AM sledgehammer: 10X Power Increase Nationwide

[nmoore6676]

The broadband hogs have their eyes on 76-88 MHz as well as taking more of the UHF band away from OTA broadcasters.

Most radio stations will have to move to WiMax or other distribution methods, but it will be a lengthy transition.

I'm not saying radio needs to do a big digital conversion like they did with DTV. My point is simply that when spectrum does open up (ch5 ch6) we should use it to embrace new technologies like WiMax, and not expand fading technologies like talk and music radio.

How is Wimax going to work? It is a similar technology to Cellular telephony and we all know how good that is. In Los Angeles a cell phone makes a nice paper weight when you are caught in the wind. In Iowa it works so good that I need no land line phone here but if everyone moves here for the great reception it will turn into LA.

AM radio is OLD technology but it works, except where it is being killed by the new technology and an unwillingness of the FCC to enforce the noise suppression like they used to do for tech gadgets and more mundane things like microwave ovens. Possibly a mandated transfer to digital could be a salvation but there are many issues I see with digital TV like the local station a weekend ago having the sound of their local news cast out of sync like a really bad movie. It was kind of humorous though when there was a lady on screen with a deep man's voice. I don't even count the number of times the picture pixelates out to black or just freeze frames.

I have made a good living working with computers, I am not an old fuddy duddy who doesn't like new stuff, I just see the limitations and faults. We can improve on old tech but we shouldn't be so quick to kill it all together. If AM radio had programming the people want and couldn't get elsewhere then they will tune in. If you look at ratings there is usually one AM station or more in the top areas, KFI and WLW come to mind without having to check. There are others I can name with loyal listeners who buy stuff and advertisers that want those listeners' business. If nothing else let us old codgers have our AM and let the young whippersnappers have their FM and all the HD sub channels. By the time we all die those big towers will have rusted and fallen anyway.

That all being said, some kind of blanket increase might make the interference worse and actually kill listening in some areas so that is not a saving the band kind of move. I'd rather see a digital only solution with none of the IBOC off channel hash and I'll sustain the digital transmission glitches.

 

[davideduardo]

How is Wimax going to work? It is a similar technology to Cellular telephony and we all know how good that is.

It's similar to cellular in that it uses radio waves. WiMax is already deployed in quite a few big markets (look under either WiMax or Clearwire) and uses very large cells to cover entire smaller markets or segments of larger ones... not the block level cell sites we know from cellular. It's robust, fast and with much greater bandwidth for today's content... remember cellular started being deployed over two decades ago.

If AM radio had programming the people want and couldn't get elsewhere then they will tune in.

This viewpoint is contradicted by reality. AM's only viable formats are news/talk, news and sports. In market after market, AMs in these viable formats which have become concerned about declining under-55 listenership as the audience ages have found that moving to FM or simulcasting on FM produces a large growth in under-55's. In other words, the format is getting less listenership in the younger sales demos because the under-55 audience does not like AM. And it is not an interference issue, as the case of KSL in Salt Lake demonstrates... KSL has one of America's finest AM signals, but the under-55's did not want to listen to AM.

If you look at ratings there is usually one AM station or more in the top areas, KFI and WLW come to mind without having to check.

There are very, very few signals as good as those in the entire US. In fact, as mentioned, there are fewer, on average, than two viable AM signals to each of the top 100 US markets (10 mv/m day and night over the MSA)...

The viable programming on AM has to move to other channels of distribution, as will FM in a much longer time frame.

 

[w9wi]

In all seriousness, isn't it about time for ch5 and 6 to be the new am band?

I would be all for 76-88 MHz to be an expanded FM band, and move all the 'graveyarders' and all the AM stations that operate with 'peanut power' at night to go on FM, but that is a dream...not gonna happen! The broadband hogs have their eyes on 76-88 MHz as well as taking more of the UHF band away from OTA broadcasters.

I see no sign that broadband interests have any interest in 76-88MHz, or indeed any VHF spectrum. Antennas are too big; too much noise. (especially below the FM band)

I suppose you could say they *indirectly* want 76-88 spectrum, in that they indeed want more of the UHF band and to that end they want the existing ch. 5 and ch. 6 TV stations to stay put, they don't want them evacuated to UHF.

And there are existing TV stations on these channels. Stations as large as CBS Nashville & Albany; ABC Philadelphia; and NBC Memphis. These stations are not going away without a fight; they're not going to be much interested in building yet another new transmission facility, even if channels could be found.

Nor will existing FM broadcasters stand for an expansion of the FM band. IMHO much of the reason for the development of IBOC* is that existing full-signal FM broadcasters didn't want to see existing AM daytimers & other such small stations suddenly receiving a competitive full-time full-quality signal. They even fought tooth-and-nail against creation of new LPFM stations, even though they're non-commercial. I don't see FM expansion getting much support from that sector.


* (as opposed to existing digital radio systems that were already in use in other countries)

_________________________________________________

Personally I have very little sympathy for Class D AM stations. They *knew* they were taking out a daytime-only license; they were too cheap to shell out the $$$ to buy an existing full-time license; and now they want to get nighttime authority at the expense of other stations. (other AMs, FMs, TV) Similarly for Class C stations which were never intended to cover large cities.

My sympathy for most Class B stations is similarly limited. A small portion of them were truly "screwed" by ill-advised post-WW2 operations but the vast majority engineered bizarre patterns to shoehorn in a facility where it really shouldn't have been permitted. When the town grew into places where it didn't exist when the station was built... well, that's what you get.

IMHO only the A's, the pre-war B's, and the rural C's have much of a complaint coming.

From a technical standpoint, IMHO the first step towards revitalizing the AM service would be to cancel 80% of licenses. Just about everything licensed since WW2 really shouldn't be there. Once we've thinned the band out to what it can realistically hold, we can think about increasing power for the surviving stations to overcome noise issues. Proper enforcement of Part 15 would be the most important second step.

Obviously, for non-technical reasons , the cancellation of 80% of AM licenses is not going to happen. I think a full-force effort to enforce Part 15 would probably result in Congress forcibly amending Part 15* far before it would result in any significant improvement of the interference situation.

* to loosen the regulations in such a way as to legalize the noisy equipment that's currently being imported

 

[nmoore6676]

How is Wimax going to work? It is a similar technology to Cellular telephony and we all know how good that is.

It's similar to cellular in that it uses radio waves. WiMax is already deployed in quite a few big markets (look under either WiMax or Clearwire) and uses very large cells to cover entire smaller markets or segments of larger ones... not the block level cell sites we know from cellular. It's robust, fast and with much greater bandwidth for today's content... remember cellular started being deployed over two decades ago.

If you were just going to broadcast one way, then deploying relatively few high sited and powerful transmitters would work as you say. But if you are going to use it as internet access then you need two way capability and that is where it will bog down as cell phones have. David, you may know a lot more about broadcast and all but when it comes to data networks you are in my territory. I have been working with data networks wired and unwired for nearly twenty years now and I see problems with traffic levels on WiFi and Wimax deployments down the road.

Broadcasting is primarily a one way process and what we have now works and can continue to work so except for niche programming or vanity radio there is not a lot of need for internet type uses for radio type content. That is not to say that broadcasters should ignore streaming and other extensions of their service just not that it should be a primary delivery means.

If AM radio had programming the people want and couldn't get elsewhere then they will tune in.

This viewpoint is contradicted by reality. AM's only viable formats are news/talk, news and sports. In market after market, AMs in these viable formats which have become concerned about declining under-55 listenership as the audience ages have found that moving to FM or simulcasting on FM produces a large growth in under-55's. In other words, the format is getting less listenership in the younger sales demos because the under-55 audience does not like AM. And it is not an interference issue, as the case of KSL in Salt Lake demonstrates... KSL has one of America's finest AM signals, but the under-55's did not want to listen to AM.

If you look at ratings there is usually one AM station or more in the top areas, KFI and WLW come to mind without having to check.

There are very, very few signals as good as those in the entire US. In fact, as mentioned, there are fewer, on average, than two viable AM signals to each of the top 100 US markets (10 mv/m day and night over the MSA)...

The viable programming on AM has to move to other channels of distribution, as will FM in a much longer time frame.
[/quote]

I can give you names of some people, with their permission, who are making a success though limited with AM stations who do program material that people want and are tuning into AM to get. I am not saying that it is or should be done exclusive of FM but that with a little effort it can work. There are people who have a message and who have gotten LPFM licenses to get their message out, well they could have gone to AM and not be cluttering up the FM band as they do now. In a few years the FM band will sound like a class C AM frequency at midnight. A reasonable amount of power on medium wave could easily cover the same area as a LPFM, actually greater. I am sorry that I can not accept killing off the AM band just yet and you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[davideduardo]

If you were just going to broadcast one way, then deploying relatively few high sited and powerful transmitters would work as you say. But if you are going to use it as internet access then you need two way capability and that is where it will bog down as cell phones have.

The reason the broadband sector wants so much spectrum is that WiMax is a leap beyond even the very high speed connectivity of Korea and Japan with a wireless model.

From something I have saved...

"The fastest WiFi connection can transmit up to 54 megabits per second under optimal conditions. WiMAX should be able to handle up to 70 megabits per second. Even once that 70 megabits is split up between several dozen businesses or a few hundred home users, it will provide at least the equivalent of cable-modem transfer rates to each user.

The biggest difference isn't speed; it's distance. WiMAX outdistances WiFi by miles. WiFi's range is about 100 feet (30 m). WiMAX will blanket a radius of 30 miles (50 km) with wireless access. The increased range is due to the frequencies used and the power of the transmitter. Of course, at that distance, terrain, weather and large buildings will act to reduce the maximum range in some circumstances, but the potential is there to cover huge tracts of land. "

Radio stations in a large metro can have separately targeted commercials for each subset WiMax area... think of a Dallas metro that has the ability to sell spots to cover the whole market, or just Dallas or just Tarrant or just Collier County as examples. It's the targeting of local yellow pages editions or local cable systems applied to market wide radio.

A lot of radio companies are working on this kind of distribuition to make their content available on a variety of platforms. The thinking for the future is that people will have a single device (think iPhone or iPad, several generations later) which provides all their information and entertainment... there will be no radios by then.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

Daytimers began at a time when the culture was different. The sidewalks rolled up at 5pm in 1962 when WXXX took the air. Not being on at night wasn't an issue like it is now.

I guess 10 kw might infringe on accepted and long held technical standards. They'd NEVER do that! Look at IBOC AND IBUZZ. Yes they would. The leaky rf is a huge problem in AM these days.

 

[bilco]

Got to disagree Chuck " The sidewalks rolled up at 5pm in 1962 when WXXX took the air. Not being on at night wasn't an issue like it is now." I'm one of the old fuddy duddies at 66, but that means I graduated High school in 1962. Even in the little town of Alden NY, 30 some miles east of Buffalo NY, we were all glued to the AM radios, most of us to WKBW. We didn't have FM radios. My first full time job in Radio in 1964 was at WBUF FM, then a beautiful music station and NONE OF MY FREINDS could listen. Even in that little one horse town we were aliveand well, well after dark. Shucks we even had electricity and indoor plumbing! I drove my parents 58 Chevy with an AM only radio. Radio was an even bigger part of our lives in those days when we only had a few TV stations to listen to. No cable, No direct TV, Almost no UHF TV. No Ipods, no Walkmans.
Bill Croghan CPBE WBØKSW
Chief Engineer,
KOMP/KXPT/KENO/KBAD/KWWN/KWID
Lotus Broadcasting, Las Vegas, NV

 

[davideduardo]

Daytimers began at a time when the culture was different.

Daytimers began before W.W. II, but the real spurt in growth was after TV had taken over nighttime entertainment. Either radio was such a good business or there was a feeling that nights were not necessary, but the quantity of them is amazing.

Oddly, the first top 40 station, KOWH in Omaha, was a daytimer.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Oddly, the first top 40 station, KOWH in Omaha, was a daytimer.

I'd go for "the station generally believed to be the first with a top-40 format" and I think "the first station to describe its format as 'top-40'" might be demonstrably accurate, but I think that calling KOWH "the first top-40 station" is no more accurate than calling KDKA "America's first radio-broadcast station" or even "America's first commercial broadcasting station."

 

[davideduardo]

I'd go for "the station generally believed to be the first with a top-40 format" and I think "the first station to describe its format as 'top-40'" might be demonstrably accurate, but I think that calling KOWH "the first top-40 station" is no more accurate than calling KDKA "America's first radio-broadcast station" or even "America's first commercial broadcasting station."

Actually, the first use of "Top 40" as a term was several years later at Storz' WTIX in New Orleans.

KOWH is widely recognized as being the first station that did nothing but play a very short list of songs over and over with DJs. There is no other instance of a station doing this without any block programming before that.

KOWH's format, which became #1 in its first ratings period, was widely covered in the trades, and was also credited in many, many interviews that were made with people like Bill Stewart and Gordon McLendon himself. Broadcasting Magazine contains quite a few articles chronicling this, and a couple of books like the scholarly bio of McLendon by Gary document KOWH as really being the place where this format was created.

 

[w9wi]

The biggest difference isn't speed; it's distance. WiMAX outdistances WiFi by miles. WiFi's range is about 100 feet (30 m). WiMAX will blanket a radius of 30 miles (50 km) with wireless access. The increased range is due to the frequencies used and the power of the transmitter. Of course, at that distance, terrain, weather and large buildings will act to reduce the maximum range in some circumstances, but the potential is there to cover huge tracts of land. "

How does the WiMAX return channel work?

 

[Lazy J]

WiMax works basically the same as cell phones. Your cell phone only transmits about .1 to .3 watts, but the cell tower miles away can pick it up. However, in very rural area, you can purchase a "bag phone" that transmits up to 3 watts on the return. So your usable coverage increases 10 fold.

If you were in a city or near a WiMax tower, you could use your little USB WiMax antenna. But if you were out in the boonies, you might have to get a higher power directional antenna for your return. A lot of rural ISPs use decommissioned DirecTV dishes aimed at a central tower to provide long distance internet service.

 

[WGTO]

I read the proposed power increase. I agree with much of what is said but the truth is from the perspective of an owner ( me) its not the real answer. In my case as in the case of so many small AM operators we cannot afford it. I spent a lot of time doing engineering to get a power increase for WGTO from 1kw to almost 6kw. But once the Cp was granted I found I could not afford it. I had failed to calculate that i would need new feedline and new ATU cabinets as well as a new Phasor. I had actually thought the old one could take it. ( silly rabbit)

I figured I could find a used transmitter and wanted to get rid of my omnitronixs anyway But the cost of a new phasor floored me. About 40k to handle 6kw for two towers. And that was a rebuilt cost if i shipped the old one to Kintronics and ran NON DA while they redid it. I will probably let the 6kw CP expire unless the tooth fairy comes down with a golden credit card. What we could use is tighter regulation of noise. Just about any car i get into these days has very bad AM due to the computer circuits on-board the car itself. I can drive to Chicago 90 miles from my site turn off the engine and hear WGTO very well. crank up the engine and the computer hash kills it. Not the old whine we used to hear from alternators or the buzz of bad plug wires but the combination buzz and singing from the computer.. its enough to kill AM at anything under 2 millivolts. Now that would be progress if we could muzzle the CPU trash in the average car.. which by the way is also made worse by the noise from cellphone chargers!

 

[Tom Wells]

Ahh, yes, one of the major reasons I drive cars from 1965 to 1972.
I can be sitting at a light, and cars in the next lane over are making enough noise to get into my AM radio.
At one time, it was only motorcycles and hot rods with solid metal core wires that made such interference.
If I can't hear AM next to such a vehicle, how could there be a chance in that vehicle?

Just another example of the FCC dropping the ball. None of the modern automotive control systems comply with part 15 regulations.

 

[bossbill]

Doesn't the new rule allowing FM translators for AM stations take care of a lot of the problems. A 250 watt translator can have some real-world advantage. Of course it doesn't do much for the cluttered FM band, and not possible in congested major markets (but if all the long-distance religious repeaters were gone as well as the LPFMs that operate as hobbyist jukeboxes disappeared, there would be more availability).

 

[nmoore6676]

Doesn't the new rule allowing FM translators for AM stations take care of a lot of the problems. A 250 watt translator can have some real-world advantage. Of course it doesn't do much for the cluttered FM band, and not possible in congested major markets (but if all the long-distance religious repeaters were gone as well as the LPFMs that operate as hobbyist jukeboxes disappeared, there would be more availability).

If I were King the AM-Daytimers and lowest powered AM stations would get first dibs on LPFM for translators. Then I would expand the FM band below 88Mhz and allow any AM stations who wanted to migrate entirely to FM first chance at those channels with a period of allowed simulcasting in order for receivers to be caught up. Once the AM band is cleared I would go back and reallocate the band with an eye to converting it to totally digital with higher power judiciously placed transmitters to adequately cover larger areas, rural especially.

Things like WiMax and Wifi are interesting fun toys for geeks and hobbyists but they will never, in our lifetimes, become a mass communication media such as radio and TV have been. I will never ever buy an I-pod though I do use portable pocket sized equipment, especially AM-FM and weather radio receivers. I use the internet extensively at home and rarely on my laptop away from home. I never text or tweet and I got a cell phone only because there are no public pay phones like there used to be. I hated way back when that I had to have a pager, anyone remember those?, because I felt tied to the world and there are times when I need to shut it out.

 

[kenglish]

What if the FCC just stopped renewing the licenses of AM stations under say... 10kW? .......

Any Thoughts?

What if the FCC just stopped renewing the licenses of anyone who didn't broadcast "Live and Local" for a substantial part of each day? ...Who didn't provide a certain amount of Public Service to their OWN community? ...Who doesn't maintain a REAL presence in their community of license?...Who only parrots one side of all issues?

Maybe say that "If no more than 1/10 of 1% of the local audience can name ANYBODY who is on your station, your license goes back in the pool"?

 

[davideduardo]

What if the FCC just stopped renewing the licenses of anyone who didn't broadcast "Live and Local" for a substantial part of each day? ...Who didn't provide a certain amount of Public Service to their OWN community? ...Who doesn't maintain a REAL presence in their community of license?...Who only parrots one side of all issues?

With Pandora approaching a reach of 15% of the population already, all our traditional radio definitions have to be reevaluated. Te concept and term of "localism" como from the 30's and 40's when the electronic voices in most market areas could be counted on the fingers of one hand.Today, most people have hundreds if not thousands of options.

What can be more "local" to a music lover than a station that is customized to their precise personal taste? THe whole concept of localism is being debunked today by the overwhelming evidence that people seek personalization, not localization.

 

[semoochie]

"Oddly, the first top 40 station, KOWH in Omaha, was a daytimer." KOWH did just fine until Don Burden went up against them with fulltime KOIL and absolutely killed them! This was well over 50 years ago.

 

[davideduardo]

"Oddly, the first top 40 station, KOWH in Omaha, was a daytimer." KOWH did just fine until Don Burden went up against them with fulltime KOIL and absolutely killed them! This was well over 50 years ago.

KOWH still did well for several reasons. First, ratings adjusted for operating schedule, so the missing night hours were not held against them... second, KOIL was owned by Don Burden... third, Storz really had a better station.

KOIL, KISN, KBTR and WIFE were not the shining stars of Top 40... pardoning the pun.