AM Going away?

[TheBigA]

the downward prices of A.M.s would allow them to eventually come into the hands of more people who could run them on a small budget. I would welcome such an opportunity, personally.

Here's what I've learned: If someone needs to buy a station at a cut rate price, then he doesn't have the deep pockets needed to staff and operate it either. And the staffing and operating costs will quickly dwarf the purchase price.

In the last 30 years, broadcast licenses have become commodities. The FCC isn't going to change the rules or the spectrum plan in any way that purely benefits profit making radio companies. That means they're not going to give FM frequencies to AM owners. That would only be a financial windfall for an owner.

 

[clouseau]

Unless broadcast television is shut down completely, the FM band will not expand (it can't go above 108 MHz for any reason). The FCC has already said so.

With due deference, broadcast television could sign off completely and you could not broadcast FM above 108. That's the start of the aircraft band.

 

[clouseau]

I hate to argue with some of my Top Ten market operators, but you can survive and maybe even prosper in a stand alone in a competitive environment. If you understand how to connect with a format (My station is basically "Guy Talk") and pick and choose the right programming you can have a salable product. That's actually pretty easy. We're a Graveyarder with great ground conductivity in a geographically large city in a "Top 120" market. We have 2 translators on FM and work HARD. Really Hard. We are profitable Cash Flow wise and do 6 1/2 hours of local talk every weekday. We cover the payment on the obscenely high purchase price. If AM hangs on for another decade we'll own the puppy. All we do is sell. It's a must.

It ain't easy, but it can be done. Did I mention all we do is sell? Most of the prospective station owners I run into have no idea what they're trying to do and should take the advice to stay away. But if you can make money on a graveyard with 26 in market signals, I say it can still work.

YMMV, don't sue me when you lose your inheritance. I told you not to try it. P-)

 

[klutch00]

I think that what many of the smaller, marginal AM stations should be acquired by non-commercial, community broadcasters and survive on donations or a combination of donations and advertisement.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Bruce- I wouldn't tackle some people head-on who post on this subject, but in your case, let me make an exception. In discussing various genres of Christian music in other threads, I know you are committed to a personal committment of sharing your faith.

May I suggest that because of that, you have some obligation to deal with NPR in a more charitable way.

You make the assumption that I do not listen from time to time. The last time I listened, there was no propaganda per-se, but a very obvious presupposition on the part of the show that certain viewpoints on political issues were normal / moderate / centrist. Positions I would place on the far left of liberal. The general tone was - if you were listening to the station, you obviously believed in their positions, these persons that do not are therefore not as intellectual / educated / normal like everybody else. I felt like an outsider, which I clearly would be in such an environment.

I will NOT be trapped into specifics, which would definitely run afoul of board moderators - and rightly so. Lets just say I can discern liberal bias, no matter how well it is disguised as intellectualism / moderatism / the normal correct viewpoint. I find that just as offensive as I do the conspiracy theories demonizing the president on the far right talk shows. Both insult my intelligence. I can make up my own mind on issues - some of my positions would be predictable to you, others would be quite surprising to you. All are carefully considered and yes - from a Biblical perspective in most cases.

It does offend me that my tax dollars go to support a subtle liberal bias. At least in the case of right wing conspiracy nuts I have the right to NOT buy their merchandise, not so with left wing NPR programs. In a perfectly fair society, those who support leftist views should have the freedom to support them financially, while those of us who do not should not be required to pay taxes to support them.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I can make up my own mind on issues - some of my positions would be predictable to you, others would be quite surprising to you. All are carefully considered and yes - from a Biblical perspective in most cases.

It does offend me that my tax dollars go to support a subtle liberal bias. At least in the case of right wing conspiracy nuts I have the right to NOT buy their merchandise, not so with left wing NPR programs. In a perfectly fair society, those who support leftist views should have the freedom to support them financially, while those of us who do not should not be required to pay taxes to support them.

I may have to re-invent the wheel on the calculation of tax support for NPR. We had that conversation in these forums a couple of years ago and I can't go back with this new forum software and find what I posted. My memory is that about 0.44 per cent of NPRs funds come from the taxpayers. That less than one-half percent. There are better issues to get ulcers over.

This little side-conversation you and I are having actually does belong in this topic. We are discussing the future of A.M. radio. Some have brought into the discussion the idea that Conservative Talk Radio is a "foundation pier" that is helping keep A.M. radio alive. But like calculating what percentage of NPR funding comes from tax money, I suspect a raw calculation of ad revenues produced by the Talk Radio programs is maybe only a minor part of the actual income of the A.M. radio stations. There is a perception however that A.M. radio has an ability to remain viable because of Conservative Talk Radio.

What happens to the future of A.M. radio if for some reason Talk Radio takes a nose-dive?

Going back to what you just posted: Who or what defines what is Right Wing and/or Conservative? Who or what defines what is actually "the middle"? Who or what defines what is actually rabid Left Wing Liberal?

Don't be offended by my next statement for I am a native of Texas! You live in a petrie dish where a scientific experiment is apparently going on to see just how Right Wing a civilization can be and still survive. It has to be hard to live in Texas and have any concept of where The Middle is, and where The Left is.

Left Wing talking heads were just giddy last night. Favorite Son Ted Cruz in giving a speech suggested that the answer to the nation's ills was to find 100 reincarnations of Jessie Helms to send to the Senate.

What happens to A.M. radio when some year not too far in the future, America sits down, looks in the mirror and suddenly realizes we have the chromatic-balance adjustment of our political internal cameras calibrated all wrong. We send out our best minds to survey the landscape and they come back and move the stakes that set the boundaries of our civilization. People with political integrity drive down a stake and say: this is the right edge. Anything beyond this is not Conservative, it is just plain un-American. And then they drive down a stake and say: this is the left edge. Anything beyond this is not Liberal, it is just plain un-American. And we all stand and stare at the stakes and we all conclude: If that is the boundary on the right, and that over there is the boundary on the left, this right here must be The Center. Don't put a stake there. Put a monument there for the people to see, and for future generations to observe and wrestle with.

And that could be the day A.M. radio enters hospice care.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I may have to re-invent the wheel on the calculation of tax support for NPR. We had that conversation in these forums a couple of years ago and I can't go back with this new forum software and find what I posted. My memory is that about 0.44 per cent of NPRs funds come from the taxpayers. That less than one-half percent. There are better issues to get ulcers over.

This little side-conversation you and I are having actually does belong in this topic. We are discussing the future of A.M. radio. Some have brought into the discussion the idea that Conservative Talk Radio is a "foundation pier" that is helping keep A.M. radio alive.

.44% is still too much. If its really that little, why do they get bent out of shape at any suggestion that the US taxpayers shouldn't be funding it? I would think that small of a percentage would be easy to replace by liberal minded followers.

Because I am the most intelligent person I know, I am unlikely to be swayed by anybody's assessment of what a liberal, moderate, or conservative position ought to be. I reserve the right to form my own opinions, I am the only one responsible for them, I do not really care to attempt to convert the less informed to my opinions, so it is time to give that topic a permanent and well deserved rest.

I don't really see AM surviving in its present form more than a few decades if that long. My guess - the band will probably always be there, but filled with irrelevancies like brokered, TIS, religious, and traveler information. It will be a curiosity, long forgotten like shortwave and longwave are right now in the US, very few new radios manufactured with the AM band included. At some point a major re-purposing of the entire RF spectrum should probably be done to better utilize the airwaves for the benefit of all. I don't see how limited use of Longwave for outmoded aircraft beacons, Shortwave for an ever decreasing pool of international listeners, and even AM jammed beyond use at night is in the interest of anybody - with so little spectrum available it would seem to me that the best use of it should be use that benefits the largest number of people.

 

[bturner]

An earlier poster suggested smaller/marginal AM stations should go to non-commercial entities and survive off donations or donations and advertisements. The plan sounds good until you realize the problem is only about 1 in 7 people listen to AM radio according to an industry report I saw this week. The AM stations, for the most part, are struggling. To turn them over to non-commercial entities makes the situation worse, not better.

Here's my rationale: I know a few folks who spearhead non-commercial FMs. They tend to perform below commercial radio in revenue. Not only are Underwriting Rates typically below the typical 60 second commercial rate for the commercial stations with about as many listeners, their revenue or share of the pie tends to be smaller looking at audience size versus revenue.

Thus, the non-commercial stations tend to under-perform compared to their commercial counterpart. It is no less expensive to operate a non-commercial station than a commercial station. If you run commercials you will likely not get donations and even if you opt for underwriting and donations, the revenue you generate is typically a small percentage of the commercial counterpart. Thus, non-commercial generally means a fraction of revenue and revenue is the issue for AM radio stations now...typically #1 on the list.

I really like the idea personally but I feel the number of handicaps facing a non-commercial AM entity on a small or marginal AM signal might place AM at even more of a disadvantage than it is at present. The exceptions obviously would be entities that have other functions that are flush with cash from contributors that are not opposed to some of those dollars funding an AM station.

I'd love to see Low Power AM much like Low Power FM but looking at most LPFMs, most have great plans but can be little more than a jukebox because they can't seem to monetize those great plans of serving their respective communities. I know close to 100 LPFM operators and most generate less than your monthly car payment each month and 1/3rd have gone away since the first window. I suspect if they were on AM, those figures might be more dismal.

What AM really needs is to get people to tune to the AM band. Quite a few people never do go to the AM dial and I have to wonder if it's the chicken and egg syndrome. Would people go to AM if what they wanted from radio was on AM? Maybe, but they naturally don't check AM now. And should people come back to AM in droves, would an FM looking at a format change steal your format and air talent? Probably so.

 

[Mediafrog+]

It does offend me that my tax dollars go to support a subtle liberal bias. At least in the case of right wing conspiracy nuts I have the right to NOT buy their merchandise, not so with left wing NPR programs. In a perfectly fair society, those who support leftist views should have the freedom to support them financially, while those of us who do not should not be required to pay taxes to support them.

However, liberals can also complain that their tax dollars are supporting conservative biases.

Keeping within a broadcasting perspective: Many religious broadcasters are run by tax-exempt organizations. A tax exemption is essentially a subsidy, as the tax burden that would have fallen on that religious organization is instead shifted elsewhere, and we all wind up paying for that.

Conservatives complain about paying for PBS and NPR, while forgetting that liberals have to pay for pointless wars, as well as bailouts and bonuses for the Wall Street fat cats that imploded out economy a few years ago.

Paying for government is like paying for cable/satellite TV: You pay for a lot of things you don't want in order to receive the the services you actually do want. Unless someone can invent A La Carte government, spending money on things we find undesirable will always be an issue.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

.44% is still too much. If its really that little, why do they get bent out of shape at any suggestion that the US taxpayers shouldn't be funding it? I would think that small of a percentage would be easy to replace by liberal minded followers.

Here is my PERSONAL take on that. I don't know that anyone in Public Broadcasting would ever own up to this as a philosophy. When the lobbyists and money-bags come calling, trying to bend and shape Public Radio, it is a handy crutch to simply respond: "I'm sorry, but because of government regulations, we can't do what you are asking.

I suspect the foundations who do a lot of funding are very comfortable having just a little bit of "the government thumb on the scale" so they know that Public Radio is not going to be pushed into every rabbit-hole along the trail.

Because I am the most intelligent person I know, I am unlikely to be swayed by anybody's assessment of what a liberal, moderate, or conservative position ought to be. I reserve the right to form my own opinions, I am the only one responsible for them, I do not really care to attempt to convert the less informed to my opinions, so it is time to give that topic a permanent and well deserved rest.

Bruce, many of us have gotten to know you because the main topic you cluster around is what genre of music should be played by religious broadcasters. And your rationale is that if religious radio will play the music that you are attached to, the minds of young people will be attracted to the religious faith you believe is the correct faith. So you do attempt to "convert the less informed to your opinions".

In the big scheme of things today, you really can't separate the conversion to correct religion from the conversion to correct politics.

Your pleas that "you don't wallow in the mud like the rest of us" really falls on deaf ears.

So to bring us back to the topic of the future of A.M. radio.... I am offended that the rules under which A.M. radio is currently operating allows corporate money to keep Conservative Talk Radio going which tries to convert public thinking to religious beliefs I disagree with. Every time Conservative Talk Radio jumps into abortion, voter registration, healthcare funding and immigration, they are creating a stir in the religious belief systems of people... "trying to convert the less informed" to their opinions.

Making a civilization, a nation work is messy business. Ask the Egyptians. Ask the Syrians. They are just more bloody in their fights than we are. Maybe that's because we allow Talk Radio and Public Radio to survive, side by side.

 

[davideduardo]

Keeping within a broadcasting perspective: Many religious broadcasters are run by tax-exempt organizations. A tax exemption is essentially a subsidy, as the tax burden that would have fallen on that religious organization is instead shifted elsewhere, and we all wind up paying for that.

Non-profits generally do not deprive state and local governments of tax revenue. That is because most non-profits do not have excess revenue over expenses, so there would not be a "profit" to tax.

When there is no profit there is no tax burden. And generally, non-commercial stations spend what comes in on product as opposed to building a surplus... the equivalent of a profit.

 

[Jay Walker]

I hate to argue with some of my Top Ten market operators, but you can survive and maybe even prosper in a stand alone in a competitive environment. If you understand how to connect with a format (My station is basically "Guy Talk") and pick and choose the right programming you can have a salable product. That's actually pretty easy. We're a Graveyarder with great ground conductivity in a geographically large city in a "Top 120" market. We have 2 translators on FM and work HARD. Really Hard. We are profitable Cash Flow wise and do 6 1/2 hours of local talk every weekday. We cover the payment on the obscenely high purchase price. If AM hangs on for another decade we'll own the puppy. All we do is sell. It's a must.

It ain't easy, but it can be done. Did I mention all we do is sell? Most of the prospective station owners I run into have no idea what they're trying to do and should take the advice to stay away. But if you can make money on a graveyard with 26 in market signals, I say it can still work.

YMMV, don't sue me when you lose your inheritance. I told you not to try it. P-)

Try making money with your AM in your "top 120 market" WITHOUT the FM translators and see how that works. Don't kid yourself into thinking the AM is carrying the load, the FM exposure adds a lot. If a full power FM enters the market with another "Guy Talk" format you will most likely change formats...
All that said, there are a FEW examples nationwide where tightly niche formatted stations can pay the overhead (barely)

 

[vchimpanzee]

I may have to re-invent the wheel on the calculation of tax support for NPR. We had that conversation in these forums a couple of years ago and I can't go back with this new forum software and find what I posted. My memory is that about 0.44 per cent of NPRs funds come from the taxpayers. That less than one-half percent. There are better issues to get ulcers over.

You didn't post there but I found this.

http://radiodiscussions.com/showthr...ment-Dollars-go-to-Public-Broadcasting-anyway

 

[bturner]

Al earlier poster states Religious stations enjoy tax exempt status and as such a subsidy like NPR. Correct me if I am wrong but are not NPR stations also tax exempt? Your point is taken that conservative and perceived or real liberal leaning radio also gets the break. As I posted long ago, I took a look at several 1099s of public radio. One, a major player, managed to secure about 6-7% of their nearly 75 million dollar budget from the fund the government allocated to the CPB. Granted they are in some regions where there might not be lots of support but I question if these dollars would really be needed by the entity that also spurred several for-profit entities that do additional millions a year. I know people at community stations that are also NPR affiliates that get most of their operating budget through this funding and in one instance, the station functions as the sole over the air option for a couple of thousand people. I don't mind the dollars going there. Then again I was blasted for supporting the subsidy of basic services in very rural areas but I suspect these people would be ticked off if a fire department, EMS, police, postal service, or hospital served these people too. I suspect these people have never been in a rural area. The station I mentioned acts as the telephone party line for much of the population and a vital link to a better quality of life in that area. It seems it is not feasible for cell towers and the phone company going in within most of the coverage area where the station is located

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There was a post this afternoon that I was in the process of "replying with quote" and my screen began to fight back it seemed and when I bailed out to start over, the post was gone... possibly edited out and replaced with different verbiage. We were/are on the edge of getting too far afield and away from the original topic. But let me rephrase what went away earlier.

We have about four topics going on here but I would maintain that all four are so interconnected the conversation begins to make sense.

The post that went away in essence said: "Yeah I may a bit upset with my tax dollars going for public radio that I don't agree with, but I also have issues with what may be a much larger tax dollar giveaway.... the tax exemption provided to churches." Bingo. We just pulled together elements of the big picture.

Whether it is valid or not, defend-able or not, here is the "grand bargain" our nation has operated on for decades now: Since churches do charitable work that otherwise would have to be paid for by some level of government, we give them the tax break. And back when Federal income tax rates were up in the 70 to 90% range, the powerful and wealthy wrapped their arms around this peculiar tax break. If I pay the tax, government will spend it on things that I might not like. This way I give a gift to a church that will spend the money for something I think is worthwhile (and something I control!) and it only costs me 10% or a little more. I took the money that would go to Uncle Sam and I put it where ***I*** wanted it.

Fast forward to today's totally different tax rate structure and the perspective is different. Now, let's tie it to broadcasting. We have a political element in this country that says: Government should not be in the charity and welfare business. Feeding the hungry is the job of THE CHURCH!!!! That same political element basically owns the Talk Radio airwaves today. So we could see in coming months this big push by conservative talk radio that government should kill welfare... let the church do it! and by the way, the church is also on welfare. Let's take their tax exemption away from them.

In that scenario.... define "church". Christianity only? We have a significant Muslin population of taxpayers. Are they church or are they Mosque? Are they expected to feed the hungry, etc. or is that the duty of ONLY "the church"? We have a significant Jewish population in this country. Are they church or are they Synagogue? Are they expected to feed the hungry, etc. or is that the duty of ONLY "the church"? We have a growing Buddhist population. Are they part of The Church and obligated to help take the "feed the hungry" problem off the back of government?

Now, the big finale: Is paying the effort and cost of welfare in this country the responsibility of ONLY the Liberal Church? Or the whole church? There is this marriage of evangelical conservatives and political conservatives and conservative radio who all want some one else to do the heavy lifting of being "The Good Samaritan". What about the Agnostics and the Atheists in our country? Are they part of the conservative crowd, or do we consign them to be heavy lifters along side the Liberal church?

The fate, fortune and future of A.M. radio is all wrapped up in this... this... aw, heck. I can't use the word here but it begins with "cluster...."

To reconcile the future of A.M. radio you may have to reconcile liberal and conservative churches, liberal and conservative politicians, and figure out if all the people who are not members of a church are even citizens in this simple black and white world everyone tries to force into neat, tidy little posts.

We all have the same answer: Everybody else should pay taxes, but not me! Other people will have to learn to live with seeing their tax money wasted, but I'm special and none of my tax money should ever go for anything of which I don't approve. That is for OTHER people.

Happy Friday, everyone.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

The collective cost, time and effort to migrate AM stations to an expanded FM band given the present state of broadcast radio in the US would be the biggest boondoggle of all time in the arena of broadcasting (exceeded only, perhaps, by the advent of HD!)...virtually all existing home and car radios would be incapable of picking up the new signals and stations would have to put in new towers and transmitters probably simulcasting on their current AM facilities and on and on and on---and for what? The general economics of the business for individual stations in small-to-medium markets are not favorable and the younger generation no longer listens to radio (not to mention reads books, magazines or newspapers or visits a library or watches TV for the news)...let's face it, the world has changed... AM was and that's life...

True, but it could be phased in over time. An expansion of the all-channel receiver act to require expanded FM coverage on receivers would have to be the first thing to be done. Many receivers in use in the US and Canada actually have the electronics in them to receive 66-108 MHz - only the reception is disabled by a jumper wire (this makes it easier for the receiver factories to use one design in all world markets). The law would be necessary because too many people in high places wouldn't want you to be able to buy an expanded band radio (much as many radios sold in the US circa 1990-2005 actually have AM stereo - again disabled by a jumper wire).

While 76-88 MHz has only 60 channels versus the AM band's 117, I believe it could actually house all the AM stations, due to FM's capture effect and the lack of skywave skip >99% of the time. Major markets would have to have 400 kHz spacing (of course, if expanded FM were to also go below 72, to 66, 60 or even 54 MHz, expansion would be possible).

Phasing the change over time could look something like this: For about three years, AM stations would build their VHF-low FMs while they continue to operate their AM facilities as they have been doing already. After then, the AM facilities would be packed into about half the current number of channels, usually using omnidirectional antennas, most operating like Class C stations at night. This change would be done in June to minimize immediate impact.

The cleared AM channels would house the first of a number of nationwide long-range franchises, each using 3 or 4 adjacent channels, 5 kHz audio cut, with the ability to install a network of simple daytime or and/or more complicated synchronous carrier directional fulltime transmitters for broad coverage (this would be ideal for Radio Disney or any Spanish language network in the US, or for Première Chaîne coverage of all Canada, for examples). It may be possible for such a new service to have 15 kHz audio range, using audio harmonic regeneration.

After another 2 or 3 years, the local AM transmitters, not as significant with all radios <6 years old having all-channel FM, would be daytime-only (at this point, a lot of stations would choose to shut them down anyway), clearing the whole AM band for long-range service. Two more years and the whole old band is available for long-range radio day and night, with mandatory shutdown of the few remaining local daytime transmissions.

Of course, this can't happen because the investors DON'T WANT the problem fixed, they do not want any new stations or revitalized existing stations to threaten the value of their investments. For the past 30 years, the government exists to serve the investor, not the public, so a huge political shift would be necessary for any improvement to be carried out.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Unless broadcast television is shut down completely, the FM band will not expand (it can't go above 108 MHz for any reason). The FCC has already said so.

What the "FCC has already said so" is that they simply won't expand the FM band. They never said they would have to shut down OTA TV completely to expand FM (channels 5 and 6 alone would expand the FM BC band to 76-108 MHz). Nearly all OTA TV is now above 174 MHz (even nearly all of the TV stations known as channels 2 through 6 - which actually transmit on higher channels with a code - PSIP - that tells TV sets to show the old channel number on the screen)

 

[TheBigA]

Of course, this can't happen because the investors DON'T WANT the problem fixed, they do not want any new stations or revitalized existing stations to threaten the value of their investments. For the past 30 years, the government exists to serve the investor, not the public, so a huge political shift would be necessary for any improvement to be carried out.

That's one way of looking at it. But truthfully, most of the biggest radio companies are bogged down with aging AM frequencies. The value of those frequencies is dropping by the day. Do you really think Cumulus wouldn't love it if the government GAVE them an FM frequency in exchange for one of their declining 5K AM stations? Really? But the question is what's in it for the government to GIVE valuable and limited spectrum to a profit making company? It constitutes a WINDFALL. What justifies the government granting a windfall like that to a company today?

The big radio companies are lobbying the FCC to eliminate the ownership limits that count AM stations as much as FM stations. They'd like their owned AM stations to not count against them, and the FCC isn't budging. As a result, companies like CBS have to choose between keeping an AM station like KYW or WCBS, or buying another FM. They'd rather just buy another FM, but then they'd have to sell the AM. In this time, when AM frequencies are becoming dinosaurs, wouldn't it make sense to change the legislation where the aging dinosaurs don't become even greater liabilities to their owners? But the government doesn't care. So in this sense, the government isn't serving the investors NOR the public. The government is serving itself.

 

[KTN Corp]

Yes, it would be a big task to move all those AM stations to FM, but the television digital transition is sort of a precedent.

Why would there be a transition from AM to FM in the first place? The FCC can refuse to renew AM licenses at expiration and create a gradual transition to MW band reclamation.

The FM band will not go below its current 88 MHz. The FCC has made that clear.

Actually, expanding it 87.5 MHz is not far fetched and a good compromise to 76 MHz expansion. Most radios tune to 87.7 MHz and new ones can receive 87.5 MHz. DTV channel 6 can be on a shared basis, secondary to 87.5-87.9 MHz VHF broadcasting as the primary user of those frequencies. Another possibility for those frequencies is reserving them exclusively for LPFM, just like the reserved non-commercial band of 88-92 MHz.

Finally the entire international FM band of frequencies is in use in the U.S. (and the rest of North America: Canada, Mexico, et al.)!!! Can't wait.

 

[Kent]

Why would there be a transition from AM to FM in the first place? The FCC can refuse to renew AM licenses at expiration and create a gradual transition to MW band reclamation.

The problem, from the FCC's standpoint, is that there's really no demand for the current AM band. That band can't be used for anything else. Cell phone providers don't want it, and it's completely worthless for broadband (unless the technology changes substantially over the years). So, there's no incentive to reclaim that band. About the only thing it could be good for would be to extend the amateur radio band directly above it, and that won't bring in any money.

Truth is, if channels 5 and 6 were eliminated from TV, there would be more of a demand from other services for it than for AM. It's still not effective for cellular or wireless broadband, but you'd find companies wanting it for their two way radios among other uses. Just giving those frequencies to radio so the FM band could be expanded to accommodate AM stations leaving that band wouldn't sit well with anyone else who wanted it and would be willing to pay good money for it.