Car Makes & Models with No AM Band.

[michael hagerty]

Going on the assumption that someone settles on listening to AM radio because they can't afford any sort of Internet streaming or smartphone, that could likely apply to someone young or old. Of course that scenario would likely be the only reason someone younger than 55 would bother with AM, and would still not provide any benefit to the survival of AM radio.

You're correct on all that, Kelly, but there are also economically disadvantaged people of all ages. AM plays a big role for many of them, especially those of color. And that's the element that until this conversation I had totally overlooked.

 

[Kelly A]

The results of that study could have the effect of killing AM radio.

I guess that's true, considering AM is the least appealing of all media options available. That said; for right or wrong, the future of AM won't be, nor should be in the government's hands. The media consumer marketplace ultimately makes that call.

 

[Kelly A]

You're correct on all that, Kelly, but there are also economically disadvantaged people of all ages. AM plays a big role for many of them, especially those of color. And that's the element that until this conversation I had totally overlooked.

That's all well and good, but who's going to pay for it?

 

[michael hagerty]

That's all well and good, but who's going to pay for it?

Exactly.

But if those community resources are somehow surviving now (even by a shoestring), I want to be a lot more thoughtful than I've been about attitudes that may make it harder for them to do that going forward.

 

[TheBigA]

That said; for right or wrong, the future of AM won't be, nor should be in the government's hands. The media consumer marketplace ultimately makes that call.

Radio companies don't own AM or FM frequencies. They are licensees of the government. Its future should be in the hands of the government, as it is in most other countries. The government had the opportunity to do many things that could have helped AM radio in terms of technical improvements. There are many regulations they could have eliminated. The best thing they could come up with what FM translators. They created this situation, and they're responsible for its future.

Owners of AM stations should do everything they can to find other, more viable platforms for their content.

 

[Kelly A]

Radio companies don't own AM or FM frequencies.

But as we've both discussed, they probably should.

They are licensees of the government. Its future should be in the hands of the government, as it is in most other countries.

But to what end? The MW spectrum is too small and worthless for anything other than AM broadcasting. The reason other countries are/have shut down AM is because their governments had government-funded radio stations operating on MW. Migrating AM when nobody was listening, was low hanging fruit savings to the taxpayers. Here in the U.S., the government doesn't support domestic broadcasting, other than small CPB grants. Broadcasting, especially for stand-alone AM owners, isn't a large enough industry for the government to be tasked with saving.

The government had the opportunity to do many things that could have helped AM radio in terms of technical improvements.

Really? Like what? Expand the FM band in exchange for giving up their AM channel? We've all discussed that the AM band has been in listening-decline since music left. I suppose that would have been the time to expand the FM band, but the VHF TV migration to DTV hadn't been even thought of back then, so no spectrum would have been available. Requiring AM broadcasters to go full MA3 digital would have had a huge backlash, because station owners wouldn't have wanted to pay for it, nor could it be justified for the government to pay for it either.

There are many regulations they could have eliminated. The best thing they could come up with what FM translators. They created this situation, and they're responsible for its future.

As I've said before; FM translators are like throwing water wings to someone stuck in the middle of the ocean. Sure, it might help a little until that next storm comes along.

Owners of AM stations should do everything they can to find other, more viable platforms for their content.

That statement I totally agree with. I've said for years that the writing was on the wall, and that owners who continue sticking their head in the sand when it comes to AM, are in for an eventually bad day.

 

[TheBigA]

But as we've both discussed, they probably should.

I'm not in the "should"" business. There are many issues here, and I can't think of a country that has done that,

Broadcasting, especially for stand-alone AM owners, isn't a large enough industry for the government to be tasked with saving.

Then it's up to them to shut it down. But all this talk about the marketplace is irrelevant when the licensees are prohibited by law from doing the things they would want to do to save their business.

Really? Like what?

The easy thing is removing ownership caps from AM. I'd also like to see consolidation of AM radio to the point where a lot of these 1KW daytimers just get shut down. The FCC needs to decide what they want the future of AM to be.

 

[Kelly A]

I'm not in the "should"" business. There are many issues here, and I can't think of a country that has done that,

You mean like auctioning off spectrum to cell/PCS providers? Just went through a couple rounds of that already. U.S. broadcasters were required to give up seriously big chunks of spectrum, but at least those who did, were compensated for it. As I mentioned; there is no similar desirable spectrum that AM or FM currently sits on, so there is no similar upside to the government being responsible for whether AM broadcasters survive or not.

Then it's up to them to shut it down.

But again, to what end? How would shutting a dying sector of legacy broadcasting do anyone any good? It would be like the government banning buggy whip manufacturing. If anything, forcing AM to shut down would lessen the small amount of administrative fees collected by the FCC from AM stations. And we all know, every government agency is always looking to increase their budget, not shrink it.

But all this talk about the marketplace is irrelevant when the licensees are prohibited by law from doing the things they would want to do to save their business.

Really? Over the past thirty years, what have AM broadcasters as a group, suggested would solve the loss of listeners to the band?

The easy thing is removing ownership caps from AM.

So one group can own all the AM's in the market, to which there is still constant aging-out of listeners with few if any new ones back-filling? Especially with the lack of tangible formats, limited demo reach, and no lending available to do radio M&A deals, I can't imagine any respectable group who would be willing to put their financial future on the line to bulk up on a fading form of media.

I'd also like to see consolidation of AM radio to the point where a lot of these 1KW daytimers just get shut down. The FCC needs to decide what they want the future of AM to be.

So you're suggesting the government buy-out daytimer licensees?

 

[TheBigA]

But again, to what end? How would shutting a dying sector of legacy broadcasting do anyone any good?

I'm not saying it would do any good. I'm just saying it's up to them, not the marketplace. Two different things.

Over the past thirty years, what have AM broadcasters as a group, suggested would solve the loss of listeners to the band?

That's a loaded question. "AM broadcasters as a group" doesn't exist. You have hundreds of owners who all have their own ideas.

So one group can own all the AM's in the market, to which there is still constant aging-out of listeners with few if any new ones back-filling?

You're talking about listeners, and I'm talking about owners. Removing ownership caps would make ownership easier. That's about it. Listeners have already made their decision, which is why radio companies are transtioning to streaming.

So you're suggesting the government buy-out daytimer licensees?

That's what the owners would want, or some kind of compensation for shutting down their business. That's what happens when the government makes a public-private partnership.

 

[Kelly A]

I'm not saying it would do any good. I'm just saying it's up to them, not the marketplace. Two different things.

Going back to my horse and buggy analogy; the government didn't decide that cars would replace horses on public roads, the marketplace did. The government involvement has been to provide roads and infrastructure for the general public to use their cars. The government became involved to satisfy the needs of the taxpayer.

So how would shutting down the AM band benefit either the government, or the taxpayers? Why not just let it fade into obscurity? That process is accelerating anyway.

That's a loaded question. "AM broadcasters as a group" doesn't exist. You have hundreds of owners who all have their own ideas.

And I argue that's part of the problem. The competitive nature of the radio business over decades has created these isolated silos of self-serving owners and groups. Nobody wants to come to the potential aid of a competitor, let alone join forces and lobby the government for something that they refuse to admit is in trouble. Sure, there have been technical collaboration to create new technical standards like color TV and HD Radio, but nothing so broad as to at least keep their foot in the door when times get tough, and the government may be able to help. When it comes to AM licensees, they're on their own in the middle of the ocean. Some with (FM translator) water wings purchased at Walmart.

You're talking about listeners, and I'm talking about owners. Removing ownership caps would make ownership easier.

But if a potential licensee owner can't get financing to purchase even a single AM station, how would it benefit them to buy every AM signal in a market? Let's say that the Commission removed all AM ownership caps. If you were a honcho at Hubbard, or iHeart, or Cumulus, would you recommend in a board meeting that the company spend reserve cash, or use their revolver to buy more AM stations? I mean, come on...

That's about it. Listeners have already made their decision, which is why radio companies are transtioning to streaming.

You're right, the smart ones are.

That's what the owners would want, or some kind of compensation for shutting down their business. That's what happens when the government makes a public-private partnership.

Talk about a one-sided partnership. Let's see, the taxpayers get to buy out beleaguered daytime AM stations because the licensee/owners were too slow, or too clueless to see that their world was closing in on them?

 

[TheBigA]

Going back to my horse and buggy analogy; the government didn't decide that cars would replace horses on public roads, the marketplace did.

But the government never required buggy whips. Bad analogy. The government OWNS the spectrum. Not the broadcasters.

So how would shutting down the AM band benefit either the government, or the taxpayers? Why not just let it fade into obscurity? That process is accelerating anyway.

I think that's what they're doing.

And I argue that's part of the problem.

That's why you don't leave it up to broadcasters. Even the NAB as a single entity is unable to reach a consensus that everyone will agree with.

But if a potential licensee owner can't get financing to purchase even a single AM station, how would it benefit them to buy every AM signal in a market? Let's say that the Commission removed all AM ownership caps.

Supply & demand. Once you remove restrictions, supply goes up, demand goes down, prices plummet. But that's why iHeart doesn't want caps to be removed. They're stuck with a lot of white elephants.

Talk about a one-sided partnership. Let's see, the taxpayers get to buy out beleaguered daytime AM stations because the licensee/owners were too slow, or too clueless to see that their world was closing in on them?

That's why the government doesn't want to do it. Hard to justify to congress. But if they remove regulations, it kills the value of the stations. Neither is a good position. That's' why we have the status quo.

 

[davideduardo]

I'd also like to see consolidation of AM radio to the point where a lot of these 1KW daytimers just get shut down. The FCC needs to decide what they want the future of AM to be.

Most of those AM daytimers now have translators, and they can't operate the FM translators without the AM station being in constant operation.

The only way to do what you suggest is to unlink translators from the AM stations and allow the AMs to go silent; the translators would then need a guarantee of permanence that they do not have now.

 

[TheBigA]

The only way to do what you suggest is to unlink translators from the AM stations and allow the AMs to go silent; the translators would then need a guarantee of permanence that they do not have now.

Right now the government doesn't like that idea. The purpose of FM translators was to help AM owners retain those stations.

If the government changes its view, then the whole house of cards falls down.

 

[Kelly A]

But the government never required buggy whips. Bad analogy.

I was talking about horse and buggies, not specifically buggy whips that time. Here's my comment again:
"Going back to my horse and buggy analogy; the government didn't decide that cars would replace horses on public roads, the marketplace did. The government involvement has been to provide roads and infrastructure for the general public to use their cars. The government became involved to satisfy the needs of the taxpayer."

The government OWNS the spectrum. Not the broadcasters.

Got it, but the broadcaster occupies the spectrum, albeit useless for anything other than broadcasting-on.

That's why you don't leave it up to broadcasters.

But again; to what benefit would the government shutting down the AM band be to even taxpayers?

Even the NAB as a single entity is unable to reach a consensus that everyone will agree with.

And the NAB has been toothless for decades anyway.

Supply & demand. Once you remove restrictions, supply goes up, demand goes down, prices plummet.

Supply increases of something with diminishing appeal, let alone a future? Not even religious broadcasters want to spend donation stores on AM stations. Doesn't matter how inexpensive.

But that's why iHeart doesn't want caps to be removed. They're stuck with a lot of white elephants.

Because those white elephants are rolled-into their overall debt load...

That's why the government doesn't want to do it. Hard to justify to congress. But if they remove regulations, it kills the value of the stations. Neither is a good position. That's' why we have the status quo.

AM is over 100 years old. For decades, the first form of electronic media had a good run. Nothing lasts forever.

 

[Kelly A]

Right now the government doesn't like that idea. The purpose of FM translators was to help AM owners retain those stations.

In fact, Commissioner Pai got the translator rules pushed through by calling it the "AM revitalization plan".

 

[TheBigA]

the government didn't decide that cars would replace horses on public roads,

But once again, who owns the radio spectrum? Radio companies or the government. In your analogy, the government owns neither.

But again; to what benefit would the government shutting down the AM band be to even taxpayers?

I already answered that.

 

[Kelly A]

But once again, who owns the radio spectrum? Radio companies or the government. In your analogy, the government owns neither.

Federal, state, or local governments don't own the roads that taxpayer cars drive on?

 

[TheBigA]

Federal, state, or local governments don't own the roads that taxpayer cars drive on?

At the beginning, the cars and horses used the same mostly dirt roads. They weren't very good. It wasn't until much later that you have investment in road construction. It happened at the same time as gov't investment in airports.