Bill to save AM Radio advances in U.S. House

[davideduardo]

Swell, so congress has crafted this legislation in accordance with its usual level of comprehension of contemporary technological and technical subject matter.

I believe I read that the NAB had assisted in writing the bill. I think they are trying to distinguish between "normal" AM IBOC HD radio which has an analog and a digital component and true all-digital AM HD which has no analog component.

It is interesting that we still use the "IBOC" (In Band On Carrier) designation which was put forth as a selling point against DRM, which requires a separate frequency, transmitter and facility for digital. Nobody is proposing DRM anywhere in the Western Hemisphere so there is no need to distinguish between the two systems in the U.S.

 

[boombox4]

The reason that the bill is aimed at AM remaining in cars is because some automakers took it out (turned it off). FM, so far, is not threated by any move on the part of the automakers -- it's being threatened by increased use of BT and internet based streaming in cars.

When FM is being yanked from US auto soundsystems, then I'm sure that the NAB will be fully behind a bill to keep FM in cars. A lot of lawmaking is not proactive, it's reactive.

 

[radiofan2023]

I believe I read that the NAB had assisted in writing the bill. I think they are trying to distinguish between "normal" AM IBOC HD radio which has an analog and a digital component and true all-digital AM HD which has no analog component.

It is interesting that we still use the "IBOC" (In Band On Carrier) designation which was put forth as a selling point against DRM, which requires a separate frequency, transmitter and facility for digital. Nobody is proposing DRM anywhere in the Western Hemisphere so there is no need to distinguish between the two systems in the U.S.

I thought it was "In Band On Channel". Also hopefully the fact that in TV, ATSC 3.0 is having a hard time getting consumers to buy in due to DRM on the ASTC 3.0 tv signals, will mean that broadcasters won't consider DRM for radio ever.

 

[davideduardo]

I thought it was "In Band On Channel".

It is. I think autocorrect inserted a different word.

Also hopefully the fact that in TV, ATSC 3.0 is having a hard time getting consumers to buy in due to DRM on the ASTC 3.0 tv signals, will mean that broadcasters won't consider DRM for radio ever.

It seems that the only DRM success is in India where the government controls the whole AM band and they can use high power centralized transmitters to cover large areas of the country for the various language services, while FM or Digital would require thousands of transmitters. DRM does make sense for large regional coverage of big nations or whole country coverage of smaller ones.

 

[KeithE4]

I thought it was "In Band On Channel". Also hopefully the fact that in TV, ATSC 3.0 is having a hard time getting consumers to buy in due to DRM on the ASTC 3.0 tv signals, will mean that broadcasters won't consider DRM for radio ever.

Which DRM are you talking about? Digital Radio Mondiale or Digital Rights Management?

 

[davideduardo]

Which DRM are you talking about? Digital Radio Mondiale or Digital Rights Management?

The broadcast technology.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

If Congress and the FCC are going to frame AM radio as an essential public service and require automakers to install AM radios as a matter of public interest, shouldn't they at the same time bring back public interest standards in exchange for a license? This writer makes a compelling argument.

Congress is trying to force carmakers to keep AM radio − it should also use this opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past

Corporate-controlled, political infotainment makes up the bulk of AM radio programming. But there was a time when these stations were more attuned to the needs of the community.

theconversation.com

 

[TheBigA]

If Congress and the FCC are going to frame AM radio as an essential public service and require automakers to install AM radios as a matter of public interest, shouldn't they at the same time bring back public interest standards in exchange for a license? This writer makes a compelling argument.

That opens a bigger can of worms. Do you want the government legislating what's in the public interest?

 

[Theater of My Mind]

That opens a bigger can of worms. Do you want the government legislating what's in the public interest?

Yes. If broadcasters want the government to legislate their product into vehicles using the premise of public service, it only seems fair to define the standards of public service they need to provide in return. The author makes a strong case for this, using examples.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes. If broadcasters want the government to legislate their product into vehicles using the premise of public service, it only seems fair to define the standards of public service they need to provide in return. The author makes a strong case for this, using examples.

He makes a very vague case. No specifics. Right now, we're in a time when each political party is trying to force behavior. If you ask those same politicians to create standards, then you're giving them the chance to use the media to force behavior. The AM legislation is strictly hardware that most of the cars were going to keep anyway.

The main thing the government wants is access to the airwaves for emergency information, which it already has through EAS. That's really as far as they can go. The FCC has some requirements that licensees have to follow. I think he overstates the role of corporations in programming. Nobody forces Audacy to do all-news on WINS. There are lots of other stations that do the same.

 

[davideduardo]

If Congress and the FCC are going to frame AM radio as an essential public service and require automakers to install AM radios as a matter of public interest, shouldn't they at the same time bring back public interest standards in exchange for a license? This writer makes a compelling argument.

The article you cite fails to recognize two facts:

1. Stations don't activate or contribute to EAS notifications. They just relay them.
2. More than half of radio stations in the U.S. do not make money. The FCC, through Docket 80-90 and other technical changes, allowed way too many stations to be licensed and in the current economy, even the biggest stations would be hard-pressed to have fulltime news staffs.

Aside from this, we know from the last 60 or 70 years of regulations that the programming under the banner of "Public Affairs" and other categories of community "service" was useless, boring and irrelevant.

Example: If you were a Top 40 listener in the 60's, and you tuned to your favorite station and found a discussion about city sanitation services, what did you do? Second questions: how did those shows help anyone? From personal. experience as a station manager I know that "community leaders" (an FCC term) hated the whole process and hid when someone from a local station looked for them to waste time in a program nobody would listen to.

It may not be esoteric and sophisticated, but I think providing entertainment to listeners is, by itself, a worthy "community service".

 

[TheBigA]

Aside from this, we know from the last 60 or 70 years of regulations that the programming under the banner of "Public Affairs" and other categories of community "service" was useless, boring and irrelevant.

The writer of the article is a sociologist, which makes him an expert in useless, boring, and irrelevant information.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

He makes a very vague case. No specifics. Right now, we're in a time when each political party is trying to force behavior. If you ask those same politicians to create standards, then you're giving them the chance to use the media to force behavior. The AM legislation is strictly hardware that most of the cars were going to keep anyway.

If they were going to keep it anyway, then there is no need for the bill at all.

Since that doesn't seem to be the case, then why shouldn't there be a debate about the expectations of public service standards needed from AM radio in order for Congress to force automakers to include it in their vehicles, as part of the bill's consideration. Otherwise it seems that broadcasters want something for nothing. That's not the way politics works.

The main thing the government wants is access to the airwaves for emergency information, which it already has through EAS.

Which it already has through FM and NOAA radio stations, TV and cell phones. You and I and everyone on this forum know that this is about legislation that mandates AM radio in vehicles because broadcasters are focused on their business concerns first and foremost.

The FCC has some requirements that licensees have to follow. I think he overstates the role of corporations in programming. Nobody forces Audacy to do all-news on WINS. There are lots of other stations that do the same.

Audacy should have no problem with a station like WINS meeting public service standards but the vast majority of AM radio stations in more rural areas of the country that broadcasters hold up as their examples don't come close to offering that level of service.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Example: If you were a Top 40 listener in the 60's, and you tuned to your favorite station and found a discussion about city sanitation services, what did you do?

My oldies today were interrupted by five minutes about rules for shooting deer in the city limits. So apparently some hours start with local news, not network news.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

Aside from this, we know from the last 60 or 70 years of regulations that the programming under the banner of "Public Affairs" and other categories of community "service" was useless, boring and irrelevant.

That's because broadcasters deliberately make it boring and irrelevant, adhering to the bare minimum letter of the law, putting the absolute minimum thought and resources in their compliance, burying it in the least listened-to time periods so they can get back to their automated programming for the rest of the day, instead of putting any effort at all into following the spirit of the rules meant to make radio more engaging.

 

[TheBigA]

If they were going to keep it anyway, then there is no need for the bill at all.

OK. As of now it hasn't passed, so it may (like many bills) just get discussed without a final vote.

Since that doesn't seem to be the case, then why shouldn't there be a debate about the expectations of public service standards needed from AM radio in order for Congress to force automakers to include it in their vehicles, as part of the bill's consideration.

I think I've explained it as well as I can. Partisan politicians are the wrong people to create public service standards. Might as well ask the fox to devise the perfect henhouse.

Otherwise it seems that broadcasters want something for nothing. That's not the way politics works.

Broadcasters didn't ask for this bill, and it really doesn't benefit them in any way. Also the bill only requires AM. So do you require different standards for AM than FM? The author didn't explain. It sounds like he wants to re-regulate radio as it was in the 70s.

Remember broadcasters don't own the AM or FM spectrum. They just license it. The government owns it, and demands access to it for emergency information. So it's up to government to preserve its resources.

 

[TheBigA]

That's because broadcasters deliberately make it boring and irrelevant, adhering to the bare minimum letter of the law, putting the absolute minimum thought and resources in their compliance, burying it in the least listened-to time periods so they can get back to their automated programming for the rest of the day, instead of putting any effort at all into following the spirit of the rules meant to make radio more engaging.

This is why opening this door to forcing public interest standards is such a bad and useless thing. You're legislating personal taste.

You're telling people how to do their job, and how much effort they need to put into it. It's simply not worth it. Take your license and stick it.

Also the rules were not "meant to make radio more engaging." They were made to force someone's standards on someone else.

Part of the reason why the government dropped a lot of the public interest requirements in the 80s was it costs the government money to enforce those requirements. The justification for deregulation was to shrink the size of government and save taxpayers money.

 

[davideduardo]

The writer of the article is a sociologist, which makes him an expert in useless, boring, and irrelevant information.

I did not know which icon to put here... laughing, crying, screaming, pulling my hair.

Well stated, BigA!

 

[davideduardo]

That's because broadcasters deliberately make it boring and irrelevant, adhering to the bare minimum letter of the law, putting the absolute minimum thought and resources in their compliance, burying it in the least listened-to time periods so they can get back to their automated programming for the rest of the day, instead of putting any effort at all into following the spirit of the rules meant to make radio more engaging.

No, not a fact and not reasonable.

When a station deviates from what their listeners expect from them, nobody benefits. Not the listeners, not the community, not the station.

Example (albeit extreme) in the 50's, early Top 40 station WERE in Cleveland ran the Holy Rosary every evening at 6 PM. I can not believe that more than 1% of the listeners stayed with them... and when Kluge launched WHK "Color Channel 14" WERE was absolutely destroyed.

 

[davideduardo]

Audacy should have no problem with a station like WINS meeting public service standards but the vast majority of AM radio stations in more rural areas of the country that broadcasters hold up as their examples don't come close to offering that level of service.

... because those smaller stations can't afford it. Many are not profitable, the rest are only marginally profitable and depend on networked programming, automation and consistent formats to survive.