• 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

Saving AM Radio

Theater of My Mind said:
I also won't be surprised to see some of those translators get power increases during their final chessboard moves.
Click to expand...

Depends on how they structure the new class of service for the translators. They already have an advantage where they can be located on high mountains overlooking their communities (such as Albuquerque, where Sandia Crest has the lion's share of them) without having to decrease power.

I have my doubts that substantial increases are going to be allowed initially, for that reason.
 
K.M. Richards said:
You're confusing a previous silent STA with the current operation. It was vandalized, which is why it went silent, but has been rebuilt. They have applied to downgrade the AM to daytime-only operation and have a STA to operate with the lesser facilities until the application is approved.
Click to expand...


The attached pdf states
"
Exhibit In Support Of
Request for Extension of Special Temporary Authority
To allow for proof of performance measurements per the CP Special
Conditions
AM Broadcast Station KBET hereby requests an extension of Engineering Special
Temporary Authority, originally granted on August 21, 2024.
The STA allows operation at 250 watts non-directional daytime which is enabling
continuation of service to the station's community of license (Winchester, Nevada) while
repairs are being made to the station's transmitting facility. Additionally, the STA
enables field strength measurements to demonstrate non-directivity as the use of three
of the four towers used for the station's previously licensed directional operation will not
be used for the non-directional operationof KBET as specified in Construction Permit
file number 0000238465 (0.5 kw -ND).
A condition of the KBET construction permit requires a non-directional proof of
performance to demonstrate that the radiation pattern from the facility is essentially
nondirectional. The Commission’s grant of this STA request will allow KBET to:
1. Continue service to it's community of license.
2. Conduct the non-directional proof of performance measurements specified in the
“Special Operating Conditions” section of the Construction Permit."
 
Was that necessary? It references the CP for 500w daytime, non-directional that I referenced.

The STA simply allows them to operate without restoring three towers that won't be used under the CP. I didn't remember that the STA was for 250w, but that is a nitpick at best.

Or was it the towers you meant when you said "one transmitter"? If so, this is much ado about a misstatement resulting from your own admission that you are not in the business. (Which is okay, unless you try to prove a point without knowing what the actual nomenclature is ... which, as you see, leads to misunderstanding.)
 
davideduardo said:
But K.M's comments show a way to work with this... have those "bridled" translators file for an upgrade to the existing one, where they would be given a different... and stand alone... class along with the same protections as any other FM.

An alternative is to allow supporting AMs to file for a new class, let's say with 100 watts daytime and 50 watts at night. That would reduce interference and make those AMs that want to continue to upgrade or reduce directionality, etc.
Click to expand...
I've always thought that there should be an "AM LP" class.
 
TomásEstefan said:
I've always thought that there should be an "AM LP" class.
Click to expand...

I think you misinterpreted David's suggestion, Tomás.

He is suggesting that AMs that are on the air only to support a translator be allowed to downgrade to a minimum 100w daytime authorization -- and I should point out that a nighttime authorization is not really needed in those circumstances, since § 74.1263 (b) clearly states "FM translators rebroadcasting Class D AM stations may continue to operate during nighttime hours only if the AM station has operated within the last 24 hours", and Class D AMs are, by definition, daytimers -- and right now, Class D's must be licensed for a minimum of 250 watts, per § 73.21 (a)(3).
 
There is no serious financial savings between 250 and 100 watt AM service. A 250 watt AM and a 300 FM translator together should still have a power bill similar to a Class C AM. If you operation can't cover that power bill you need to find something else to do for a living.
 
secondchoice said:
There is no serious financial savings between 250 and 100 watt AM service. A 250 watt AM and a 300 FM translator together should still have a power bill similar to a Class C AM. If you operation can't cover that power bill you need to find something else to do for a living.
Click to expand...
The issue here is not power saving… it is the creation of a low power class that would simplify keeping an AM on the air. If accompanied by reduced antenna efficiencies, they could use a short antenna with counterpoise as a ground system and remain on the air.

The maintenance cost of a simplified AM installation would be reduced, also.

At the same time, any AMs that wanted to keep higher power levels might be able to reduce directionality or even increase power.
 
davideduardo said:
The issue here is not power saving… it is the creation of a low power class that would simplify keeping an AM on the air. If accompanied by reduced antenna efficiencies, they could use a short antenna with counterpoise as a ground system and remain on the air.

The maintenance cost of a simplified AM installation would be reduced, also.

At the same time, any AMs that wanted to keep higher power levels might be able to reduce directionality or even increase power.
Click to expand...

The problem with those short antennas is that while they're cheap(er) to build and operate, they're still not really cheap, since they still require some land and at least a minimal ground system. And because they're short antennas, they throw off a lot of skywave signal even at low power, which means they generate outgoing interference to other stations that's disproportionate to the amount of local primary groundwave service they provide.

Which in turn raises the overall noise floor at night and harms the stations that are still trying to use proper antenna systems to maintain larger usable coverage areas... and further accelerates the wreckage of the AM dial.

It's all a big no-win.
 
Scott, with all of that taken into account, what do you think the drawbacks would be for a daytime-only AM at David's proposed 100w power using a short antenna? Obviously, the nighttime noise floor becomes a non-issue, but how much daytime interfering skywave is likely at that low TPO?

It's an interesting idea, since it would allow a minimal AM operation to keep a FM translator operating 24/7, and it could open some areas up which would allow other higher-powered stations to loosen directional patterns and/or increase TPO if they wanted to maximize their operations. That would actually be a revitalization for those AMs.
 
You could probably come up with a reasonable set of rules that would govern 100-watt AM operation in a way that would cause little or no new interference.

While that's not yet possible de jure, it already exists de facto, so long as the FCC is willing to continue issuing STAs to the hundreds (if not thousands) of stations operating with less-than-licensed facilities.

The reality, too, is that all of the "but this would allow other stations to loosen up their patterns or raise power" ideas don't really pan out in the reality of 2026. It's rare that the disappearance or downgrade of other stations provides enough wiggle room for another existing station to go fully ND, which is the only move that makes any economic sense. There are almost always multiple stations that still need to be taken into account because the AM band was allowed to get so crowded in its heyday.

Designing a new DA and building it out, or building out a higher-power AM facility, is an exponentially expensive proposition these days. AM consulting engineers are few and far between and charge accordingly, equipment manufacturers are exiting the field, copper and steel and tower climbers and erectors are ridiculously expensive, and the ROI on upgrading an AM facility almost always sums out as "you could just buy a better FM in the market for less."

Are there counter-examples? Yeah, but very few. WFIF in Milford CT just recently filed an application that I advised on years ago - the disappearance or downgrade of multiple stations on and around 1510 and 1520 in the New England/NYC/LI area opened a hole for WFIF to go from 1500 to 1510, using its existing towers but with a new phasor and DA. They didn't get much night power out of the deal at all, but moving off 1500 will buy them much better critical-hours coverage without WFED/WTOP from Washington rolling its skywave in over their local signal. (And they have an FM translator I did for them over in the New Haven area, too.)
 
K.M. Richards said:
Or was it the towers you meant when you said "one transmitter"? If so, this is much ado about a misstatement resulting from your own admission that you are not in the business. (Which is okay, unless you try to prove a point without knowing what the actual nomenclature is ... which, as you see, leads to misunderstanding.)
Click to expand...

Yep. And not being in the business plus making sure ChatGPT wasn't hallucinating. I've been a radio nerd for years but never actually been a broadcaster. Most of my knowledge comes from either this forum or personal observation of what the band does in various circumstances.
 
K.M. Richards said:
No, it wouldn't. The Commission has the authority to create a new class of FM service already.
Click to expand...
The limitation, as I understood it, is that the FCC has to auction all new FM allocations which are commercial in nature, and surely that would include a new "A0" class.

However, I could not find that regulation/law in a few minutes of searching, so perhaps I dreamed it up.
 
PTBoardOp93 said:
The limitation, as I understood it, is that the FCC has to auction all new FM allocations which are commercial in nature, and surely that would include a new "A0" class.
Click to expand...

The keywords there are "new FM allocations". We are speculating about existing translator licensees filing to change their Class D service to a new Class A0 designation. (The FCC calls it "minor change in facilities", laughingly enough.)
 
fybush said:
The problem with those short antennas is that while they're cheap(er) to build and operate, they're still not really cheap, since they still require some land and at least a minimal ground system. And because they're short antennas, they throw off a lot of skywave signal even at low power, which means they generate outgoing interference to other stations that's disproportionate to the amount of local primary groundwave service they provide.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking of those antennas on the roof of warehouses or the like with some copper screen laid under the roofing material.

I know those short sticks can generate enormous skywave. A lot of the major commercial stations in Ecuador and most of Central America in the 60's and 70s had longwire L or T antennas and they produced huge DX-able signals that got out thousands of miles.
 
davideduardo said:
I'm thinking of those antennas on the roof of warehouses or the like with some copper screen laid under the roofing material.

I know those short sticks can generate enormous skywave. A lot of the major commercial stations in Ecuador and most of Central America in the 60's and 70s had longwire L or T antennas and they produced huge DX-able signals that got out thousands of miles.
Click to expand...
Even those rooftop antennas are much more expensive than you might think. Looked at copper prices the last few weeks? And you're dealing with finding a willing landlord, paying rent to be there, fixing real or imagined interference problems, securing your antenna from vandals and thieves - it's cheaper than a quarter-wave guyed tower on an acre of land, but still not cheap by any means.
 
TheBigA said:
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is owned and funded by the Australian government. The US government doesn't own any radio stations. With the demise of CPB, it doesn't even fund any domestic radio stations. So we're talking about two different things.

If the US government were to tell AM owners to shut down, the government would either have to compensate them for their financial loss or provide replacement space somewhere else. Such a shut-down might be interpreted as the government restricting free speech.

The car mandate isn't aimed at radio station owners or electronics manufacturers. It's aimed at car companies. It's not law yet. It's coming from congress, not the FCC.
Click to expand...

Beyond what @TheBigA said, which is factually correct, it must also be considered that, in the U.S., unlike Australia (or Mexico or Canada, for that matter), there are a lot fewer FM frequencies available for AM stations to move to. (In fact, in most major U.S. locations, there are absolutely none.)
 
fybush said:
Even those rooftop antennas are much more expensive than you might think. Looked at copper prices the last few weeks? And you're dealing with finding a willing landlord, paying rent to be there, fixing real or imagined interference problems, securing your antenna from vandals and thieves - it's cheaper than a quarter-wave guyed tower on an acre of land, but still not cheap by any means.
Click to expand...
You provided a 2025 reality check.

When I bought HCSP1, 590 AM in San Pedro de Amaguaña, Ecuador in about 1967 it had an inverted L. The flat top was suspended with power line insulaters from two Eucalyptus trees that were perhaps 60 feet tall. The feed was utility line copper, and went right to the final tank of the transmitter (a single 833 for carrier, a par for modulation). I am guessing that, installed, it cost less than S/. 3,000 or about $US 160.

The ground was some buried car radiators and a truck frame. I think they got those free in exchange for "disposing of them".

It got out about 35 to 40 km very nicely, mostly because of the frequency.
 


Back
Top Bottom