BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

[joshzz]

BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Has anyone read the latest Radio World and the suggestions made by Brian Winnekins ?

Brian Winnekins, an AM owner met with FCC Commissioner Pai to discuss his suggestion that the FCC increase the nighttime power of AM stations to the same power they are allowed for daytime broadcast. He asked the commission to conduct a six month study allowing all Class D stations and Class B that have lower power at night, the ability to keep their power at regular daytime power during the night

He also introduced other suggestions such as having the FCC award AM station owners, FM channels without auction. In return the owner would give up his AM station.

He also requested that the FCC test AM DRM. He said the benefit would be in that one wouldn't have to pay huge fee to Ibiquity. My question is what is AM DRM? Can it work?

He also likes the idea of expanding bandwidth transmission to 15kHz and having radio manufacturers allow for 15khz to be received. This sounds like a great proposal. Is it possible?

I like his ideas but with that said, in your opinion, which are viable?

 

[stevensonair]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I disagree with giving AM owners FM channels without an auction.

While I find flaws in the auction system that often award permits to speculators as opposed to operators, I don't believe a fix for inequities in the system is to give out free FM channels to people who are existing owners.

It's bad enough the translator loopholes allow companies like Clear Channel to effectively go over the allowed limit and create new FMs in markets like Minneapolis-St. Paul without creating more band clutter for every troubled AM that exists.

Some of these stations are no longer viable and need to go dark. The ones that are viable and wanted FM should have planned ahead more strategically.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

With the exception of Commissioner Pai, there appears to be no interest on the part of anyone in the FCC to take any action that will benefit AM licensees in any way. The general view seems to be that the FCC is not in the business of granting federal resources to profit making companies. If anyone is going to get spectrum space for free, it would be minorities or non-commercial operators. But profit-making companies are on their own. They need to solve their own problems.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I'm no tech guy, but especially in the Northeast, wouldn't allowing AM full power operation at night be a mess?

 

[Chuck]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I'm no tech guy, but especially in the Northeast, wouldn't allowing AM full power operation at night be a mess?

In theory, the answer is an emphatic "yes." But that would suppose that the FCC had done its job to protect the band from interference from a variety of interference generators like TVs, computers, dimmers, CFL's, switching power supplies and a host of other non Part 15 compliant devices. Unfortunately, it did not do that. The interference is massive. These things exist in mass numbers and have done their part to neuter the AM band. Moreover, small communities no longer rely on receiving distant AM signals as their only connection to the world. There are many other choices. It is possible that allowing higher power at night might actually improve things in a station's primary service area. It probably wouldn't help things for people in the area between two interfering stations. The question is which is idea serves the most people? It is unlikely that someone in New York City cares if they can no longer receive a station from Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Would you?

I suppose the only way to find out if it is actually an improvement is to try it. Meanwhile, I'm putting on my asbestos Jockey Shorts for even mentioning it.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

But that would suppose that the FCC had done its job to protect the band from interference from a variety of interference generators like TVs, computers, dimmers, CFL's, switching power supplies and a host of other non Part 15 compliant devices. Unfortunately, it did not do that.

Exactly. There's an inherent contradiction in the stated goals of the FCC, which on the one hand seeks to protect the frequencies of licensees, while at the same time provide a diversity of voices. They're jamming in more and more stations in the same overcrowded band, and selling spectrum space to telecom. If they're so hungry for money, they should be doing the same thing with AM & FM. But that's not going to happen.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I'm sure glad that I live in a place where a 5kw AM still gets out 100 miles.

 

[w9wi]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I'm no tech guy, but especially in the Northeast, wouldn't allowing AM full power operation at night be a mess?

Well, the first thing is that Mr. Winnikins' station is NOT on a clear channel. (it's WRDN-1430 in Durand, Wisconsin east of Minneapolis) None of the stations on his frequency has any protected skywave coverage under the *existing* rules. The "why am I protecting DXers?" question really doesn't apply on this channel.

I suppose you *could* allow WRDN to run daytime facilities at night. And that would indeed greatly increase coverage in Pepin County. That is, until the other stations on 1430 in Wisconsin and neighboring states also received permission to run daytime facilities at night. There are 1,000-watt daytimers in Iowa, Minnesota, and near Chicago; and a 1,000-watt station in southeastern Wisconsin which is required to go directional at night. (but would be allowed to remain non-directional if WRDN got their way) I think you'd find in the end WRDN's useful nighttime coverage would actually *decline* if everyone was operating day facilities all night.

(While I unfortunately can't find it right now, I'm almost certain I saw where an engineer actually ran the numbers and found that indeed, WRDN's useful night coverage would *decline* if everyone on 1430 ran day facilities at night)

"AM DRM" is an alternative technology that does essentially the same thing as IBOC/HD Radio. I don't see where it would help -- there are almost no DRM radios in consumers' hands.

Y'know, what bothers me about WRDN is that they had an opportunity to have that fulltime signal. Until about 18 months ago they had a perfectly good (full-power) FM on 95.9. They sold it. Now that they have the cash, they want the FM back too. Now, I can't blame Mr. Winnikins for that part -- he didn't yet own the stations when the FM was sold. But he wouldn't have gotten his hands on AM 1430 for anywhere near the price he did if the FM had been part of the deal.

While the numbers would vary from state to state, something around 90% of the AM stations in Wisconsin have, or have had in the past, an associated FM. Most have since either sold the FM, or split it to a different format. I do have some difficulty suggesting we should harm other AM stations in order to provide a nighttime signal to a station that gave it up voluntarily. (maybe we should prioritize available FM/translator channels to AM daytimers which never had an FM signal? IIRC there's one about 40 miles from WRDN..)

I do like the idea of allowing AM stations with FM translators to silence the AM transmitter under certain conditions. In the end, there are simply far too many AM stations (from a technical standpoint) and anything that encourages some of them to go silent will be beneficial to the survivors.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Brian Winnekins, an AM owner met with FCC Commissioner Pai to discuss his suggestion that the FCC increase the nighttime power of AM stations to the same power they are allowed for daytime broadcast.

This would make the AM band like it is in northern South America and Central America, where each country licenses AMs with no regard for the nearby nations and their stations. So AMs often barely cover their city limits, and can be subject to interference literally within miles of their transmitter site.

It would be like the graveyard channels, but worse due to higher power. Just check out 1230, 1240, 1340, 1400, 1450 or 1490 and multiply by several orders of magnitude.

He also introduced other suggestions such as having the FCC award AM station owners, FM channels without auction. In return the owner would give up his AM station.

Where would we find the frequencies? Just because something sounds good and fair does not mean that we can change the laws of physics to convert stations to FM.

He also requested that the FCC test AM DRM. He said the benefit would be in that one wouldn't have to pay huge fee to Ibiquity. My question is what is AM DRM? Can it work?

No, it can't work. First, it is an either / or situation. Analog AMs would convert to digital AMs and existing radios could not hear them. Since nobody buys radios today, most stations would be locked out until consumers got new cars, new phone docks, etc., with digital AM capabilities. DRM, or Digital Radio Mondiale, was developed for shortwave. It hasn't been widely adopted there, either.

DRM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Radio_Mondiale

He also likes the idea of expanding bandwidth transmission to 15kHz and having radio manufacturers allow for 15khz to be received. This sounds like a great proposal. Is it possible?

Increasing bandwidth would mean stations would slop over other stations in the densely populated AM band. With the proposed power increases, it would destroy the band entirely. And, again, nobody buys stand-alone radios today... it would take a decade to get devices that have radios in them to get to a viable level of new-standard capabilities.

The average car in the US is 11 years old. It would take a decade just to get half of them capable of greater bandwidth, and by then we are going to be streaming everything and it won't matter.

Saving AM is like trying to fill a leaky bucket. It just can't be done efficiently.

 

[TheBigA]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

But he wouldn't have gotten his hands on AM 1430 for anywhere near the price he did if the FM had been part of the deal.

Exactly, and this is what hurts the credibility of these owners when they cry the blues to the FCC. They expect the government to give them something for free to increase the value of their 1KW daytimer, so they can sell it for five times what they paid for it. The FCC has seen it too many times, and they're tired of it.

 

[Chuck]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Increasing bandwidth would mean stations would slop over other stations in the densely populated AM band. With the proposed power increases, it would destroy the band entirely.

Saving AM is like trying to fill a leaky bucket. It just can't be done efficiently.

While I agree that fixing AM is a nearly impossible task, I think increasing the bandwidth to 15 KHz would be a good first step in trying. The interference it would cause would not be as severe as that caused by IBOC sidebands on AM. Only a handful of people seem very concerned about IBOC sideband interference. The FCC certainly isn't. The good news in increasing frequency response, is there usually isn't very much energy in extreme high frequency material. What there is, is generally intermittent in nature. That's unlike the IBOC sidebands which are constant.

It's true, there aren't a lot of radios out there that can actually respond to 15 KHz (or even 10 KHz) but some can, at least a little. I'm told that some modern radios are in fact very wide banded, at the expense of selectivity. It seems it is a cheap way out. Of course, they usually have miserable speakers, so you may never hear it.

Even if there aren't many radios that can actually receive all that is transmitted, there is still an audible difference when a full range signal is played through a device with limited frequency response. It is easy to demonstrate with just about any audio editing program and a pair of cheap computer speakers. Simply record some music full range and play it back. Now copy that same music track, but filter the audio at 100 HZ and 5 KHz. Play it back. You tell me which sounds better.

 

[joebob]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I just think the future is outside of terrestrial AM radio transmission. Is there a possibility of continuous WiFi coverage and have these AM stations all stream, to cars, computers, and personal devices, such as phones and tablets. I don't know, but it seems like this is where the future lies.

 

[Chuck]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

I just think the future is outside of terrestrial AM radio transmission. Is there a possibility of continuous WiFi coverage and have these AM stations all stream, to cars, computers, and personal devices, such as phones and tablets. I don't know, but it seems like this is where the future lies.

You may be right, but right now the music royalties paid for online streaming are keeping it from being attractive to small commercial broadcasters. They simply can't afford it.

 

[joebtsflk1]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

AM nighttime power boost...no. Standalone AM stations in small towns need to be moved to an FM channel, then the AM needs to be turned off at night.

Long term, continuous broadcast streams using WiFi may be the future. One continuous stream per station, instead of 300 streams to 300 listeners. To access the stream the radio/phone/tablet/computer would ping the station for permission to unlock the stream. Then the device checks in with the station every minute for continued permission to unlock the stream. Obviously such broadcast streams would have to be limited to a station's service area, beyond which its one to one connections.

 

[K6JHU]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Now it could be that the only way to get the AM band viable would be massive surgery. Cut of half the AM stations in the US and let the remaining stations up the power to get over the noise floor. Now how to do this, lots of luck.

 

[w9wi]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Now it could be that the only way to get the AM band viable would be massive surgery. Cut of half the AM stations in the US and let the remaining stations up the power to get over the noise floor. Now how to do this, lots of luck.

You're on the right track, but I don't think half is nearly enough. I think you're going to have to get rid of about 80% of existing stations to open the band up enough to make the remaining 20% viable.

 

[Chuck]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

If the Internet is indeed the long term solution, perhaps an "end run" to encourage many AM broadcasters to abandon their frequencies would be a sweetheart deal on Internet streaming royalties. After all, Congress set them. Right now many small broadcasters don't stream because they can't afford it. If you are a commercial broadcaster, you don't qualify for better deals like Live360 etc. Instead, you have to deal with Sound Exchange and pay per song, per listener. Most small AM stations can't afford to do that.

Something else that would help, is to give Primary Service status to an FM translator that is licensed to an AM station. As things are right now, if you go to the expense of getting a translator, it can be taken away with no recourse if another full power station decides to make a move. The FCC's take on that is "You can always move the translator to an different frequency." If it were only that easy. Frequently, there is no place to go.

Of course, if the FCC wanted to replace my 1000 watt full time AM with an FM of a similar power, I think I'd be quite interested. I have no idea where they'd put it, but they seem to be pretty good at repealing the laws of physics.

 

[KeithE4]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Now it could be that the only way to get the AM band viable would be massive surgery. Cut of half the AM stations in the US and let the remaining stations up the power to get over the noise floor. Now how to do this, lots of luck.

You're on the right track, but I don't think half is nearly enough. I think you're going to have to get rid of about 80% of existing stations to open the band up enough to make the remaining 20% viable.

The lawsuits brought by the stations forceably turned off would delay the process for at least a decade. This isn't 1928, when the old FRC was able to get away with such action because it had dictatorial power over station licenses.

Taking that possibility away (say, the FCC still had such power to turn stations off at will), one way to get rid of those non-viable stations would be, IMHO:

1. Move all possible Class C and D stations to FM or upgrade to Class B within 5 years. Those that can't move or upgrade must go off the air.

2. Eliminate directional antennas, other than to protect Canada or Mexico or to keep the signal out of the ocean (fish don't listen to radio). This would save on land costs as well.

3. Make all AM frequencies Class A (50 kW) or B (5-10 kW), all non-directional except as described above. Move stations as necessary. Maybe have a Table of Allocations like FM and TV.

Now, I know the chances of this happening are somewhere south of zero, but I can't think of any other way to clean out the band.

 

[w9wi]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

The lawsuits brought by the stations forceably turned off would delay the process for at least a decade. This isn't 1928, when the old FRC was able to get away with such action because it had dictatorial power over station licenses.

Taking that possibility away (say, the FCC still had such power to turn stations off at will), one way to get rid of those non-viable stations would be, IMHO:

1. Move all possible Class C and D stations to FM or upgrade to Class B within 5 years. Those that can't move or upgrade must go off the air.

2. Eliminate directional antennas, other than to protect Canada or Mexico or to keep the signal out of the ocean (fish don't listen to radio). This would save on land costs as well.

3. Make all AM frequencies Class A (50 kW) or B (5-10 kW), all non-directional except as described above. Move stations as necessary. Maybe have a Table of Allocations like FM and TV.

Now, I know the chances of this happening are somewhere south of zero, but I can't think of any other way to clean out the band.

Yeah, really *any* effective way of saving AM will die in the courts.....

I like your ideas above. I think what I'd propose..

1. No new Class D stations permitted period. Existing A/B stations no longer allowed to convert to D.
1a. I'm not so sure Class C stations are that much of a problem - really they only interfere with each other... and they may be useful for serving concentrated populations - for example, specific ethnic groups within a large city.
2. If 50% or more of the population within the daytime service area of a station is within a MSA, at least 90% of the population of the MSA must be within both daytime and nighttime service areas.
2a. Existing stations that don't comply with 2 are allowed to continue to operate as authorized but cannot be modified in a way that would reduce the population served, day or night.
3. No STAs that aren't compliant with minimum coverage regulations. Lose your tower site? No more hooking up a 25-watt LPB to a 50-foot random wire just to preserve the license.
4. AM stations relayed on translators.. are allowed to silence the AM indefinitely if the AM has complied with the minimum operating schedule regulations for the past five years.
4a. If the population within the service area of the translator(s) exceeds 75% of that within the AM station's daytime service area, the AM *must* be silenced.
4b. The AM remains "on the books" to define the area within which translator service may exist.
4c. If the AM is silenced, the translator(s) receives protected status.

I'm sure there are plenty of holes that can be shot in this plan too. Not the least of which being that it doesn't go nearly far enough.

 

[KeithE4]

Re: BOOST AM NIGHTTIME POWER & other interesting suggestions- DO YOU AGREE?

Or maybe instead of eliminating Class C stations, expand the allocations for those stations to every frequency between 1230 and 1490 kHz. All stations on those frequencies would have to run 1000 watts ND day and night. Reserve that block for small towns or ethnic broadcasters within sections of large cities (such as a WSBC or WPNA in Chicago, for example). Programming that wouldn't be mainstream enough for a full-powered FM.

Maybe something like this for divvying up the classes:

Class A (10-50 kW)*: 640-900, 990-1220, 1500-1580
Class B (5 kW): 540-630, 910-980, 1590-1700
Class C (1 kW): 1230-1490

* With the necessary protection for stations in Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas on their allocated frequencies, using lower power and directional antennas as required.

Note that I change 790 and 1150 to Class A frequencies instead of the current Class B, mostly for continuity.