Dan Mason worried about the future of AM radio

[radiotower40]

On the home page of R-I, CBS's Dan Mason says he is worried about the future of AM radio.

Dan, there are lot of problems that are plaguing AM radio right now such as the I-pods, man made
noise and older demo's(even though that last one can be worked on with compelling programing, IMHO).
Just look at the 25-54's on most sports stations. Dan, if you are truly that concerned about the future of
the AM band, SHUT OFF THE I-BLOCK!!!! Your jammers are making the AM band WORSE than it need be,
not only are you causing interference between YOUR own station's, by creating 1st adjacent hiss to run
amuck. Not to mention you are degrading the coverage range of the station's YOU run in HD. There is also the fact
that you are stepping all over the licensed coverage area of your neighbors on adjacent frequency's with I-Block,
especially at night.

Dan, yes AM has a lot of problems, and YOU are causing one of the worst one's. So before you give a speech
and tell us about the problems with the AM band, why don't you admit that you are one of the people responsible
for it. Remember admitting the problem is the first step!

 

[Savage]

D'Accord, TR1992. Mr. Mason: driving the existing audience away from AM by reducing the analog bandwidth of CBS AM stations (to accomodate unused, disfunctional HD-AM) so they sound like bad 78 rpm records, and then drastically raising the noise floor with IBOC hiss, is INSANE.

Why don't you turn off the IBOC adjacent-channel jammers that are causing mutual assured destruction among WBZ, KDKA and WINS - plus injuring distant non-CBS stations via skywave - open up your AMs to full easy-to-listen-to 10 kHz bandwidth and give them a fighting chance?

IBOC interference is insidious. People just assume that the hiss-choked, low-bandwidth AM band is "just the way AM sounds." They don't complain. They just stop listening. They go away, and you never know, until it's too late.

Use common sense and have some integrity. Show some leadership and overrule Glynn Walden. Stop the nihilistic destruction of analog AM in pursuit of some mirage of a digital future, dogmatically being shoved down the throats of broadcasters and the public. It's stupid - and ultimately self-defeating.

Until you do, your AMs will continue to wallow in brewing failure - taking other innocents along with them.

 

[SirRoxalot]

We are deep into another Christmas Shopping Season, and there's STILL no decent, affordable HD radio on the market. It is part of one(?) multifunction portable media device - and that supports FM HD, which doesn't need "better sound quality". The market penetration of HD is virtually nil. Isn't it time to turn the body over to CSI?

 

[TheBigA]

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that IBOC is "driving the existing audience away." The fact is there's no relationship at all between IBOC and audience. Stations with it have seen increases in audience, and stations without it have seen audience drops. Companies like Citadel have shut off the encoding, and have seen NO related change in audience, up or down. If only it was that easy!

The truth is that there have been several technological changes in AM during the past 40 years that have affected sound and transmission quality of AM radio. Focusing on just one ignores the full scope of the problem. And yet in many areas of the country, some AM radio stations continue to attract audiences, and those audiences grow regardless of audio quality. If audiences are motivated by audio quality, they have multiple obvious choices available, from FM to the internet. But clearly that's not a primary motivation.

The most laughable comment, though, is that CBS AM stations are a "failure," when the fact is that in market after market, such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and more, they are the few shining examples of ratings success.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as crediting IBOC for their ratings success. I'm not saying that at all. But it isn't driving the audience away. Complain all you want about IBOC and how you hate it, but don't make crap up.

 

[davideduardo]

Dan, there are lot of problems that are plaguing AM radio right now such as the I-pods, man made
noise and older demo's(even though that last one can be worked on with compelling programing, IMHO).
Just look at the 25-54's on most sports stations.

Sports, when exclusively on AM, does drive some listeners there. But when a good sports option comes to FM, it decimates the AM sports option. Just look at Detroit, where WXYT on AM had an average of about a .7, and when the staiton added FM, it shot to #1 and has averaged in the top 3 stations ever since.

In other words, the 25-54 AM audience for sports will leave instantly if they have a good FM option (good talent, right play by play, good signal).

[/quote]Dan, if you are truly that concerned about the future of the AM band, SHUT OFF THE I-BLOCK!!!! Your jammers are making the AM band WORSE than it need be, not only are you causing interference between YOUR own station's, by creating 1st adjacent hiss to run amuck. [/quote]

Nobody (in statistics, "nobody" means a statistically insignificant number, even if there are a few people) listens to adjacent channels inside the usable coverage range of an AM. So, in practical terms, there is no interference since nobody's listening is being impaired.

The useful coverage of any station is the local groundwave market area, not any added coverage after dark (when radio listening is a fraction of that in the daytime). While a few stations may benefit from listeners in adjacent markets, even fewer benefit economically from that. Example: KNX and KFI get listening in the Riverside / San Bernardino market, yet there is no way for either station to sell in that market nor do agencies buy "combos" of markets. At best, it's a nice free bonus.

ot to mention you are degrading the coverage range of the station's YOU run in HD.

Where is there any evidence that an AM's own coverage is degraded by running HD?

There is also the fact that you are stepping all over the licensed coverage area of your neighbors on adjacent frequency's with I-Block, especially at night.

Again, this is the sound in the forest issue. If there is nobody listening anyway, nothing is impaired.

Dan, yes AM has a lot of problems, and YOU are causing one of the worst one's. So before you give a speech
and tell us about the problems with the AM band, why don't you admit that you are one of the people responsible
for it. Remember admitting the problem is the first step!

As a group, CBS's viable AMs are looking very good. In the few cases where they are not doing well, like KDKA, it is due to a direct FM competitor that has taken the choice younger demos... WPGH in this case. Or where an FM is not the issue, it is where another decent AM has takent prime programming, such as baseball from KMOX. In other words, if a talker or sports station comes to FM, and CBS is on AM, they decline. If a strengthened AM competitor puts pressure on a CBS station, they decline.

But having or not having HD is not a factor, as the local market ratings for stations like KNX, WINS, WCBS, WFAN, WBBM, WSCR, KCBS, KRLD, WBZ, WIP, WPHT, WWJ, WCCO, KMOX, and WTIC demonstrate.

In other words, the issues for AM, including CBS AMs, are the ageing of the demos of all viable AM formats, the increasing competiton from similar formats on FM, and the high cost of operation of the viable AM formats such as sports, news and news/talk. Listenership 100 miles or more out of the market is not an issue, nor is the operation or not of HD.

You are using AMs very real issues to make a case for something that has nothing to do with those issues.

Of course, the even bigger issue is the decline in overall billing for radio, the economy (the root cause of the bulk of the billings decline) and the overall advertising climate which has many more options than even 10 years ago.

 

[Savage]

I'm not "making crap up." The evidence that IBOC is harming AM may be anecdotal, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Does Arbitron methodology include a "reasons" column for why listeners choose stations? No - it doesn't. So of course nobody is going to satisfy the burden of proof you demand. But most industry professionals with experience AND common sense agree, ratcheting up QRM and QRN can't be helping AM.

Citadel turned off nighttime IBOC because the adjacent channel noise was mutually harming WABC, WSB and WJR. Is there proof in writing? No. Martin Stabbert utilized common sense, conscience and a sense of responsibliity to other broadcasters to prevent quantifiable audience loss before it happened. Tribune shut off WGN's IBOC because it was screwing up PPM encoding. Clear Channel shut off nighttime IBOC on its midwest 1130 9-tower jobs in Detroit, Milwaukee and the Twin Cities to prevent destructive skywave from killing WRVA. There's KFMB versus KBRT, documented recently in RW. Or do you imagine I made those case histories up? Go to stopiboc.com and read the comments and case histories from industry engineers. There are about two hundred. I don't believe any quantity of proof about AM-HD would satisfy you.

If HD were all its few remaining proponents say it is, Dan Mason wouldn't be wringing his hands about "the future of AM" on this site. He'd be braying about how wonderful IBOC has resurrected the poor old dying AM band. Why is AM continuing to lose audience (industrywide?) Why is CBS putting their AMs on HD subs? Is it because younger demos are repelled by an 'AM' display on their radios? Does it physically hurt to push the AM preselect? No. It's because the reception sucks, the stations have fatiguing, interference-plagued sound with annoying noise and bandpass that sounds like a bad police scanner.

Make AM sound reasonably close to FM, the way it used to sound, and you've just removed big disincentives to AM listening. Everybody knows this. It's obvious.

A footnote just because you have chosen to disregard the obvious: regarding your claims for audience loss and gain for AMs, there are also stations with IBOC which have lost audience and there are those without it which have gained listeners. The situations are unique, station by station. But you have to know that further increasing noise and interference won't attract audience, certainly not analog listeners comprising something approaching 100 percent of the listening audience.

 

[davideduardo]

We are deep into another Christmas Shopping Season, and there's STILL no decent, affordable HD radio on the market. It is part of one(?) multifunction portable media device - and that supports FM HD, which doesn't need "better sound quality". The market penetration of HD is virtually nil. Isn't it time to turn the body over to CSI?

The first FMs went on the air in the late 30's. By 1950, there were 1000 of them. By 1960, there were 600 of them. Only FCC rule changes in 1967 "forced" the band to come alive, and it was generally deemed profitable or with profit potential around 1972-1973. Let's see, that's about 35 years!

It took 7 or 8 years for you and I to do something useful, like mowing our parents lawn. HD is new, and it hit right at the start of radio's perfect storm of crash of the economy and new media both meeting at the same time.

 

[ABQRADIO]

Here in Albuquerque there are three AM stations with HD installed, Disney on 1240, Clear Channel on 1350 and Entravision on 1450. Disney's analog audio is so bandwidth-restricted that you cannot understand the words in the songs. Clear Channel gave up on 1350 - 5 kw days / 500 w nights - as the hiss was getting into the analog so badly and the HD only covered about four miles in the daytime (half-wave tower). Unfortunately, their bandwidth was not opened up, so their talk format sounds like it is going through an old unequalized telephone line. Entravision's 1450 actually passes pretty decent analog audio - a bit narrow sounding but not too bad - but their HD interference extends from 1390 to 1510, wiping out reception of a Santa Fe station on 1400 hre in the daytime, and obliterating the band in that frequency range at night.

My own listening experience to HD AM is WLW - y'all know about their plant setup - and the signal drops in and out in a car at about 15 miles. The HD audio is quiet and you can hear the "S" sounds in speech - thats great - but the actual perceived audio delivery to my ear is that of about a 20k windows media stream, with lots of comb-filter style artifacts. In other words, NOT a TSL-positive situation.

Citadel on Class B 50 kw 770 here has all the equipment and license for HD, but has not installed the equipment. Good for them. Martin S., if you're reading, you've made the right decision! Next, perhaps you will turn off the HD daytime and open up the analog audio on your big flags? Lets give our listeners the best we can be - not a brickwall 4.5 kHz. filter.

 

[radioskeptic]

From David Eduardo in Reply # 6 :

The first FMs went on the air in the late 30's. By 1950, there were 1000 of them. By 1960, there were 600 of them. Only FCC rule changes in 1967 "forced" the band to come alive, and it was generally deemed profitable or with profit potential around 1972-1973. Let's see, that's about 35 years! ...
HD is new, and it hit right at the start of radio's perfect storm of crash of the economy and new media both meeting at the same time.

Wow, David, how disingenuous can you get? Where should I begin to set you straight?

First, the radio establishment, meaning the networks and a handful of big independents, were doing their utmost to suppress the development of FM, partly because they wanted to maintain oligopolistic control. Collectively, they owned most of the clears and a lot of the dominant regionals, and they didn’t want competition from upstarts on a new band with obviously superior sound. And second, RCA wanted more spectrum for television.

(For a good primer on that, I recommend Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong, by Lawrence Lessing. It’s short on technology, but great on the business and political machinations. And I was shocked to see that beat up 1969 paperbacks like mine go for $40 and up on Amazon! So see if you can get it through interlibrary loan.)

So you see, that was not a real parallel, but a completely opposite situation. With FM, the radio establishment was trying to bury a superior competitor to protect their own operations from competition, while with “HD” radio, they're trying to promote a grossly inferior technology that they have a financial interest in, one that is fundamentally anti-competitive because small broadcasters wouldn’t be able to afford it if they wanted to use it – though they don’t want to because they see its flaws all too clearly.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm not "making crap up."

When you said IBOC is “driving audiences away” without any facts to back that up, and call CBS radio stations a “failure,” you are making crap up.

But most industry professionals with experience AND common sense agree, ratcheting up QRM and QRN can't be helping AM.

There is a big difference between not helping AM, and driving existing listeners away. If you want me to say it’s not helping AM, sure. But it’s not the biggest factor in why it’s future is in doubt.

If HD were all its few remaining proponents say it is, Dan Mason wouldn't be wringing his hands about "the future of AM" on this site.

You’re trying to use reverse logic to prove your point, and it doesn’t work. The future of AM was in doubt before IBOC, and IBOC hasn’t affected it one way or another. Which is why I question your statement that it’s driving listeners away, when the facts clearly show that listeners were leaving long before it was even invented.

Make AM sound reasonably close to FM, the way it used to sound, and you've just removed big disincentives to AM listening.

That’s not the point. Armstrong addressed this in the 30s, and the public responded in the 70s. Then the FCC did everything it could do to destroy what was left of AM. But all of that happened before IBOC, which is why I say you’re full of crap.

A footnote just because you have chosen to disregard the obvious: regarding your claims for audience loss and gain for AMs, there are also stations with IBOC which have lost audience and there are those without it which have gained listeners.

I haven’t disregarded it at all. I clearly stated that IBOC has had NO EFFECT on audience one way or another. Losses and gains have happened regardless of whether or not they use IBOC. There are many other factors, which I address and you don't. To blame IBOC singly and by itself for audience loss, which is what you did, is wrong. Re-read my post.

 

[TheBigA]

duplication removed

 

[SirRoxalot]

So, IBOC HD on AM has no effect on the audience anyway, there are no reasonably-priced receivers, there is AT LEAST a possibility that it degrades the audio of stations in other markets, and it may reduce the coverage area of stations that employ it. In order to accommodate it, bandwidth on AM stations has been cut nearly in half. So, where's the upside?

AM IBOC is already dead. Write the death certificate and let's move on.

 

[adma]

AM didn't need IBOC to be terminally identified with the "Old Man Yells At Cloud" demo, folks.

 

[davideduardo]

Wow, David, how disingenuous can you get? Where should I begin to set you straight?

You can try, but the facts don't support your contention.

First, the radio establishment, meaning the networks and a handful of big independents, were doing their utmost to suppress the development of FM, partly because they wanted to maintain oligopolistic control.

The first commercial FMs were at between 42 and 48 MHz, and there were about 25 by 1942. By the end of the war, few were on the air. By early 1946, the commercial band had moved to the current band, while the noncoms and experimental stations stayed at the old locations.

Collectively, they owned most of the clears and a lot of the dominant regionals, and they didn’t want competition from upstarts on a new band with obviously superior sound. And second, RCA wanted more spectrum for television.

By 1950, most of the FMs were neither network owned (that would have been a total of less than 30 of them, in total). Yet there were 1000 FM stations.

By contrast, the 1-A clears were 25 in number, with fully 6 of them in New York and Chicago alone. AM count had trippled by 1950 from the pre-war total, so that leaves an enormous amount of stations not owned by the networks and AM increased again in th 50's whiloe FM declined. There were 814 total stations at the end of 1940 vs. 2234 at the begining of 1950 and 4259 in 1960, 3500 of which were AM.

Looking at the 1950 Broadcasting Yearbook, (http://www.davidgleason.com/Broadcasting 1950 Yearbook Page Range Guide.htm) you can see that most FMs were either independent or owned by network affiliates (save a few stations, most AMs were affiliates) but not by the clears nor by the 4 webs.

So you see, that was not a real parallel, but a completely opposite situation. With FM, the radio establishment was trying to bury a superior competitor to protect their own operations from competition,

If operators were afraid of FM, and wished to block it, why did both existing AMs and independent operators license nearly 1000 of them by 1950? Many tried independent programming, but either lost money and went silent or chose to simulcast their AM sisters.

while with “HD” radio, they're trying to promote a grossly inferior technology that they have a financial interest in,

The investments made by nearly all the significant groups was, in essence, seed capital. It was put in about 15 years ago, and nobody has any expectation of making any money from it; the investment was intended to keep the digial initiative alive when Lucent and others were moving on to other projects.

one that is fundamentally anti-competitive because small broadcasters wouldn’t be able to afford it if they wanted to use it – though they don’t want to because they see its flaws all too clearly.

The costs are not the limiting factor. Stations already in trouble or barely profitable will not install it. Stations that are such a technical mess that they can't install it likely should not be on the air anyway. But the inabillity of the unemployed to by BMW's does not make BMW anticompetitive...

 

[radiotower40]

I posted this because of my real world experience in dealing with the AM band. Mr. Mason says that he's worried
about the future of AM radio, so am I. I have no disagreement with him there.

I work in sales and marketing at a small market radio group, we have a syndicated sports talker, an EZ listening
AM, and a Hot AC FM. I deal with the issue's and complaint's from listener's, almost on a daily basis, especially
at this time of year. The stations I work at do not use HD, don't plan on using it, and couldn't spend that kind of
money on it, even if we wanted too. The fact that our stations are being subject to interference in our licensed
coverage area because of it is complete BS! Our AM sports and EZ listening stations are being pummeled with hiss
during critical hours, and the first adjacent hiss from a CBS station is hurting us at night, on our flea powered EZ
listening station. It has cost us listeners and advertisers on both of our AM stations during morning and evening
drive times, which is hurting our bottom line. Is that not a problem that is hurting AM radio? Can you honestly
tell me that the stations I work at are the only one's facing these issues? I know we are not.

The town in which our stations are located is about 20 miles out from the bigger city, where most of our listeners
work. When the interference is so bad while listeners are driving to and from work that they are tuning us out, not
because they don't like our product, but, because a station hundreds of miles away is making our signals sound like
we have cut the power in half, not hurting our AM stations?

We have lost listeners and advertisers in our our 2mV coverage area and are 5mV coverage areas as a direct result
of this interference. I do not consider this "out of market" listening. I have lost several accounts that were loyal for
years, because they think think that we have degraded our coverage. The most common complaint I get from them
is that our station sounds "hissy"(exact words). I've tried to explain to them that this is being caused by HD radio.

Then I have to explain to them, first of all, what HD is. When I do this, they kindly tell me that they are sorry, they
had advertised for years, but, until we find a way to correct these problems they can't justify advertising on our
station. This is costing me and my station money. You can say recession, which has cost every business something,
you can say it is lack of interest in our stations, you can say it is the demo's. The bottom line is our main problem
right now is our stations being interfered with, and the clients don't care what the reason is. If their message is not
getting through to the people they want to reach, they are not going to use us.

I never stated that there were not other problems with the AM band before HD came around, It was not in great
shape when I got into radio. I also never stated that CBS's AM stations were not performing well. WBBM is number
1 in Chicago overall, and does quite well in their demo's. I'm not going to say I never listen either, but, I have too
say that I choose WGN over them for the fact that the station sounds better. WBBM sounds like a bad internet stream.
They are the only all news station in the market, and they do their job well. Do you think this has anything to due
with the fact that they are broadcasting in HD?

I live in Chicago, and travel many many hours each week to work at the stations I do. Would I have ever chose to
do this if the money wasn't there? Of course not, nobody would. I like the small town I work in, and the small family
owned stations I work for, and I can say that HD radio is hurting my stations. I am living it right now. As I know Bob
Savage is with WYSL, we are not making things up. We are seeing our stations being hurt, right here, right now by
the travesty known as HD AM, and I know were not the only one's. Very simply put, if HD was turned off tomorrow
my stations would at least have the chance of gaining back some of the listeners and advertisers we have lost. This
is one of the problems on the AM band that could be solved right now.

 

[Savage]

BigA, as long as we're tossing around admonitions to "read my post," perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of the class, WHERE in this thread I (a) called CBS stations a "failure" or (b) stated that IBOC noise was the ONLY factor hurting AM.

The latter first: of course IBOC isn't the only problem facing AM. But it's making things worse. Crank up noise and interference, reduce quality coverage at night because of walls of white noise arriving via skywave, and fewer people will listen. It's inevitable. It's also common sense.

IMO, the dominant problem facing AM actually isn't QRM and QRN (although on a case-by-case basis it's acute, as is the case with WYSL and apparently TR1992's stations) but a dearth of quality programming. This is a byproduct of corporate cluster management. The profit centers get programming and promotional attention. Those would be the big FMs. The AMs get ESPN or set-it-and-forget it talk or brokered. These formats don't attract an audience.

As far as my earlier statement about CBS, I said they were "wallowing in brewing failure." Why I said that: WBZ just moved its marquee programming to an FM which has adopted the AM calls. Dan Mason is gassifying publicly about his "concern" over the "future of AM." He adds that he's putting his AMs on FM HD subs. Implicit in his statement, and obvious, is that CBS AM stations are in a state of decline. Is this success or failure? Depends on your point of view. Mine includes the self-evident observation that IBOC isn't helping resurrect the band, and that noise reducing the quality of analog reception isn't helping keep an audience. So a rational person would turn off the HD. Again: it's stupid. And self-defeating.

 

[TheBigA]

Crank up noise and interference, reduce quality coverage at night because of walls of white noise arriving via skywave, and fewer people will listen. It's inevitable. It's also common sense.

May be, but it hasn't happened. In fact, WBZ has actually increased the number of listeners since adding IBOC. Perhaps at your expense, but my point is the noise they may create is not the detriment to them you claim it is.

This is a byproduct of corporate cluster management.

Yet in practically every market where they operate, the corporate owned AM stations get more audience than non-corporate stations. And with regards to the specific company in question, CBS, their owned stations give local management lots of autonomy, and fill their stations with local programming. In a world where radio is spending less on content, CBS is one of the few companies that invests in the most expensive format: all local news. CBS, Bonneville, and Entercom are the only ones that I can see. No local or single owned station can afford to provide that service to its community. So there’s no blanket relationship between corporate management and the dearth of programming. If you really want to see how bad AM radio can be, take away all the corporate stations. My fear is that CBS sells its AMs, and the public will lose its only radio source for 24/7 news. Because no mom & pop owner will be able to do it.

Dan Mason is gassifying publicly about his "concern" over the "future of AM."

The part you don’t mention is he attributes this to the fact that AM is not being included in new receivers. That’s what his comments were about. His ONLY option is to move the content to HD. To the best of my knowledge, no radio owner is currently in the electronics manufacturing business. This is not the 1930s, when RCA, GE, and Crosley owned radio stations, and what was good for radio was good for them. Now radio companies depend on other companies to build and sell the devices that consumers use to listen to radio. If those companies are no longer putting AM on their devices, it’s INEVITABLE (to use your word) that fewer people will listen. And that is a far more provable theorem than the one you extrapolate.

Implicit in his statement, and obvious, is that CBS AM stations are in a state of decline.

No, that’s YOUR spin. What he is saying very directly, and it requires no additional interpretation, is that if the public can’t buy radios that contain the AM band, then the band will be in decline. That’s all he’s saying. HIS stations clearly aren’t in decline. At least not yet. But if there are fewer and fewer devices on which the public can hear AM, it will kill the band. What he’s asking for is regulation that would require AM on all radio devices. I think you & he would be in agreement on that.

Mine includes the self-evident observation that IBOC isn't helping resurrect the band, and that noise reducing the quality of analog reception isn't helping keep an audience.

But it is not, as you said, driving away existing audiences. And Mason never said HD was helping. All he said is he has no choice. Until someone comes up with a solution, HD is their only alternative, and it’s the only technology that has the support of the government and the electronics industry. Instead of wasting your time and effort preaching to the converted, you should focus more of your time on them. Because as long as the status quo continues, Dan Mason has no choice, and AM will continue to decline.

 

[TheBigA]

Our AM sports and EZ listening stations are being pummeled with hiss during critical hours, and the first adjacent hiss from a CBS station is hurting us at night, on our flea powered EZ listening station. It has cost us listeners and advertisers on both of our AM stations during morning and evening drive times, which is hurting our bottom line.

It's a problem for you, but not a problem for them. So they have no reason to stop.

I don't know if you know anyone with cancer, but I do. There are two approved ways of treating cancer: radiation and chemotherapy. Both destroy healthy cells as well as cancer cells. I know people who've been killed NOT by the cancer, but by the effects of the treatment. That's just how it is. There is no clean cure.

Similar problem in AM radio. For 50 years, we've known about the technical flaws in AM. Several cures have been tried. None have been successful. HD is the latest. It has very bad side effects. But it's the only game in town.

Is interference bad? Sure. Should the FCC do everything it can to prevent it? Of course. It's the main reason they were created. Not to fine stations for broadcasting obscene words. The radio waves are under their jurisdiction, and instead of doing what they did with AM stereo, they actually came out and gave support to HD radio. Was that a bad thing? Sure. But THEY are the ones who are responsible. Not Dan Mason. He's just playing the cards he was dealt. Is it a lousy hand? Absolutely. But he has no choice. Same with you. But to tell him he can't use the only technology available because it hurts you doesn't address the problem.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Let's not forget reality here, folks. Reality is that there's virtually NO installed user base for AM IBOC. AM stations running IBOC are simply wasting money and interfering with legitimate, licensed broadcasters.

Restore AM to 10KHz bandwidth. Resurrect AM Stereo if you wish. But AM IBOC is worse than dead - it's infecting the rest of the medium around it.

 

[TheBigA]

Restore AM to 10KHz bandwidth.

That requires federal action. Their track record in this field has been less than stellar. Waiting for them to develop brains is futile. So what you want will not happen. They are hell-bent on cramming more frequencies into an already-overcrowded AM & FM radio dial. That is their primary agenda, and the Congress supports them in their mission. The FCC is directly responsible for practically every problem in American radio.