• 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

Thoughts on proposed upgrade for Class A FMs

M

Michael Rivers Kramer

I’m curious to see the thoughts on the latest proposal on the latest proposal on creating another class of FM stations. My thoughts are there are so many special interests that will try to block.


I’m also wondering if it’s time to re-examine the outdated 2nd and 3rd adjacent protections.

radioinsight.com

FCC Report 6/23: FCC Seeks Comments About Proposal For New 10kW Class A Maximum – RadioInsight

License Cancellations Dockins Broadcast Group has turned in the license for Classic Rock “The Zone” 960 WGRO/99.7 W259CU Lake City FL. WGRO had gone silent in February due to technical problems with voltage relative to its directional towers. Dockins had surrendered WGRO’s license in February...
radioinsight.com radioinsight.com
 
Michael Rivers Kramer said:
I’m also wondering if it’s time to re-examine the outdated 2nd and 3rd adjacent protections.
Click to expand...
Almost all the nations in the Western Hemisphere allow 2nd adjacent stations of full power in the same city. That rule was created in the very early decades of FM before receivers had better selectivity and FM AGC was introduced.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Almost all the nations in the Western Hemisphere allow 2nd adjacent stations of full power in the same city. That rule was created in the very early decades of FM before receivers had better selectivity and FM AGC was introduced.
Click to expand...
Sure, why not turn the FM band into the days of the congested AM band? It worked so well back then.
And, as I mentioned in my informal surveys of some Gen-Z females recently, they don't care for the 'hate-talk' that will likely infest the FM dial.
 
There needs to be a more complete analysis, and a proposal that allows upgrades other than just one Class, based on protected contours and protection ratios based on average receivers today, not from the early days of FM. This Petition only allows a 2.2 dB increase for one Class of station, and the numbers of upgrades allowed would be almost as limited as the Class C4 proposals. As limited as that is, it will still face tough sledding from the NAB and large group owners of Class B stations in particular. I think protection ratios for cochannel and first adjacent channels are still reasonable though, at 20 dB D/U and 6 dB D/U respectively. The major improvements in receivers are for second and third adjacent channels. My experience is that IF Beat restrictions are also still reasonable, and strange things happen in certain situations I have observed over the years with strong IF Beat situations and strong tropo events, and nearby radios tuned to the same strong signal from the local oscillator.
 
Last edited:
Kelly A said:
Sure, why not turn the FM band into the days of the congested AM band? It worked so well back then.
Click to expand...
But that rule is useless and not necessary. All it would do is allow some suburban rim shots to become full facilities and offer a better variety of formats in most markets. And it would allow a number of metro area A's to increase power or go to common usage sites.
Kelly A said:
And, as I mentioned in my informal surveys of some Gen-Z females recently, they don't care for the 'hate-talk' that will likely infest the FM dial.
Click to expand...
Unlikely as that format is a harder and harder sell to advertisers as the core listeners age.
 
TheBigA said:
This proposal is a load of hooey.
Click to expand...
Not really... but it might require some changes in the adjacent channel separation requirements which are long overdue.
 
DavidEduardo said:
But that rule is useless and not necessary. All it would do is allow some suburban rim shots to become full facilities and offer a better variety of formats in most markets. And it would allow a number of metro area A's to increase power or go to common usage sites.
Click to expand...
But what is considered 'better formats' that aren't already being done on FM? So, AM stations currently doing political talk can move to the FM band with protected status. Isn't that still shoehorning stations onto the FM band similar to what happened on the AM band? There's something to be said for leaving that sort of voice-grade programming on AM, considering the demo is already accustomed to finding it there. I know, up until recently the Commission isn't supposed to care about programming, but moving voice-grade programming to FM just because that's where a younger audience is will potentially harm what's left of terrestrial radio.
 
I found and got several frequencies on the Table of Allocations in the 1980's. Many of these channels just barely fit the spacing requirements for 3 KW at 100 meters at the time. In the 1990's the FCC allowed Class A's to go to 6 KW. Some of these new stations had to go directional or negotiate mutual interference to do that.

Getting rid of the 2nd adjacent requirement will wipeout many of the translators for AM's as those licensees will now be bidding against bigger companies with deeper pockets for their frequencies.
 
Last edited:
Kelly A said:
But what is considered 'better formats' that aren't already being done on FM? So, AM stations currently doing political talk can move to the FM band with protected status. Isn't that still shoehorning stations onto the FM band similar to what happened on the AM band? There's something to be said for leaving that sort of voice-grade programming on AM, considering the demo is already accustomed to finding it there. I know, up until recently the Commission isn't supposed to care about programming, but moving voice-grade programming to FM just because that's where a younger audience is will potentially harm what's left of terrestrial radio.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. In most of the significant nations of Latin America there are many FMs doing talk ranging from topics targeting women to various political perspectives. In Mexico City we have multiple top rated FM talk stations as well as nearly 10 higher powered AMs (10 kw to 100 kw). Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile all have a variety of talk on FM and the usage of radio is very high in those nations.

In the Dominican Republic Z-101 and its repeaters have been #1 overwhelmingly since 1986 when I moved it from music to news talk in the mornings with "The Morning Government" and it soon was all talk 24/7. We even know that there is an employee of the President who gives him a daily synopsis of what is talked about on the morning show. There are several other stations, all on FM, doing different perspectives but Z-101 even gets bigger audiences than the local TV stations.

What I'm saying is that opening FM to talk can produce programming that is not like Limbaugh and not like Stern, either.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Not necessarily. In most of the significant nations of Latin America there are many FMs doing talk ranging from topics targeting women to various political perspectives. In Mexico City we have multiple top rated FM talk stations as well as nearly 10 higher powered AMs (10 kw to 100 kw). Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Chile all have a variety of talk on FM and the usage of radio is very high in those nations.
Click to expand...
I attribute that to in most instances, the much earlier move by governments away from AM. And honestly, the U.S. consumer market doesn't directly relate to other cultures regarding media consumption, including Europe, Asia, or South American countries where the government is much more involved.
U.S. AM broadcasters have seen this day coming for many years and have had ample time to prepare, yet they've kept their head in the sand hoping that the winds of change blow their way. They either need to come to grips with their fate, or dig in and bolster their programming where it already is. Potentially permanently harming what remains of the FM band because they've refused to evolve, shouldn't be an option.
DavidEduardo said:
In the Dominican Republic Z-101 and its repeaters have been #1 overwhelmingly since 1986 when I moved it from music to news talk in the mornings with "The Morning Government" and it soon was all talk 24/7.
Click to expand...
And that's because of what influence? The government. Do you honestly think U.S. listeners 18-34 would be interested in government-centric talk programming? There's one already on radio and TV and streaming. It's called CSPAN. CSPAN has never exactly lit the world afire.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Almost all the nations in the Western Hemisphere allow 2nd adjacent stations of full power in the same city. That rule was created in the very early decades of FM before receivers had better selectivity and FM AGC was introduced.
Click to expand...
But reception on radio receivers has gotten worse, not better. An old receiver from the 1970s is usually much better than the junk they sell now.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Not really... but it might require some changes in the adjacent channel separation requirements which are long overdue.
Click to expand...

Read the last paragraph. Where they say ''Implementing these proposals will enable stations to better serve the public with more reliable signal for news and emergency weather notifications.'' Absolute hooey. More stations won't result in more news or emergency notifications. It'll lead to more stations running Balance of Nature spots. It'll simply further dilute the funding base for radio. More does not equal better. We learned that from Docket 80-90. If the intent was to have more news, they could do that with the existing stations. As it is now, stations can't afford to provide news or emergency weather outside of EAS.
 
Docket 80-90 did result in more diverse ownership and programing for about five years. Then the government allowed the big boys to gobble them all up. The corporates use these frequencies to duplicate the formats of their competitor's, So instead of more variety, we find the dial clogged with more of the same old thing. Regional stations that were once popular are no longer heard.

The real reason many 80-90 stations went broke is because people borrowed money they didn't have and tried to live like a King on it. Knowing how to use money is as important as making money.
 
Last edited:
Flying Dutchman said:
So instead of more variety, we find the dial clogged with more of the same old thing. Regional stations that were once popular are no longer heard.
Click to expand...

Because as I said more stations dilute the funding base. More stations would be fine if they didn't rely on advertising and were owned by the government or one company. But once you diversify ownership, it dilutes the funding, and that brings us to where we are now. More stations won't lead to more variety as long as there are multiple owners because nobody wants to own a station with bad ratings. Weaker formats only work when they become non-commercial. But then, that requires public support, and right now, even that is in trouble.

We can't afford the radio stations we currently have. Adding more won't help.
 
There's only one way this could make big upgrades or new stations. Abolish the FCC's Table of Allocations that rely on milage separations. Then you can wormhole in more FM's with directional antennas using contour protection just like translators do.

Sort of like what was done to AM long ago.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom