Saving AM Radio

[davideduardo]

Not mandating AM radio in cars is still a gamble as to how well the viability of the AM band will be preserved, where, and for how long.

Also a gamble, here as to how well additional broadcasting channels will develop, is the mandating of standard North American FM radios to receive an additional 6 MHz (about 30 channels), from 82 to 88 MHz, the former TV channel 6 and immediately adjacent to the present FM band. While the government might jump the gun, before said extra 6 MHz are actually allocated for this purpose, the sooner the receiving capability is established, the sooner and larger will be the demography of receivers so as to encourage establishment of stations if this allocation to public use is eventually made.

People are not buying stand-alone radios in any significant amount, and adding a band extension in the era of Internet audio services is not going to interest many people.

About 5% of vehicles are bought new each year. It will take 10 years just for half of cars to have the "new" FM band. Too little, too late.

Brazil did expand the FM band to accommodate AM broadcasters. It has not been particularly successful.

 

[MarkW]

SiriusXM is not a public resource. The radio spectrum is. Big difference. The government is responsible for the management of the public resources. That includes natural resources such as forests, minerals, water, and the radio spectrum. They do so for the benefit of the American people. Profit making companies shouldn't interfere in the obligations of the government to serve the people.

The AM in Every Vehicle Act has nothing to do with programming, radio companies, or radio employees. It's not meant to save jobs or assist radio listening. It's simply about management of the radio spectrum as defined by law. What people do and how they behave is up to them. This wouldn't be necessary if auto companies simply did what they've done for years.

The obligation to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is part of the law all radio stations must follow. That same law applies to all licensees of all similar public resources. The water company must do the same thing. Following the law is part of the covenant licensees make with the government. When another commercial enterprise makes a decision that affects the ability of a licensee to serve the public interest, then it's incumbent on that government to protect that resource. If not, the entire basis for broadcast law is in danger. Might as well drop any such obligations on broadcasters.


The only reason AM is included is because its the only band being threatened by car makers.

There is no shortwave or weather band available in cars other than rare instances. AM station owners want special treatment because they are hoping to slow their medium's decline. I cannot fault them for that.

There are plenty of home radios on the market that lack an AM band. I guess I don't understand the obsession with car makers only. I suppose it's because the car makers are an easier target?

Ya know what is unaffected by hurricanes or floods? Satellite radio. Just sayin'.

I know there have been dedicated emergency info channels on Sirius or XM (or both) in the past.

 

[TheBigA]

There is no shortwave or weather band available in cars. AM station owners want special treatment because they are hoping to slow their medium's decline. I cannot fault them for that.

AM owners aren't really pushing this law. They aren't depending on it at all. They won't get new listeners. As I've said, just keeping AM in cars has nothing to do with usage. Car owners can listen to anything they want. AM owners know that. This law won't save AM radio. AM owners would rather be given free FM licenses and allowed to turn in their AMs. The current government isn't interested in that. If the law included federal funds so owners could upgrade their facilities or programming, then it would benefit AM owners. But there's really nothing in the bill for AM owners.

This law is simply about maintaining the status quo, not adding anything new. Its narrowly targeted, and offers car makers options to fulfill the requirement. It wouldn't have been necessary had Ford and a few other companies not spoken up and announced their plans.

 

[MarkW]

The NAB is pushing the law, presumably because the companies that contribute to their coffers want it. I have heard spots on multiple radio stations locally asking their listeners to write or call their representatives in Congress.

Would love to see the math behind the 80 million listeners that David referenced. That would suggest one quarter of America regularly listens to AM radio. In the large and major markets I looked at, the number appears to be closer to 10 to 15 percent - and presumably declining with time. So, yes, I agree with you this legislation - if enacted - most certainly will not "save" AM radio, even though some talk radio hosts are touting it as a "save AM radio" bill.

 

[TheBigA]

The NAB is pushing the law, presumably because the companies that contribute to their coffers want it.

Read the law. There's nothing in it for radio owners. Once again. it's about maintaining the status quo.

If you find something in it that benefits AM owners, let me know.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1669/text

It's also not causing anyone any hardship. No additional costs. No new technology required. No new taxes. Lots of options for car makers.

 

[Michi]

The only way you will get the NAB to give support is if translators are upgraded to 1000 watts, perhaps with a height limit of 300 feed; existing "super translators" such as the ABQ group would be grandfathered as long as they don't move.

When you say "300", I am assuming you mean 300 feet. 1kW at 300 feet (91.4 meters) is a 17.7 km service contour. I had stated up to a 20 km service contour. I chose that number because that is the value that the §73.807 LPFM distance separation to upper tier FM translators is based on.

You will not get NAB acceptance in my opinion unless that "new" class is protected itself and is superior to LPFM stations.

It would require amending the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.

Location and "mobility" would be restricted to within a certain distance from the city center of the existing city of license. I say that as I really doubt that we will ever get away from the idea that, for example, a Newark station is any different than a New York City one. In much of the world, stations are granted to serve a market area, not specific cities and their suburbs. But that is whole separate subject.

The folks in Japan, Australia, UK and many other parts of the world where there are "sub market" low power community radio stations would disagree with that. Both market-wide and sub-market stations serve their own purposes and should have a place at the table.

As over the air listening becomes more and more limited to in-car mobile listening, I really believe that LPFMs will disappear as they don't even cover the average commute distance in many if not most locations.

Once size does not fit all here. When WHCP-LP was still an LPFM, I could pretty much drive from Riverton to Cambridge and hear WHCP-LP most of the way on a stock FM receiver with a stock antenna. Line of sight, Riverton is just under 20 miles from Cambridge. Foothill effect LPFM stations such as KWSV-LP and KQLH-LP in Southern California have very good wide area coverage. Those with limited coverage are subject to more primary station interference, which would be something that these AM translators would be facing. Of course, if we were to put "primary" standards on these AM translators, most of them would be forced off the air because while they protect, they are not being protected as many of them are inside the interfering contours of primary stations.

As an industry, we need to modernize our technical rules. LPFM has proven that third-adjacent protections are no longer necessary. The dozens of Raleigh waivers out there demonstrate that second-adjacent channel interference may no longer be a thing to a certain extent. FM stations have the unique ability to quadruple their channels, but the consumer electronics industry and the automakers botched that up many years ago selling "improved sound quality" (for which there was no serious public outcry for vs. improved picture quality for TV) thus marketing a good product solely towards an audiophile/luxury market while ignoring the "channels between the channels" aspect of the technology until many years after the damage was done.

Also, the Communications Act views broadcast stations as serving "communities" and not "markets". Market based franchises that many places around the world use work great in those areas where privately run radio is much younger than it is here in the USA. Japan is a good example of this method. But also, in many places around the world, there are far fewer broadcasters and far fewer choices for listeners and even with those market-based franchises, there's still room for localized community radio. Many nations, such as the UK, had to turn to DAB to increase the market-wide choices. Look at the Woolsey Fire from a few years ago in Southern California. While KNX and others were just giving some basic information along with all of the other stories of the day, KBUU-LP was providing information on evacuation instructions and providing local resources to the hard hit Malibu area.

 

[MarkW]

Read the law. There's nothing in it for radio owners. Once again. it's about maintaining the status quo.

If you find something in it that benefits AM owners, let me know.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1669/text

It's also not causing anyone any hardship. No additional costs. No new technology required. No new taxes. Lots of options for car makers.

There most certainly is something "in it" for them. It mandates large auto manufacturers within 3 years of enactment to include AM radio as standard equipment on all vehicles. For smaller manufacturers, the rule would not take effect for at least four years.

Maintaining the status quo, as you phrase it, in my view constitutes a benefit for AM station owners, albeit a small one, because mass appeal programming will continue to gravitate to FM irrespective of whether this legislation ever becomes law. This legislation might slow the pace of decay by a tiny amount (certain talk radio blowhards, of course, are painting things in a much different light than that and are acting as if this legislation is crucial to AM's survival).

AM radio stations have plummeted in value for good reason. The audio quality is garbage and the programming is increasingly fringe in nature. There are certainly some noteworthy exceptions, of course, as to the latter point.

It would behoove the federal government to develop emergency message communication infrastructure that isn't so heavily reliant on an archaic broadcast medium.

 

[TheBigA]

There most certainly is something "in it" for them. It mandates large auto manufacturers within 3 years of enactment to include AM radio as standard equipment on all vehicles. For smaller manufacturers, the rule would not take effect for at least four years

That's the status quo. Almost all cars & trucks are already compliant. How does this change or improve the situation for AM?

It has NOTHING to do with programming or audiences. Car buyers are not being forced to do anything.

Maintaining the status quo, as you phrase it, in my view constitutes a benefit for AM station owners,

There is no benefit to AM owners. None. Stop making stuff up.

It would behoove the federal government to develop emergency message communication infrastructure that isn't so heavily reliant on an archaic broadcast medium.

They already have, and it's also mandated by law.

 

[MarkW]

I am not being rude to you. I do not appreciate the tone of your last message. I did read the bill in its entirety and believe my assessment of its contents is correct.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not being rude to you. I do not appreciate the tone of your last message. I did read the bill in its entirety and believe my assessment of its contents is correct.

Then QUOTE parts of the law that benefits AM owners. I'd like to see where you're coming up with this stuff.

If they mandated HD radio, I could understand your point. HD Radio is a trademarked technology, and mandating it would benefit the manufacturer. There is no such benefit in AM radio. It's freeware. In normal cases, it wouldn't need a mandate. But Ford and other companies made a big deal about it.

I toned down my last message.

 

[Michi]

There is nothing in the AM Act that mandates HD. If anything, the proposed law as written does allow manufacturers to install AM radios that only receive HD broadcasts to meet the requirement. But then in the definition of digital broadcasts, it specifically excludes MA3 HD only AM. This poison pill is a problem because Tesla or Ford can turn around and only put HD AM receivers in their cars to meet the law's minimum. With most AM stations not running HD, especially given the nighttime disasters we used to have with the technology, the radio would be useless in many areas perhaps only picking up one station if they are lucky. This really does nothing to "save AM radio". Why the NAB is not pushing back on this is beyond me.

 

[MarkW]

I toned down my last message.

Thank you.

My view is preserving the status quo *is* a benefit to AM station owners - albeit a small one in the grand scheme of things - because the government is requiring car makers (within a period of time) to ensure over-the-air AM programming is accessible to all new car buyers. In other words, the government is acting to preserve accessibility that might not otherwise exist in a purely open, unfettered market.

Because the time limits for compliance I mentioned earlier do not apply until the below referenced "rule" is developed, and because federal agencies (notably, the FCC) would have up to 1 year following enactment of the legislation to develop the actual implementary "rule," the time limits I mentioned above should be applied from the date of the implementary rule as opposed to the date the legislation is signed into law.

The heart of the legislation consists of the following paragraphs:

SEC. 3. AM broadcast stations rule.

(a) Rule required.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator and the Federal Communications Commission, shall issue a rule—

(1) requiring devices that can receive signals and play content transmitted by AM broadcast stations be installed as standard equipment in passenger motor vehicles—​

(A) manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or shipped in interstate commerce; and​

(B) manufactured after the effective date of the rule;​

(2) requiring access to AM broadcast stations in a manner that is easily accessible to a driver after the effective date of the rule; and​

(3) allowing a manufacturer to comply with that rule by installing devices that can receive signals and play content transmitted by digital audio AM broadcast stations as standard equipment in passenger motor vehicles manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or shipped in interstate commerce after the effective date of the rule.​

(b) Compliance.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), in issuing the rule required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish an effective date for the rule that is not less than 2 years, but not more than 3 years, after the date on which the rule is issued.​

(2) CERTAIN MANUFACTURERS.—In issuing the rule required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall establish an effective date for the rule that is at least 4 years after the date on which the rule is issued with respect to manufacturers that manufactured not more than 40,000 passenger motor vehicles for sale in the United States in 2022.​

(c) Interim requirement.—For passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the date of enactment of this Act and manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or shipped in interstate commerce between the period of time beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the effective date of the rule issued under subsection (a) that do not include devices that can receive signals and play content transmitted by AM broadcast stations, the manufacturer of the passenger motor vehicles—

(1) shall provide clear and conspicuous labeling to inform purchasers of those passenger motor vehicles that the passenger motor vehicles do not include devices that can receive signals and play content transmitted by AM broadcast stations; and​

(2) may not charge an additional or separate monetary fee, payment, or surcharge, beyond the base price of the passenger motor vehicles, for access to AM broadcast stations for the period of time described in this subsection.​

(d) Relationship to other laws.—When the rule issued under subsection (a) is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not prescribe or continue in effect a law, regulation, or other requirement applicable to access to AM broadcast stations in passenger motor vehicles.

(e) Enforcement.—

(1) CIVIL PENALTY.—Any person failing to comply with the rule issued under subsection (a) shall be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty in accordance with section 30165(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code.​

(2) CIVIL ACTION.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin a violation of the rule issued under subsection (a) in accordance with section 30163 of title 49, United States Code.​

 

[TheBigA]

My view is preserving the status quo *is* a benefit to AM station owners - albeit a small one in the grand scheme of things - because the government is requiring car makers (within a period of time) to ensure over-the-air AM programming is accessible to new car buyers. In other words, the government is acting to preserve accessibility that might not otherwise exist in a purely open, unfettered market.

The only reason they specify the content is to allow manufacturers to use alternative non-broadcast digital ways of receiving AM. Which, once again, all vehicles already do. Which is why I say it's about maintaining status quo. Preserving access isn't preserving content, nor is it preserving listenership.

 

[MarkW]

I certainly agree with you the legislation is not about preserving content, but that isn't how some syndicated talk hosts are framing the issue:

Mark Levin: Discontinuation Of AM In Cars Is Attack On Conservative Talk Radio.

The radio industry and several members of Congress are united in their stance that AM radio remain in EVs and other automobiles in the future, and now Westwood One-syndicated talk

www.insideradio.com

Conservative Media Claims Conspiracy Killing AM Radios in Cars, Not Dying Format

This in no way has anything to do with conservative talk radio hosts trying to keep their jobs. None at all.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Dondd]

I certainly agree with you the legislation is not about preserving content, but that isn't how some syndicated talk hosts are framing the issue:

Mark Levin: Discontinuation Of AM In Cars Is Attack On Conservative Talk Radio.

The radio industry and several members of Congress are united in their stance that AM radio remain in EVs and other automobiles in the future, and now Westwood One-syndicated talk

www.insideradio.com

Conservative Media Claims Conspiracy Killing AM Radios in Cars, Not Dying Format

This in no way has anything to do with conservative talk radio hosts trying to keep their jobs. None at all.

www.thedrive.com

The screamer in chief. All this "host" does is yell and scream at people, his superior opponents.

 

[MarkW]

There is nothing in the AM Act that mandates HD. If anything, the proposed law as written does allow manufacturers to install AM radios that only receive HD broadcasts to meet the requirement. But then in the definition of digital broadcasts, it specifically excludes MA3 HD only AM. This poison pill is a problem because Tesla or Ford can turn around and only put HD AM receivers in their cars to meet the law's minimum. With most AM stations not running HD, especially given the nighttime disasters we used to have with the technology, the radio would be useless in many areas perhaps only picking up one station if they are lucky. This really does nothing to "save AM radio". Why the NAB is not pushing back on this is beyond me.

Excellent points.

I definitely agree that the following verbiage is ill advised if the primary aim is to ensure access to emergency info:

(3) allowing a manufacturer to comply with that rule by installing devices that can receive signals and play content transmitted by digital audio AM broadcast stations as standard equipment in passenger motor vehicles manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or shipped in interstate commerce after the effective date of the rule.

 

[TheBigA]

I certainly agree with you the legislation is not about preserving content, but that isn't how some syndicated talk hosts are framing the issue:

Everybody is welcome to their opinion. But there's nothing in the legislation that supports their view.

There is no requirement that anyone has to listen.

 

[TheBigA]

Why the NAB is not pushing back on this is beyond me.

Because they know every law involves compromise. This was put in to make it easier for Big Auto to comply.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

I am highly skeptical of the earlier claim that 80 million Americans listen to AM radio weekly.

It comes right out of Nielsen cume data for rated markets.

Yes, it may contain streaming data if the stream is a 100% simulcast.

And, yes, it can contain translator listening. But in nearly all rated markets, translators do not account for a high share of listening as their coverage is so limited.

AM radio stations with an FM translator have typically rebranded themselves as FM radio stations promoting their translator frequency. Some don't even mention their AM position at all anymore. This indicates that these AM radio station owners know the vast majority of OTA listening is to their FM simulcast. Many of them would turn off the AM in an instant if they weren't forced to keep it on in order to use the FM translator. However, the AM is still getting the credit in the inflated statistic being promoted here, isn't it?

AM signals are capable of being heard from over a hundred miles away in the daytime and a thousand or more at night.

The vast majority of AM radio stations don't have such long range coverage.

I'll repeat the case of one of the worst hurricanes in recorded history in 2017 in Puerto Rico where one AM station gave ongoing coverage and information when there were no TV station on the air, no FMs, no cell phones, no landlines, no electricity for up to several months in some areas and for quite a few entire days everywhere.

It's good to know one AM radio station was able to serve this unique island but it's truly an outlier situation. Puerto Rico is far more susceptible to this sort of catastrophe than most parts of the United States and such infrastructure must certainly be prioritized by both the broadcasters and the regional government there. I also suspect that because of where they live, residents are more likely to proactively own AM radios and don't need a government mandate to do so.

Similarly, it was the reinforced WWL in New Orleans that provided service initially after that city's hurricane and flooding when no other media was available.

That was 20 years ago. WWL is a rare AM radio station with a working newsroom anymore. America's wireless infrastructure has come a very long way since then and is quite effective in all the the most extreme emergency situations, but then no technology will ever be 100 percent dependable. We can go back through this site and find multiple examples of when radio completely failed the public in emergency situations, especially in more recent years when radio stations had no news staff and local authorities did not even think about using EAS. The deadly Texas freeze, Maui wildfires, etc.

It would behoove the federal government to develop emergency message communication infrastructure that isn't so heavily reliant on an archaic broadcast medium.

+1000.

 

[semoochie]

The only way you will get the NAB to give support is if translators are upgraded to 1000 watts, perhaps with a height limit of 300 feed; existing "super translators" such as the ABQ group would be grandfathered as long as they don't move.

You will not get NAB acceptance in my opinion unless that "new" class is protected itself and is superior to LPFM stations.

Location and "mobility" would be restricted to within a certain distance from the city center of the existing city of license. I say that as I really doubt that we will ever get away from the idea that, for example, a Newark station is any different than a New York City one. In much of the world, stations are granted to serve a market area, not specific cities and their suburbs. But that is whole separate subject.

I agree that only existing operating AMs would be eligible. Silent AMs would not qualify, and AMs that had been silent and simply turned on just to apply would also not qualify.

As over the air listening becomes more and more limited to in-car mobile listening, I really believe that LPFMs will disappear as they don't even cover the average commute distance in many if not most locations.

If you placed a 300 foot limit on a 1,000 watt translator, it would be a reduction in service for many if not most of them! Translators are kind of fun. You can have a 250 watt translator on a mountaintop!