Would normal people besides us buy new radios?
-
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
Time For A Rule Change
- Thread starter Cold Coffee
- Start date
I see "saving AM" and over the air broadcasting itself as a worthwhile effort by the government to help the public economic health and help maintain our democracy.
It is not a question of if people are buying radios, but taking steps to assure that over the air broadcast remains available.
Unfortunately the public may not realize how vital it is until after it is gone.
How many independently owned transmitters can a smart phone receive?
On AM radio, every night I can receive audio from many radio stations transmitting from the eastern half of the country. Programming or common ownership is not built into the AM system. The essential matter is the AM transmission system, which is diversified, robust and not proprietary technology.
AM transmitter facilities are cost effective (given the coverage) and the transmission path to my AM radio cannot be controlled by an internet service provider or a smart phone manufacturer. The government presently has no reason to jam reception of AM radio because the public has already jammed themselves by choosing another system with just a few providers and device makers, who are gatekeepers.
Broadcasting of radio waves could be viewed as a guardian of freedom.
AM is the titan and worth preserving.
It is not a question of if people are buying radios, but taking steps to assure that over the air broadcast remains available.
Unfortunately the public may not realize how vital it is until after it is gone.
How many independently owned transmitters can a smart phone receive?
On AM radio, every night I can receive audio from many radio stations transmitting from the eastern half of the country. Programming or common ownership is not built into the AM system. The essential matter is the AM transmission system, which is diversified, robust and not proprietary technology.
AM transmitter facilities are cost effective (given the coverage) and the transmission path to my AM radio cannot be controlled by an internet service provider or a smart phone manufacturer. The government presently has no reason to jam reception of AM radio because the public has already jammed themselves by choosing another system with just a few providers and device makers, who are gatekeepers.
Broadcasting of radio waves could be viewed as a guardian of freedom.
AM is the titan and worth preserving.
Last edited:
As far as I know, it's only Brazil that is doing this and the sale of "new band" radios is "highly disappointing" (an industry term for "dismal") and several of the group broadcasters have postponed their construction of "new band" stations, blaming the political turmoil in that nation.
Do you know of any other nation in South America doing this? I still do work in a number of them, and it does not appear that there is any plan for the use of the old lower channel TV frequencies.
And that is the issue that is making the introduction of the "new band" so uninteresting in Brazil.
If a tower falls in the forest...
KeithE4
The Washington Post slogan is "Democracy dies in darkness" Presently over the air broadcasting has thousands of over the air transmission paths. That is a lot of sunshine.
The Washington Post slogan is "Democracy dies in darkness" Presently over the air broadcasting has thousands of over the air transmission paths. That is a lot of sunshine.
I could have written most of that response from @Michi myself - and it's true that at least some of what I'm envisioning would require some Congressional action.
I'd be interested to run some actual numbers as to how many communities would lose first local service under these circumstances, though. I'd bet that it's at most several hundred out of the 4500 or so AM stations still standing, once you eliminate all the communities that already have other local service, plus the ones in urbanized areas where you can now move "first" local service as long as it's to another community within an urbanized area.
I'm also very interested, Michi, in your take on how the various 307 objectives are served when AM stations simply disappear. I'm deadly serious when I say that the situation on the ground is dire.
An increasing number of AM facilities have no path for survival at all over the next decade, if not sooner - one failure of aging equipment, one bad storm that causes damage, one or two more critical sole-source vendors exiting the business, and so many stations are going to find it literally impossible to keep their AM on the air in any kind of way that makes economic sense.
How is the public better served by taking those stations completely silent?
And I admire your passion for the VHF band, but at least among my client base, it's an impossible sell. I've mentioned it, and the question is always: "why would I spend five figures or more building out a signal nobody can hear?"
Answer that question, especially for operators who might only be billing $200k or less a year, and then maybe it gets somewhere - but most of them would much rather just keep the FM signal they already have.
I'd be interested to run some actual numbers as to how many communities would lose first local service under these circumstances, though. I'd bet that it's at most several hundred out of the 4500 or so AM stations still standing, once you eliminate all the communities that already have other local service, plus the ones in urbanized areas where you can now move "first" local service as long as it's to another community within an urbanized area.
I'm also very interested, Michi, in your take on how the various 307 objectives are served when AM stations simply disappear. I'm deadly serious when I say that the situation on the ground is dire.
An increasing number of AM facilities have no path for survival at all over the next decade, if not sooner - one failure of aging equipment, one bad storm that causes damage, one or two more critical sole-source vendors exiting the business, and so many stations are going to find it literally impossible to keep their AM on the air in any kind of way that makes economic sense.
How is the public better served by taking those stations completely silent?
And I admire your passion for the VHF band, but at least among my client base, it's an impossible sell. I've mentioned it, and the question is always: "why would I spend five figures or more building out a signal nobody can hear?"
Answer that question, especially for operators who might only be billing $200k or less a year, and then maybe it gets somewhere - but most of them would much rather just keep the FM signal they already have.
Defending democracy has next to nothing to with Ancient Modulation radio. Most AM stations run right wing talk, religion, and sports, in English and other languages. Only a few stations air real, propaganda-free news, and most of them simulcast on FM.
Keith, it is the system, not the programming. A smartphone or internet connection can be shut down or content controlled easily and on a large scale. Over the air broadcasting is more independent.
Nobody listens to systems. People listen to programming.
Ask Disney whether it was a company that sold VHS tapes or the content that was on them.
Excellent comments Scott. A minor point- doesn't an AM allotment remain after a station ceases operation? If so the FCC is continuing to provide an opportunity for a broadcaster to provide local community service. And on FM the Class contour coverage of the vacant allotment is protected (as you know).
I agree that people don't listen to systems.
To your analogy, if three companies manufactured and sold all blank VHS tapes (that everyone recorded programming on) , could that have changed available programming?
With the Internet and smartphones, the public has chosen a system with too few gatekeepers. Millions of content providers, but few paths to the public. Over the air broadcasting is much better in my opinion, because there are multiple paths to the public.
I agree that people don't listen to systems.
To your analogy, if three companies manufactured and sold all blank VHS tapes (that everyone recorded programming on) , could that have changed available programming?
With the Internet and smartphones, the public has chosen a system with too few gatekeepers. Millions of content providers, but few paths to the public. Over the air broadcasting is much better in my opinion, because there are multiple paths to the public.
Last edited:
The electric bill on our tower site with an efficient Nautel cranking out 25,000 watts into a 3 tower array ran $3,000 to $5,000 a month depending on time of the year and we were a daytimer. We spent thousands more on upkeep annually. Comparing to the Class C-3 I worked, we ran 5 bays and 8.9 kw. with a monthly electric usage at the tower site at about half or less. Maintenance was nil. Just regular checks. I would think the cost of land, construction and operation and ongoing maintenance to far exceed that of an FM. I base that on my personal experience.
I'd hate to see the AM dial go but listeners are not there is most cases. Only a few heritage stations and some small market stations without local competition do well. Most others lose money. I know of several AM/FM combos, especially in small markets, where the AM loses a couple of thousand a month but the FM pulls a decent profit.
I'd hate to see the AM dial go but listeners are not there is most cases. Only a few heritage stations and some small market stations without local competition do well. Most others lose money. I know of several AM/FM combos, especially in small markets, where the AM loses a couple of thousand a month but the FM pulls a decent profit.
There is no AM table of allocations. When a station surrenders its license, it's gone until there's an AM window for new applications or major changes.
The last of those was over two decades ago.
Real world: nobody wants a new AM. The FCC attempted to auction the facilities it revoked in St. Louis a few years ago, including the old WIL/KZQZ 5 kW 1430. Minimum bid was $50,000.
Nobody bid, and why would they? Even if you could get the CP for $50,000, you've got a million dollars or more ahead of you to buy land, survive a zoning fight, put up multiple towers... and then what? You have a radio station that might be worth $250,000.
bturner1- compare that to cost of streaming. How much would streaming to an average of 500 listeners over half of each day cost? Let's say you are thinking of 5,000 streaming listeners during peak times. How much for that?
Over the air (such as the FM you mention) is a better deal, in my opinion. Fixed vs incremental cost of delivery.
Scott, I wonder if the FCC or Congress could or would seek to make "walled garden" systems such as internet and cell phones have more providers of service? I doubt it.
I don't see it as a question of whether anybody wants a radio station license. I see it as a question of whether anybody wants continued existence of a transmission system that provides an independent path from content creator to the public.
Over the air (such as the FM you mention) is a better deal, in my opinion. Fixed vs incremental cost of delivery.
Scott, I wonder if the FCC or Congress could or would seek to make "walled garden" systems such as internet and cell phones have more providers of service? I doubt it.
I don't see it as a question of whether anybody wants a radio station license. I see it as a question of whether anybody wants continued existence of a transmission system that provides an independent path from content creator to the public.
Last edited:
No, it's the programming. There are still AM stations that I listen to, mainly oldies and sports. But if those stations were to move to FM, it wouldn't matter to me.
When has that happened?
I'm streaming about licensed 10 stations on a shared Icecast server that combined average well over 10x that audience on a service costing $40 per month. These are stations that are just getting by. Another client of mine pays $99 a month for Securenet and averages 300-600 listeners at any time.
I still listen on AM
I even listen to music on it
I even listen to music on it
I thing streaming by radio stations is wonderful. It is truly the golden age of audio for broadcasters because we can deliver excellent audio quality to the audience with more consistency (compared to radio receivers). The part that concerns me is when the other shoe drops. It always does.
KeithE4- you ask "when has that happened?"
Has anything ever happened on your smartphone that you did not request and cannot control?
But you make a good point.
My view is something does not have to happen regularly or even at all for good cause to create a law.
KeithE4- you ask "when has that happened?"
Has anything ever happened on your smartphone that you did not request and cannot control?
But you make a good point.
My view is something does not have to happen regularly or even at all for good cause to create a law.
Last edited:
I’ve been listening to online radio stations since 1998, from al over the world, and not once has one ever been hijacked.
Only spam phone calls and texts. They are dispatched quickly. I am in complete control of what I choose to stream.
At the risk of getting political, it doesn't matter what We The People want. Money talks, and BS walks in the halls of Congress. That's been the case since the Founding Fathers died, if not earlier. And since Congress controls Federal agencies by the laws they pass and the President signs, they call the shots.
- Status