WSB vs WABC

[ZantennaG1]

If the base concept is making permanent the translators, then any addition would likely have to be restricted to the equivalent of a Class A and subject to existing stations. Probably any permanent allocation would have to guarantee a safety zone to existing stations in the event they had to move transmitter sites... something like a 10 km radius, for example.

A new station grant or an upgrade that increases value is not generally capitalized beyond costs. that is why stations that have had the same owner since founding don't have a large value on the books as they did not pay for the intangible value of the license other than small fees and legal costs.

Any major station that wanted a good FM signal likely has a full B or C they can use. The idea of "rescue" plans is to allow stations that would prefer shutting their AM down if the translator were guaranteed permanence. Right now, a move in power, height or location by an A, B or C can force a translator to move frequency, transmitter site or to even close.

The FCC has made major moves of UHF TV to accommodate cellular operators using "public interest" as the reasoning. I see no reason why t hey could not do the same for AM's by rearranging the FM band. In fact, with cellular being a paid service, granting improvements to radio which is a free service seems to be even more in the interest of the consumer.

I still think that the FCC could repurpose TV channels 5 and 6 for an extended FM band (78-88MHz), as channels 5 and 6 aren't great for DTV, although that would require new radio sets. I also wonder how much room there is left in VHF 7-13 and the UHF band after the multiple truncations of the UHF band and the TV repack.

This idea has been proposed many times over the last 20 years and the FCC has consistently said no. They're not interested in expanding the FM band beyond where it is, and have placed new rules for the stations that attempt to operate at 87.7.

Here we are again, inevitably led to the problem that FM will never have enough space, and someone's solution to that is to expand the band, only to come to the conclusion that the FCC will bend over backwards for cell phone companies and chase down radio pirates in Boston than help legitimate stations by doing the logical thing, so we still don't have enough space. Let's expand the band! Oh wait... And around and around we go! 🎪🎪🎪🎪🎪

 

[CTListener]

The question is if you're an owner, and it's your money on the line, how willing are you to be a pioneer? Because the reality is that while some radios may be able to tune lower, those radios would likely require some kind of adapter or adjustment for that to happen. And then there are all of the other radios that don't have the ability to tune lower. So the FCC says to you they're going to give you a frequency on this new expanded FM band, but they can't guarantee that everyone can receive it. It sounds like HD radio all over again.

And if what you're going to put on your expanded-FM frequency is one of the formats most often named as "format holes" by regular posters here -- 1955-72 oldies, smooth jazz, AAA, Alternative, "deep" classic hits, full-service personality "variety" radio -- then your station will be even more challenged to stay afloat in the face of listener and advertiser/agency indifference than stations attempting such formats on the main FM band. In the end, the expanded-FM stations would wind up being the third country station or fourth AC in their markets or go the paid religion/ethnic route.

 

[ZantennaG1]

The question is if you're an owner, and it's your money on the line, how willing are you to be a pioneer? Because the reality is that while some radios may be able to tune lower, those radios would likely require some kind of adapter or adjustment for that to happen. And then there are all of the other radios that don't have the ability to tune lower. So the FCC says to you they're going to give you a frequency on this new expanded FM band, but they can't guarantee that everyone can receive it. It sounds like HD radio all over again.

That's a fair question, and that's exactly the thing with the 1610-1700 X-band. Back then, the FCC gave the station 5 years to run a simultaneous operation, and then they were expected to turn in one of their applications. In the meantime, we would slowly roll out new car radios and home radios with the new expanded band (it's not that hard, or costly, especially in the digital chip days), and although it would be a risk for me as the "owner" of this hypothetical station, I might consider it if that means I can be in a less crowded zone, perhaps with different power as well, and maybe attract a new audience. If I was a local station owner, on tough times, and the FCC knocks on my door, and tells me "Hey, we're trying something new. Want to be involved?", than I would probably ask what's in it for me, and if they can answer that, then the rewards for success is better than the safety of doing nothing.

 

[ZantennaG1]

I am willing to realize, @TheBigA, that the internet will eventually kill of not just AM, but FM, and even SiriusXM (unless they can prioritize their online presence and continue partnering with Pandora) by the end of the 21st century, so I'd imagine trying to do anything for these stations will seem like a moot point. But that day is not today, and we still need solutions for broadcasting until they are entirely replaced by podcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

I would probably ask what's in it for me, and if they can answer that, then the rewards for success is better than the safety of doing nothing.

What I've learned is that people in government aren't good salesmen. So expecting the FCC to have an answer to that question that makes financial sense to an owner isn't good. The other thing is there are 4700 AM stations. Getting all of them to agree on something is pretty unlikely too.

But that day is not today, and we still need solutions for broadcasting until they are entirely replaced by podcasting.

You know the law of physics about a body at rest? That's how the FCC works. Expecting action from the FCC is expecting too much.

That's why the big owners are coming up with their own solution, which is to transition people to the internet or simulcast with FM.

 

[ZantennaG1]

What I've learned is that people in government aren't good salesmen. So expecting the FCC to have an answer to that question that makes financial sense to an owner isn't good. The other thing is there are 4700 AM stations. Getting all of them to agree on something is pretty unlikely too.

Not all of them has to agree right away, and there are smaller markets where FM expansion is not needed. The rest of us though, could find the expanded band pretty persuasive considering FM's better sound quality than AM, and no miniscule translators as with FCC's previous idea.

You know the law of physics about a body at rest? That's how the FCC works. Expecting action from the FCC is expecting too much..

🤣 Sounds about right to me.

simulcast with FM.

That's where the "expanded' part comes in. Again, the internet will be our only media source for Generation Delta (or something), but not every AM owner wants to give in to the internet right now, and that's okay. If they want to simulcast on FM, where the majority of listening still exists, why not make it a better experience for them?

 

[Kelly A]

All it takes is for an AM rescue plan to be created and limited only to existing AM stations. It also requires changes in second adjacent overlap and other resultant tech rule modifications in many cases, just making translators permanent but with a higher power limit will suffice.

When it comes to scale; AM as a business is a drop of water in an Olympic size swimming pool. The government should have no further interest, nor taxpayer dollar spent, in an effort to save it. That includes not clogging-up the FM broadcast band even further with LPFM's and shoe-horned-in translators. AM Licensee's have had ample time to see the train coming. If they haven't formulated a backup plan one way or the other, expect to be crushed.

 

[Kelly A]

Not all of them has to agree right away, and there are smaller markets where FM expansion is not needed. The rest of us though, could find the expanded band pretty persuasive considering FM's better sound quality than AM, and no miniscule translators as with FCC's previous idea.

But, the problem is: Consumers. Other than OEM units in vehicles, they stopped buying radios over twenty years ago. Even if the Commission opened up worthless low band VHF as an expansion to the FM broadcast band, any station fool enough to go there would be on a deserted island for possibly forever. Hard to stay afloat if nobody is able to hear you. That's even assuming the consumer product manufacturers would be interested in building expanded band radios. Especially since nobody but a handful of radio nerds would buy one.

 

[Kelly A]

But there is a difference in value between and AM & FM, otherwise all radio stations would sell for the same price.

Not only that, but if I still owned FM stations after having either built them from scratch or purchased them by incurring debt over many years, I'd be very unhappy if some form of government welfare was allowed for derelict AM owners space on the FM band to compete with me. If their company paid 7X cashflow for an AM talk station back in 1996 and has refused to see the neon writing on the wall until now, that's their problem. It shouldn't be my problem, nor the government, nor taxpayer's to solve.

So if an AM owner is granted an FM as part of this plan, and then sells that new FM to someone else, there is acquired value.

Another reason this is a bad idea.

The FCC would also have to change ownership rules to accommodate the new FMs in the markets. I imagine they'll get pushback on that from the usual people.

As you can tell, I'd be one of them.

 

[ZantennaG1]

Neon writing? The internet was not a sure thing in 1996. Sure, everyone should have started planning to move to FM by then, and WSB did (95.5), but no one had to imagine that streaming would become the pre-dominant way of listening to "radio". Well, I guess to answer the OP, not even "getting with the program" would save either WABC or WSB from their fate.

 

[Kelly A]

Neon writing? The internet was not a sure thing in 1996.

What? Of course it was. Ever hear of the 'dot com boom'? It started around that time. Mark Cuban sold Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion in 1995. Broadcast.com did this thing called Internet radio streaming. Not nearly as ubiquitous as now, but definitely a thing.

Sure, everyone should have started planning to move to FM by then, and WSB did (95.5), but no one had to imagine that streaming would become the pre-dominant way of listening to "radio".

Apparently Mark Cuban and Yahoo did.

 

[Deleted User]

1996 I remember listening to Kim Komando singing the praises of a program called Real Audio, and I purchased a copy and even on my crappy AOL dial up I was able to listen to audio online....

 

[davideduardo]

But there is a difference in value between and AM & FM, otherwise all radio stations would sell for the same price. So if an AM owner is granted an FM as part of this plan, and then sells that new FM to someone else, there is acquired value.

But that only applies to a future purchaser, not the original grantee.

The FCC would also have to change ownership rules to accommodate the new FMs in the markets. I imagine they'll get pushback on that from the usual people.

Only in the cases where the owner is already at the FM caps. A solution would be to change the cap to 8 on any band in the larger markets instead of 5/3. If the objective is to clean out the AM band, that makes for a logical move.

 

[TheBigA]

A solution would be to change the cap to 8 on any band in the larger markets instead of 5/3. If the objective is to clean out the AM band, that makes for a logical move.

Not likely under the current FCC:

https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/business-and-law/more-change-for-radio-ownership-rules

 

[davideduardo]

Not likely under the current FCC:

https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/business-and-law/more-change-for-radio-ownership-rules

That is not a change in overall ownership caps. It is just moving the limits away from including AM stations if the Commission decides that AM needs a total transformation such as has been done in about 90% of the nations of the world.

 

[davideduardo]

What? Of course it was. Ever hear of the 'dot com boom'? It started around that time. Mark Cuban sold Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion in 1995. Broadcast.com did this thing called Internet radio streaming. Not nearly as ubiquitous as now, but definitely a thing.

Cuban and others founded Broadcast.Com in 1995, and sold it in 1999.

"Broadcast.com was an Internet radio company founded as AudioNet in September 1995 by Cameron Christopher Jaeb. Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban later led the organization and eventually sold to Yahoo! on April 1, 1999, for $5.7 billion, making it the most expensive acquisition Yahoo! has made" (Wikipedia)

Apparently Mark Cuban and Yahoo did.

No, he realized that he had a vulnerable category, and sold it to Yahoo for way too much just before the dot-com bust latter that year. Yahoo had to write it off as it never grew after they bought it.

 

[CTListener]

Cuban and others founded Broadcast.Com in 1995, and sold it in 1999.

"Broadcast.com was an Internet radio company founded as AudioNet in September 1995 by Cameron Christopher Jaeb. Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban later led the organization and eventually sold to Yahoo! on April 1, 1999, for $5.7 billion, making it the most expensive acquisition Yahoo! has made" (Wikipedia)

I can vouch for Wikipedia's accuracy here. I didn't get on the internet until early 1997, and Broadcast.com was definitely still a Mark Cuban property at that time.

 

[Kelly A]

Cuban and others founded Broadcast.Com in 1995, and sold it in 1999.

"Broadcast.com was an Internet radio company founded as AudioNet in September 1995 by Cameron Christopher Jaeb. Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban later led the organization and eventually sold to Yahoo! on April 1, 1999, for $5.7 billion, making it the most expensive acquisition Yahoo! has made" (Wikipedia)

No, he realized that he had a vulnerable category, and sold it to Yahoo for way too much just before the dot-com bust latter that year. Yahoo had to write it off as it never grew after they bought it.

Mark and his startup Broadcast.com were in the same building where I worked, and we regularly talked about tech. Later I knew Mark when he purchased the Dallas Mavericks, and I was a corporate puke at the Seattle Supersonics.

 

[gr8oldies]

Here we are again, inevitably led to the problem that FM will never have enough space, and someone's solution to that is to expand the band, only to come to the conclusion that the FCC will bend over backwards for cell phone companies and chase down radio pirates in Boston than help legitimate stations by doing the logical thing, so we still don't have enough space. Let's expand the band! Oh wait... And around and around we go! 🎪🎪🎪🎪🎪

Not to mention no one is buying radios, and won't follow a station to 76.7, and it takes 10-15 years to recycle all the vehicles on the road. Good idea in 1985.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

Neon writing? The internet was not a sure thing in 1996. Sure, everyone should have started planning to move to FM by then, and WSB did (95.5), but no one had to imagine that streaming would become the pre-dominant way of listening to "radio". Well, I guess to answer the OP, not even "getting with the program" would save either WABC or WSB from their fate.

Both TV and radio streaming have grown exponentially during the pandemic, but streaming is not (yet) the predominant way of listening to audio. The latest Edison Research study shows that in 2014, radio's share of listening among persons 18-54 was 52.7%, and streaming's share was 13.9%. In 2021, the numbers were radio 36.2% and streaming 24.9%.

Radio still reaches 83% of persons 12+ every week, and the streaming pie consists of numerous different slices. I'll add that very little AM/FM listening is done on station streams as evidenced by Nielsen.