This is very interesting, especially for an AM that has 3 separate FM translators that cover the entire metro. I will be watching this.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Fcc approves digital am radio
- Thread starter Buddy Shula
- Start date
IMO this decision came about a decade too later to save AM Radio. While lots of cars have HD built in (and can receive the MA3 format) who's going to spend money to replace their "obsolete" analog AM radios. Try finding one for $10-$20 at your local electronics dealer.
The guy who pushed for digital AM claims there are "70 million" radios in the market already. But how many are actually used?
The guy who pushed for digital AM claims there are "70 million" radios in the market already. But how many are actually used?
There are much fewer than 70 million... while some car models have had HD, not all have and not many until recent years. The average car in the US is over 11 years old now and there are over 250 million vehicles in the country.
That means that only about a quarter of cars have HD and pretty near 0% of homes do. In-home and at work are still over half of all listening. That means about 12.5% of listening devices can hear HD.
Last edited:
Basically, it's a bandwidth grab. Digital broadcasting on AM will allow stations to provide more than just audio services. Reality is that connected cars and internet-connected speakers (with or without digital assistants) will let people listen via the internet and they'll be paying for the bandwidth to do it.
Unless radio station owners can find other revenue streams for the broadcasts from those towers and transmitters, or monetize those additional data streams for low-impact data delivery, AM radio as a medium will die with the current generation of listeners tuning in on their old Zenith kitchen radio or in their cars. Those who choose digital will also have to pay Ibiquity licensing fees and invest in new transmission equipment. Overall, streaming sounds a LOT cheaper.
Speaking of cars, a lot of low-impact information can be streamed along with AM-grade audio. Reception in cars MAY be better, but reception in buildings may actually be worse according to studies.
Unless radio station owners can find other revenue streams for the broadcasts from those towers and transmitters, or monetize those additional data streams for low-impact data delivery, AM radio as a medium will die with the current generation of listeners tuning in on their old Zenith kitchen radio or in their cars. Those who choose digital will also have to pay Ibiquity licensing fees and invest in new transmission equipment. Overall, streaming sounds a LOT cheaper.
Speaking of cars, a lot of low-impact information can be streamed along with AM-grade audio. Reception in cars MAY be better, but reception in buildings may actually be worse according to studies.
I'll bet there are not even ten stations today that are even seriously considering this. The math just does not work. It's not the hardware... that is relatively cheap. It is the loss of about 90% of each station's audience and very very slow prospects of recovering it for years and years.
Interesting but I don't think there are a enough receivers out there for it to work right now. In order for all HD to work every car made needs to come with HD for an extended number of years to seed the market.
HD has if anything lost traction over the last few years in home receivers, after market car receivers, and maybe even in OEM units. I don't think any HD car adapters are made anymore. Even 5 years ago the HD car adapters I bought were new "old" stock. I just recently removed the last adapter I still had in place since the AMs I bought them to receive have all reverted to analog only. Strangely, there are now more AM Stereo stations near me (1) than AM-HD (0) - and my OEM car radio has c-quam. The failure of HD adapters, home receivers and after market car units show that consumers are not seeking this out so it will need to be forced on them.
If the FCC mandated that all new radio receivers included HD about 20 years ago maybe we would be in a different place now. If the FCC had forced a single AM stereo standard in 1982 and required receivers with FM stereo to include AM stereo, maybe AM in general would be in a different place.
In my mind this is just another bungled radio technology. Only if the FCC sees a way to make money will they actually take the steps necessary to make a new technology successful (as they did with TV going digital). Back when radio industry consolidation started I wasn't a fan of it but I thought maybe as a consolation prize these big companies could force some technical standards that in particular would help the AM band. They could work with electronics companies to encourage adoption of stereo and widebandth capability in receivers. But they didn't - whenever iHeart bought an AM the first thing they did was make sure the C-Quam encoder was turned off if it had one. Then later they reduced bandwidth for hybrid HD compatibility and all those 1990's and early 2000's Ford SUV's (and other cars) with wide bandwidth AM and AM Stereo radios suddenly had AM that sounded like mud.
From what I see if AM has a digital future then that is streaming.
HD has if anything lost traction over the last few years in home receivers, after market car receivers, and maybe even in OEM units. I don't think any HD car adapters are made anymore. Even 5 years ago the HD car adapters I bought were new "old" stock. I just recently removed the last adapter I still had in place since the AMs I bought them to receive have all reverted to analog only. Strangely, there are now more AM Stereo stations near me (1) than AM-HD (0) - and my OEM car radio has c-quam. The failure of HD adapters, home receivers and after market car units show that consumers are not seeking this out so it will need to be forced on them.
If the FCC mandated that all new radio receivers included HD about 20 years ago maybe we would be in a different place now. If the FCC had forced a single AM stereo standard in 1982 and required receivers with FM stereo to include AM stereo, maybe AM in general would be in a different place.
In my mind this is just another bungled radio technology. Only if the FCC sees a way to make money will they actually take the steps necessary to make a new technology successful (as they did with TV going digital). Back when radio industry consolidation started I wasn't a fan of it but I thought maybe as a consolation prize these big companies could force some technical standards that in particular would help the AM band. They could work with electronics companies to encourage adoption of stereo and widebandth capability in receivers. But they didn't - whenever iHeart bought an AM the first thing they did was make sure the C-Quam encoder was turned off if it had one. Then later they reduced bandwidth for hybrid HD compatibility and all those 1990's and early 2000's Ford SUV's (and other cars) with wide bandwidth AM and AM Stereo radios suddenly had AM that sounded like mud.
From what I see if AM has a digital future then that is streaming.
Loss of audience from an increase in access? I don't follow. From (many) years ago, I recall a discussion of HD radio (on Ted Kopple's Nightline, I think. Maybe.). As I seem to remember, HD/digital would be essentially an upper and lower sideband of the existing analog signal. it would not replace the existing analog signal... just add to it. Maybe my memory or understanding is off-base(?). So those - like me - that would (probably) not go for AM digital, could still access the existing stuff.
But, based on the limited interest/adoption as you suggest, is there some other "motive" for the FCC to do this now?
About 30k
You are categorizing every Am station the same. Weck does not have 100 percent of our listening done on am. Infact, 70 percent of weck listening is on one of our fms.
There are pros and cons.
The world is digital. TV did the same thing.
I think this is a step in the right direction for certain ams. Especially if the have metro coverage by great fm translators.
Most cars are now coming with hd standard . We get told all the time that listeners are on the app in their cars, or the stream, or Alexa, and the am and fms.
This may not be something to do immediately, but it’s a nice option for the future. Especially for an music stations in very populated metro areas.
That may be true in theory, but how many AM stations have a music format in very populated metro areas? You could probably count them on your hands and have a few fingers left over.
Huh? It's the same bandwidth, used more efficiently. The same as what TV got over 20 years ago. And what's wrong with being able to provide more services? It's all licensed and regulated, and approved by the FCC.
At the same time, I really don't expect a lot of stations to do this, regardless of the benefits, until receivers become more widespread, which is a long way off.
Entities looking for more bandwidth to distribute lo-fi data, particularly to mobile receivers, will want to acquire moribund AM stations for that purpose. That's what makes it a bandwidth grab. They'll go all digital and include voice audio along with low data rate services. It will be interesting to see how multi-tower directional AM stations are used. If changes in the method of digital transmission are allowed they could use advanced technology to deliver better quality or additional streams over relatively large areas from a single location.
Of course, all of this would require new receivers for consumers. It's likely to become viable only when current AM audiences fall off the table, or for AM allocations that have no current audience and are willing to either sell or license the frequencies to corporations with deep enough pockets to distribute receivers along with the offered services. Think the Muzak model with their "special receivers" and different content.
Of course, all of this would require new receivers for consumers. It's likely to become viable only when current AM audiences fall off the table, or for AM allocations that have no current audience and are willing to either sell or license the frequencies to corporations with deep enough pockets to distribute receivers along with the offered services. Think the Muzak model with their "special receivers" and different content.
Seems to me there are cheaper and easier ways to do that.
... and more reliable ways. Impulse noise remains a big issue for the medium wave broadcast band.
But the 30% that is on AM is, following the industry average, over 50% at home or work. You would lose that totally. And less than 25% of vehicles today have HD. It will take five to six years to get to 50% if every car comes with it.
So you would lose 85% of that 30%. So if you have a 3 share, you would drop instantly to a 2.1. And that is not just statistics. That is real people who will not hear your clients' messages.
Digital on AM relies on the death of analog AM, or at least many frequency bands of analog AM. As has been previously stated, it's likely too little, too late to save the band as an entertainment medium, but bandwidth is bandwidth and can be repurposed. Frequencies that aren't viable are already being shut down and there's more to come. Idle bandwidth has a way of finding people who want to repurpose it.
Mobile services need bandwidth for even slower-speed data and the AM band can provide that over much greater distances than higher frequencies. Noise is not necessarily a killer for data if you use modern digital transmission techniques, and MIMO can provide much faster speeds on lower-rate signals than most people understand.
Mobile services need bandwidth for even slower-speed data and the AM band can provide that over much greater distances than higher frequencies. Noise is not necessarily a killer for data if you use modern digital transmission techniques, and MIMO can provide much faster speeds on lower-rate signals than most people understand.
There are pros and cons. In our metro, if you can’t get us on am, we have three great fm translators, all in the metro. There is also an ability to pick up new listeners on the am dial with a music format that’s sounds really good on am.
It’s as easy as this , the am frequency does not sound great for music, although I think weck does a great job for sound on am. The world is going digital. The new home radio is a voice activated device. If most cars start including HD standard, right now 50 percent do, than that is a very good reason to go digital. If we did not have three fm translators I would not even consider, but we do, and combined they provide great coverage. Even in house.
We would lose some listeners, and gain some. Eventually, this is going to happen, maybe not this year or next, but eventually.
I am not ready to take the gamble yet because of the lack of receivers, but if they truly become standard in cars, along with voice activated devices at home and mobile apps and streaming, I will definitely consider it. Weck already has an HD license that is still valid forever, since the time CBS\Infinity owned the station.
It won’t happen soon, but I like having an option.
"Ohhh, digital AM! I'm gonna buy a digital receiver right quick!" Said nobody in particular.
There was an interesting discussion of push-pull marketing not long ago in oen of the advertising trades. One of the serious items of discussion was how radio stations "push" text messages to listeners and how listeners basically respond by saying "Enough! Click."
This is a prime example of "push." Can't imagine anybody being interested, and as Dave E noted earlier, why any broadcaster would seriously want to dive in to this.
There was an interesting discussion of push-pull marketing not long ago in oen of the advertising trades. One of the serious items of discussion was how radio stations "push" text messages to listeners and how listeners basically respond by saying "Enough! Click."
This is a prime example of "push." Can't imagine anybody being interested, and as Dave E noted earlier, why any broadcaster would seriously want to dive in to this.
As usual, Dr. Negative. That’s like saying nobody is buying Alexa.
I clearly stated that the only way this would make sense is if all new cars, (50 % do now) come with HD standard.
You guys keep saying AM radio is dead, from from the ratings I see, your totally wrong. WBEN, WGR, AND WECK are in the top 10 35 plus. Buffalo is a unique market. It’s old and as I gets younger, digital will matter here
If you want to rag on a media, rag on cable which will be extinct in a few years.
Consumers will not buy HD radios. We found that out many years ago. But if it is included in cars, that is a different story, and if it is not included, that’s ok too. We just keep doing our thing.
Btw, we have a great text club. We use it sparingly, not to annoy. But when there is something our text club subscribers need to know, they are very appreciative. We do not get any “enough, click”
We save our gunpowder for when it’s truly needed
- Status