 1939: Volume 53, page 2043.
  11. ^ a b "How Broadcast Stations Will be Shifted", Radio Today, February 1941, page 17.
  12. ^ "Basic Provisions of the North American Pact" (section 5(b)), Broadcasting, December 15, 1937, page 72.
  13. ^ "Protected Service Contours and Permissible Interference Signals for Broadcast Stations", Broadcasting, December 15, 1937, page 10.
  14. ^ "Table II: Class I-A Stations", Broadcasting, December 15, 1937, page 11.
  15. ^ "Mexico Ratifies Havana Treaty", Broadcasting, January 1, 1940, pages 12, 68.
  16. ^ Miller, Jeff (January 29, 2017). "A Chronology of AM Radio Broadcasting 1900–1960". Retrieved January 30, 2017.
  17. ^ "Mayor is Adamant" Broadcasting, March 24, 1941, page 48.
  18. ^ "The Reallocation", Radio Index, May – June 1941, page 1.
  19. ^ "North American B. C. Stations by Frequencies", Radio Index, March–April 1941, pages 64–82, 88. (americanradiohistory.com)
  20. ^ "North American B. C. Stations by Frequencies", Radio Index, May–June 1941, pages 61–80, 88. (americanradiohistory.com)
  21. ^ "New Calls Given Special Stations" (PDF). Broadcasting. December 1, 1936. p. 73. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  22. ^ "Cuba's NARBA Victory Portents U.S. Row", Broadcasting, March 4, 1946, page 17.
  23. ^ "Multilateral North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement and final protocol signed at Washington November 15, 1950", United States Treaties and Other International Agreements: Volume II, Part 1, 1960, pages 413–490.
  24. ^ National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook: 10th Edition, "Frequency Allocations for Broadcasting and the Broadcast Auxiliary Services" by William R. Meintel, 2007, page 58.
  25. ^ "NARBA Signed", Broadcasting, November 20, 1950, pages 19–20.
  26. ^ An Air War with Cuba: The United States Radio Campaign Against Castro by Daniel C. Walsh, 2011, page 72.
  27. ^ Regional Administrative MF Broadcasting Conference (Region 2), Rio de Janeiro, 1981 (PDF). ISBN 92-61-01311-2. Retrieved January 29, 2017. Bahamas and Canada announce their intent to renounce NARBA in Final Protocol statement No. 4 on page 88.
  28. ^ Final Acts of the Regional Radio Conference to Establish a Plan for the Broadcasting Service in the Band 1605–1705 in Region 2 (PDF) (Rio de Janeiro, 1988. itu.int)
  29. ^ 47 C.F.R. 73.1650. Retrieved January 27, 2017.
  30. ^ "2001 Report on International Negotiations, Spectrum Policy & Notifications" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission (Planning & Negotiations Division, International Bureau). September 2001. Retrieved January 30, 2017.
  31. ^ U.S.-Canadian AM Band Agreement (1984) (fcc.gov)
  32. ^ U.S.-Mexican AM Band Agreement (1986) (fcc.gov)
This page was last edited on 30 November 2019, at 20:20
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.