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

[NHRadio]

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

The other day I drove into a self service car wash while listening to a graveyarder AM station whose stick was only about a mile away. As the machinery started up the RF noise wiped the signal out completely. How the hell can a car wash generate interference that strong? I'd let the FCC know but but they're too busy raising money with petty Childrens TV report violations.

 

[kenglish]

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

Try buying breakfast at a newly-remodeled McDonald's or Burger King drive-thru. Those new LED lights will wipe out almost anything on the band.

 

[bmcglynn]

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.

Please correct my history on this one, but I believe this was the initial approach of the docket 80-90 stations. I recall somewhere where AM daytimers were given a preference for Class-A allocations.

Where the FCC probably missed out is in doing what the CRTC did in Canada: mandate that the AM license be turned in when going to FM. That's cleaned up the band quite a bit up North allowing stations like CFRA and other serious AM broadcasters to open up their patterns and increase power. Others were happy with their nice new FM ticket and bulldozed their AM towers.

Check out what happened to CKKW's 9 tower array when they were given the opportunity to move to 99.5 FM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LODWI8skP_0

Today, to take an approach like the CRTC would require a change to the FCC allocation rules. I would imagine that in rural areas, FM migrations could take place by relaxing the second and third adjacent standards. That would potentially open up urban centers to open up their signals, increase power, and better serve.

I am probably dreaming.....

Brian

 

[Chuck]

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

Today, to take an approach like the CRTC would require a change to the FCC allocation rules. I would imagine that in rural areas, FM migrations could take place by relaxing the second and third adjacent standards. That would potentially open up urban centers to open up their signals, increase power, and better serve.

I think there is some merit to that idea. With the exception of the $15 clock radios you buy at the drug store, most modern FM radios have fairly decent selectivity, so relaxing the standards would only affect people with cheap radios or perhaps older radios with AFC. In reality, they'd probably never notice. You'd have to run the numbers on this, but it is possible the FCC could swap out 1000 watt AM's for 1000 watt FM's in many areas and silence the AM. I think most owners would be happy to do that. While it wouldn't entirely clean up the band, it would help in many areas.

 

[TheBigA]

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

I think most owners would be happy to do that. While it wouldn't entirely clean up the band, it would help in many areas.

Spectrum space is turf, and no one will give up turf to accommodate anyone else. They battled for years over LPFM. It ultimately took an act of Congress to force it to happen.

And the FCC doesn't have the time or manpower to handle the turf battle, nor do they feel it's even worth it. They're willing to let commercial AM die so they can give those frequencies away to non-profit groups and minorities, rather than big corporations.

 

[Chuck]

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

Spectrum space is turf, and no one will give up turf to accommodate anyone else.

Maybe, but if you get to swap bad turf for better turf, it could work. Most AM owners I know would kill to move to FM.

 

[TheBigA]

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

Most AM owners I know would kill to move to FM.

And FM owners would kill them if they did.

I'd love to move from a bad neighborhood to a better neighborhood for free. But it's not going to happen. Same for AM owners who want to be on FM.

 

[Small Market Guy]

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

Try buying breakfast at a newly-remodeled McDonald's or Burger King drive-thru. Those new LED lights will wipe out almost anything on the band.

I do every day, and usually have my station on. Never noticed an issue. Even with the lower nighttime power.

 

[w9wi]

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

Most AM owners I know would kill to move to FM.

And FM owners would kill them if they did.

I'd love to move from a bad neighborhood to a better neighborhood for free. But it's not going to happen. Same for AM owners who want to be on FM.

Y'know, I used to think that. Indeed, that's about the only way I can explain IBOC. (as opposed to other potential digital technologies which would have delivered better audio quality and, for many stations, improved coverage)

But.. nobody raised a stink when the FCC decided to allow FM translators to relay AM stations. Nor when they decided to allow translators to relay -HD2/-HD3 subchannels.

That said.. I just don't think there's enough FM spectrum left to allow most AM stations to move. Even if you do reduce the channel separation requirements to 400KHz. (which we have in fact done with regard to translators)

To some degree, because there are or soon will be translators & LPFMs on most of the would-be available channels. I suppose under current rules, any AM-moved-to-full-license-FM could bump a translator or LPFM from its channel. But allowing them to do so on currently-unavailable 400KHz splits would essentially repeal the LPFM service entirely and cancel hundreds of just-issued translator permits. The FCC is obviously not interested in #1 and I do think existing broadcasters would raise holy hell over #2.

The other thing that would have to be addressed... under a current Act of Congress, commercial spectrum must be distributed by auction. If new full-power FM channels were to be made available, I don't think the FCC could restrict access to existing AM stations - I think they'd have to accept anyone who can outbid their competitors.

 

[Chuck]

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

This is an interesting discussion. As everyone can see, there are no easy answers, and those that exist probably aren't going to happen. If they did, there would still be some losers out there. Nothing will work for everybody. I suspect that the best that can be worked out is allowing AM's to use FM translators. It would be helpful if the FCC would give those translators Primary Status, so they couldn't be bumped.

I still think repealing the NRSC mask and letting station run flat 15 KHz daytime and 10 KHz nighttime audio would improve the perceived quality of AM signals, even though it would be at the expense of some interference in areas outside of the station's primary coverage area. It still wouldn't be as much interference as IBOC generates, and wouldn't be cost prohibitive for any station.

I believe it was David Eduardo who said several years ago, "IBOC will make broadcasters realize how small their protected contour really is." Forgive me if I'm misquoting you David, but I believe it was at least words to that effect. This would have a similar effect, but at least you'd have a chance of sounding decent in your primary coverage area. It might help.

 

[Chuck]

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

At the recent Texas Association of Broadcasters Convention, Skip Pizzi (from NAB) presented an interesting program on the recent testing of all HD transmissions on an AM station. By his account, it worked pretty well, giving much improved reception into areas where the station's analog signal was marginal at best. In the presentation, he played back some A-B audio comparisons. While I wouldn't call the HD audio "pristine," it wasn't any worse than a decent web stream, with a lot wider perceived frequency response than the analog version. The test set-up used a Ford factory radio in an Avis rent car. He assured us it was nothing special. I may be misquoting here, but I believe he said with the analog signal off, the the HD fit within the station's allotted bandwidth. That would be good news. We don't need more interference.

For a variety of reasons, I'm not a big fan of HD, but I thought this idea was interesting and very well presented. (Skip is good at doing that.) For an AM station with one or more FM translators, this might be something viable. Of course, there is the high cost of HD conversion, licensing and ongoing royalties, so I don't know if the numbers could ever work out. I have my doubts, at least for small stations.

I don't see this as any kind of immediate cure. For an AM with no FM presence, switching to all digital at this point would be suicidal. But for some stations like mine with an FM translator presence, it might work. As I see it, for this to work at all, Ibiquity would need to get much more realistic in their costs to the broadcaster. It seems to me, they should be making their money on the receiver end, charging a small royalty for each one sold. In fact, I think they should have some kind of financial incentive for stations to participate. But so far, that hasn't been a part of their business model.

 

[w9wi]

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

What I thought I read in the report was that all-digital doesn't *quite* fit within the current analog bandwidth, but it comes pretty close. Definitely an improvement over hybrid mode.

What I suspect these AM all-digital tests are getting at is... someone with an AM duopoly flips their smaller station to all-digital mode & uses it to simulcast their bigger station's analog signal. Maybe, CBS flips WPHT-1210 Philadelphia to all-digital mode & uses it to simulcast KYW-1060, leaving KYW in analog. Something like that.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

(keithE4 posted):
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.

End Quote

Looking at those ideas:

1) Class C stations, with, AFAIK, one exception (570 in Marinette, WI) all operate on six Local channels, on which no Class A, Class B or Class D stations operate. Close the Class C stations, and all you've done is wasted six channels without anything on the airspace. Many Class D stations do not cause any interference to other stations at all.
I would state here that allowing all Class IV (then) stations to run 1kw at night, without any power increase given to the other stations on adjacent channels, was a bad move, as it increased adjacent-channel interference to those stations.

2) Directional antennas on AM were invented for a reason - to reduce interference. Eliminating directional antenna protection at night would only have the effect of turning every Class B station into a Class C. And beaming RF into the ocean, as wasteful as it may seem, is often the only way to have an AM in a large or major market serve its market without causing interference to other stations.

3) That would mean either turning all the stations into Super C stations, or, the other way, turning all the US-priority channels to clear channels. Are you proposing reducing the number of AM stations in the US from about 4,000 to about 70?

 

[TheBigA]

I've said this many times in many threads, and I'll say it again: There is absolutely no reason for the FCC to give away frequencies, or improve facilities for free, for profit-making companies. If those companies with low power AMs want FM signals, they can buy them. Lots of them around. But the FCC isn't going to boost power, and consequently increase the financial value, of anything any more. If you don't like the signal you have, either sell it to someone else, or go dark. That's the way the FCC works now. They'd be just as happy if all the for-profit companies left the AM band so they could solve their minority ownership problem or give it to non-profits. If they mandate any facilities changes, it will be after all the current owners vacate.

 

[dougw9wi]

3) That would mean either turning all the stations into Super C stations, or, the other way, turning all the US-priority channels to clear channels. Are you proposing reducing the number of AM stations in the US from about 4,000 to about 70?

I can't speak for Keith but reducing the number of AM stations in the US from about 4,700 to something closer to 1,000 or fewer is what it's going to take to provide a viable band.

Most directional antennas were installed to allow the creation of stations that would otherwise have been prohibited due to interference. There was an alternative: to not authorize these stations. Indeed, there was a less drastic effective alternative: FM.

As Keith says, it's now politically impossible to take either step. There aren't enough FM frequencies anymore and nobody is going to give up their existing license (AM or FM) without a (legal) fight. Really, that's why this whole thread is pointless. Any solution that is politically possible is "engineeringly" pointless; any solution that's "engineeringly" effective is politically impossible.

 

[davideduardo]

Most directional antennas were installed to allow the creation of stations that would otherwise have been prohibited due to interference. There was an alternative: to not authorize these stations.

The "original" non-directional plan had a few 1-A and 1-B clear channels, and then the regional channels were 1 kw or 5 kw day, and 1 kw night, and the Class IVs were 250 watts or less, day and night.

That only allowed radio to grow into the 30's.... when there were far less than 1000 total stations. But 1 kw did not cut it as cities grew, so stations with 1 kw wanted 5kw day and night... they could only do that with directional antennae. The first, in about 1930, was at WSUN in Tampa.

Discussion about why directionals became common has to take into account the need for enough signal to cover growing markets. By the post-War 40's, urban sprawl required greater power, and that almost always meant directional systems. And as noise levels increased, even more power was required to overcome man made noise.

Granted, the FCC allowed some wretched facilities, particularly after the "good channels" were taken by the early 50's. But without directionals, there would be about 500 AMs in the US, and most of them would not have enough power to cover today's markets.

 

[TheBigA]

Any solution that is politically possible is "engineeringly" pointless; any solution that's "engineeringly" effective is politically impossible.

I agree. Key thing to know is that anything the FCC does to improve the AM band becomes an instant financial windfall to the licensee. Like a free government grant. Unless the government gets something in return, why do it? With regulations and licensee obligations falling away, the government has no motivation to improve radio. And really hasn't for 40 years.

 

[dougw9wi]

The "original" non-directional plan had a few 1-A and 1-B clear channels, and then the regional channels were 1 kw or 5 kw day, and 1 kw night, and the Class IVs were 250 watts or less, day and night.

That only allowed radio to grow into the 30's.... when there were far less than 1000 total stations. But 1 kw did not cut it as cities grew, so stations with 1 kw wanted 5kw day and night... they could only do that with directional antennae. The first, in about 1930, was at WSUN in Tampa.

Discussion about why directionals became common has to take into account the need for enough signal to cover growing markets. By the post-War 40's, urban sprawl required greater power, and that almost always meant directional systems. And as noise levels increased, even more power was required to overcome man made noise.

Granted, the FCC allowed some wretched facilities, particularly after the "good channels" were taken by the early 50's. But without directionals, there would be about 500 AMs in the US, and most of them would not have enough power to cover today's markets.

The other side of that coin.. is that as cities grew, often into unpredictable areas, many of these DAs ensured the station would not serve the entire market.

Really, this whole thing is an exercise in alternate history. I would argue that, at the time, it would in fact have been a valid option to refuse most DAs. Maybe allow them for the II-A stations, to allow for some high-powered operations in the West. Everyone else, send them to FM. True, there weren't enough FM radios at the time. I'm betting if FM was necessary to get decent local service, people would have insisted on buying FM radios & the setmakers would have built them.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm betting if FM was necessary to get decent local service, people would have insisted on buying FM radios & the setmakers would have built them.

Prior to 1966, manufacturers would have had to pay a royalty to the Armstrong family for FM, making FM radios more expensive than AM only radios. There really wasn't a motivation for "decent local service." That came later. People were satisfied with AM as it was. More stations was about money, not service.

 

[kenglish]

Every Station Manager should order themselves a copy of the "National Radio Club AM Station Antenna Pattern Book", and look closely at their own station's location and pattern, as well as the adjacent channels.
They would see just how packed the channels are, and get an idea of who would be interfered with if they raised power, changed bandwidth, etc.

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/books/6105.html