The state of AM Radio

[TheBigA]

It's been my experience when politicians open their mouth with an idea, that's the idea on their agenda. They didn't come up with an idea so someone else could offer a different one.

 

[raccoonradio]

Fybush's new column talks a lot about this whole AM mess which has developed over the decades.
http://www.fybush.com/nerw-20130923/ by subscription

>>...it’s no substitute for the sort of fully-thought-out plan for the band that’s been missing for many decades now. Does the FCC actually intend to promote greater listening to the AM band itself? If so, it doesn’t seem that moving “AM stations” to FM is the way to do it. Is the goal to throw a lifeline to AM station owners? If that’s the case, why force them to continue to operate on AM at all?

 

[Nate Wesley]

Gee, I feel like I'm dumber than a box of hair, since I have no idea of what you are trying to say above. In fact, I really don't see how anything above can "save" amplitude-modulated radio broadcasts that rely on propagating signals into "the air".

Am I alone on this?

I was the guy who posted that quote you quoted. (http://radiodiscussions.com/showthr...-of-AM-Radio&p=5926257&viewfull=1#post5926257)

Instead of giving every AM an FM translator (which as previously mentioned seemed problematic), I suggested we use big market FMs to multicast AM stations. We 'could' use HDRadio for this, but FMeXtra/VuCast wouldn't have so many proprietary hurdles.

Put a slick new mobile device (do we call it a radio, or perhaps a 'free mobile audio pod'?) in people's hands that gives them artist/program info, album art, the weather, etc. on a touch screen. HDRadio or not, there should have been a much slicker "radio" in the hands of users a long time ago...one that might renew interest in free media.

Basically, do what the Zune HD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune_HD) should have done at a much lower price.

 

[blackgold]

i've got an idea-in 1978, an international frequency agreement went into effect in countries outside the USA and Canada, moving the allocation of AM radio frequencies from 10 khz. to 9 khz. I think we should try it right here. We can move radio frequencies around, allowing daytimer stations to run 24 hours without any interference.

 

[raccoonradio]

9 kHz? Would be ok on analog radios but not digitally tuned ones. New radios needed, old ones obsolete. Why not expand FM dial down to 76 MHz? Sure new radios could pick up the new stations but not old ones. All kinds of freq switched on AM to squeeze more stations in.
.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Why not expand FM dial down to 76 MHz?

Still being used by TV.

 

[coolaid213]

Power Increase

If the transmitters are properly tuned and the power increase is across the board for all stations involved... I don't see how there would be any substantial difference in interference from skip. I've been an amateur radio operator for 15 years now, and I've heard guys on the other side of the country (on 160 meters) running 5 watts take out a local guy cranking out a hundred or more. If X station in Boston is running 1k and Y station in Tampa Florida on the same frequency is running 1k, and you let both of them turn up to 5k, there won't be any increased skywave interference in the service area of either station... outside of the service area yes, it will sound mushy like it already does on graveyard channels. From my experimentation, the interference from the DX station will be offset by an equal power increase locally. My point about a 1/2 watt skipping from one coast to the other is that it doesn't matter how much power each station is using, if they're both cranking out an equal amount of power, it doesn't matter if it's 1 watt or 1 million, the local station is going to win the battle in the service area. The only time I've ever heard a local AM station get stepped on is when the offending station is running considerably more power and conditions were optimal.

I still disagree with regards to callsigns, I firmly believe if you change the call of well known station... some people are going to have a WTF moment. I mean seriously, even if the format doesn't change, people are going to notice something changed and in the back of their mind they'll wonder why that happened.

Also, I don't think the AM = Dial-up analogy is accurate... Dial-up has no technical advantages over broadband, whereas Medium Wave AM broadcasting has some unique advantages over FM VHF broadcasts. Yes AM radio broadcasts have limited bandwidth and that effects audio quality, but when you get past that... there are some glaring *advantages* with respect to signal propagation and range. Part of the advantage in AM broadcasting IS that the signal is narrow banded. The fact that on any night I can tune in any of my favorite clear channel stations and hear them without fail... that's something in itself. In the future the full potential of AM MW broadcasting may be realized.... time will tell..

 

[blackgold]

Surprise!

Your link that was posted was not "Saving AM or postponing the inevitable," but it'
s a link to "Starting A New Radio Station-WRKO!"

 

[JaneChristo]

Here it is:

http://bostonradio.blogspot.com/2013/09/saving-am-or-postponing-inevitable.html

 

[mjlarochelle2]

But most Central and South American and Caribbean stations use slogans as their main IDs: Radio Musical, Radio Tropical, Radio Reloj, Radio Rebelde, etc. Australian stations use odd number-letter combinations like 2FJ and 8JX; I wouldn't call them callsigns, I'm really not sure what they are. Maybe the prefix (VK? VL?) that would turn them into legitimate calls is omitted?

Indeed; in Australia the prefix is simply omitted, since the country is rather insulated from foreign signals and every station had the same prefix.

I suspect that in Central and South America, it's more a matter of lack of enforcement than anything else. In Canada, there was little or no enforcement for many years, and it has only been in the past 5 or 6 years that radio IDs with call letters have become commonplace again, at least on radio. The only exception is CBC, which on the English service do not use call letters.

 

[mjlarochelle2]

People don't listen to call signs. They listen to programming. If you change the call sign and don't touch the programming, you will not lose a single listener.

My background is in marketing - changing the brand name (which for some stations is the callsign) does have an effect on any business, including radio. Brand recognition is a huge asset and is not something businesses can afford to take lightly.

 

[fybush]

If the callsign is the brand, then I agree with you completely. Nobody in their right mind is going to change "WBZ" or "WSB" without a very good reason. But that's maybe 5% of major-market stations these days. Take WSB as an example again: much of their listenership is now on 95.5 "WSB-FM"...which is legally WSBB-FM, as announced once (and only once) an hour. If that facility changes calls, is anyone going to notice? I think not.

 

[Chad-Stevens]

9 kHz? Would be ok on analog radios but not digitally tuned ones. New radios needed, old ones obsolete. Why not expand FM dial down to 76 MHz? Sure new radios could pick up the new stations but not old ones. All kinds of freq switched on AM to squeeze more stations in.
.

An FM band expansion would take years to complete. It would require relocation of or sharing the spectrum with the remaining TV signals. It might also require co-ordination with Canada and Mexico. It would require large financial investments on the part of AM radio operators to switch bands (into what is currently an RF wilderness) and promote the change to the listeners they have remaining.

In that time, who knows whether portable internet technology will make all this a moot point or whether there will be any AM radio stations worth saving.

 

[crainbebo]

But look at WBEN 107.7's situation. They STOPPED the simulcast because only 5% of the 930-AM audience in Buffalo was listening on FM! 95% (probably not all DXers and 65+) were listening to 930 khz. Maybe if this electronic and computer RFI would slow down more people would listen to AM radio.

-crainbebo

 

[nowradioguy]

An FM band expansion would take years to complete. It would require relocation of or sharing the spectrum with the remaining TV signals. It might also require co-ordination with Canada and Mexico. It would require large financial investments on the part of AM radio operators to switch bands (into what is currently an RF wilderness) and promote the change to the listeners they have remaining.

In that time, who knows whether portable internet technology will make all this a moot point or whether there will be any AM radio stations worth saving.

I think we should focus on ideas that REPAIR the current state of the AM band, instead of looking towards the Internet. For starters, rescind HD operation on the AM band; too much splatter into adjacent channels, not to mention background hiss on the main analog channel. Next, rescind permission for all those daytimers who operate at night with super powers of 5000 milliwatts or so. And, since Canada turned off a good many of its AM stations (yes, they migrated to FM), allow those stateside operators who were protecting Canadian AMs to alter their directional patterns. Granted, this cannot happen overnight, but should be among those ideas considered by anyone serious about saving AM.

If, OTOH, you want a quick solution, or want to throw in the towel re noise/interference from computers et al, just tell the public that all AM transmitters will be turned off on some future date, and everything formerly on-the-air will be moving to the Internet. Let me know how well that works out.

 

[Fenway1912]

I think we should focus on ideas that REPAIR the current state of the AM band, instead of looking towards the Internet. For starters, rescind HD operation on the AM band; too much splatter into adjacent channels, not to mention background hiss on the main analog channel. Next, rescind permission for all those daytimers who operate at night with super powers of 5000 milliwatts or so. And, since Canada turned off a good many of its AM stations (yes, they migrated to FM), allow those stateside operators who were protecting Canadian AMs to alter their directional patterns. Granted, this cannot happen overnight, but should be among those ideas considered by anyone serious about saving AM.

If, OTOH, you want a quick solution, or want to throw in the towel re noise/interference from computers et al, just tell the public that all AM transmitters will be turned off on some future date, and everything formerly on-the-air will be moving to the Internet. Let me know how well that works out.

WJIB Cambridge does quite nicely with its 5000 milliwatts.

I have read that someone has devised a way to eliminate skywave with filters installed at the transmitter. If so that could be the solution.

Look skywave reception no longer has a valid reason to exist ( and skywave listeners have not contributed to a stations bottom line in decades ) - If it could be done stations would no longer need massive transmitter sites for directional signals, and could deliver a signal to all parts of the local area.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I have read that someone has devised a way to eliminate skywave with filters installed at the transmitter. If so that could be the solution.

Nice idea, but filtering at the transmitter won't eliminate it. Radio waves (both groundwave and skywave) are radiated from the antenna, and whether or not skywave is radiated is wholly dependent on the antenna's design. Specific antenna designs can minimize it, but as of yet no one has figured out a way to eliminate it.

Look skywave reception no longer has a valid reason to exist ( and skywave listeners have not contributed to a stations bottom line in decades ) - If it could be done stations would no longer need massive transmitter sites for directional signals, and could deliver a signal to all parts of the local area.

A point some of us have been trying to make through all eight pages (so far) of this thread. DX'ing is irrelevant to the business of radio. Some get it, some don't.

However: Skywave reception (and the interference it causes at distances of hundreds or thousands of miles) is going to occur whether we like it or not. We can't just wish it away. It is caused by the laws of nature and physics, and as some people have yet to learn (i.e., Congress), you can't legislate it away either.

 

[TSBench]

........Here's an interesting article about saving AM radio.......

The only question that matters : are there enough advertising dollars to support 4500 AM radio stations?
Answer: Nope. And whatever money remains is going to be shrinking every year. That horse has already fled the barn.

Being on the wrong side of a paradigm shift is a bitch. And an unforgiving one at that. If you don't think so, go down and ask the manager of your local Blockbuster what he or she thinks.

Regards,
TSB

 

[Fenway1912]

Nice idea, but filtering at the transmitter won't eliminate it. Radio waves (both groundwave and skywave) are radiated from the antenna, and whether or not skywave is radiated is wholly dependent on the antenna's design. Specific antenna designs can minimize it, but as of yet no one has figured out a way to eliminate it.



A point some of us have been trying to make through all eight pages (so far) of this thread. DX'ing is irrelevant to the business of radio. Some get it, some don't.

However: Skywave reception (and the interference it causes at distances of hundreds or thousands of miles) is going to occur whether we like it or not. We can't just wish it away. It is caused by the laws of nature and physics, and as some people have yet to learn (i.e., Congress), you can't legislate it away either.

As I stated earlier the cost of maintaining an AM transmitter site is a huge part of the equation once you start talking directional.

Let's look at the main AM signals in Boston today

590 - Salem obviously has enough buyers lease time to keep them happy.
680 - On life support
850 - ESPN
1030 - Still relevant
1150 - Hasn't been a player in Boston in 50 years. I always thought given their signal they should have gone after WILD's black audience - in the city proper their signal is as good as anyone.
1200 - As long as Bloomberg sends a check
1260 - Hard to believe but 50 years ago it was #1 in the market. Today it is designed to make toddlers plead to Mommy and Daddy take me to Disney World.
1330 - If the check clears you are on the air
1510 - I have no clue in how they pay the electric bill.
1600 - Best remembered for WO9-8989

740-890-950-1430 were not included because of nighttime signal

Salem never made an attempt to make 590 a full time talk station like they did with WIND Chicago. ( they did try that on 1150 )

For breaking news there is only ONE station (AM or FM) you can depend on and that is WBZ.

A friend of mine ( not in biz ) represents the challenge local broadcasters face. She lives in Abington and is in her car often during Red Sox games and she simply listens on XM rather than dealing with 93.7 or 103.7. ( She is in her 50's ) - otherwise in car she listens to XM.

New York City maybe the only market where AM will always do well simply because FM can NOT cover the entire market.

 

[Oldbones]

And, since Canada turned off a good many of its AM stations (yes, they migrated to FM), allow those stateside operators who were protecting Canadian AMs to alter their directional patterns. Granted, this cannot happen overnight, but should be among those ideas considered by anyone serious about saving AM.

Unfortunately, those Canadian stations are still officially "on the books", and the Canadian government doesn't seem to be in any hurry to delete them. Until that happens, nothing will change.

With the exception of a handful of stations (like WBZ), AM has been irrelevant to most people for 30 + years. It's not coming back.