Dan Mason worried about the future of AM radio

[radioskeptic]

THIS IS A REPLY TO DAVID EDUARDO'S COMMENTS IN REPLY #13 ON THIS THREAD; PLEASE REFER TO THAT. (I THINK THIS IS BETTER THAN WASTING SPACE WITH A BOXED QUOTE OF THE ENTIRE POST!).

Actually, David, the facts do support my position – the facts in the book I cited in Reply #6 (Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong, by Lawrence Lessing, now out of print but available used on Amazon at exorbitant prices; try inter-library loan!).

I know all about the the prewar band – and how television interests wanted FM moved to restore Channel 1 – which the FCC did, temporarily. I know how some TV people wanted the new FM band replaced with three more VHF channels (before the UHF band was opened in 1952).

Both network O&O’s and large independents simulcast their AM programming on FM not only to save money, but also to make the new band, where some stand-alone FM’s were making a go of it, less attractive to ordinary listeners because there would be less new and different programming and thus less incentive to buy an FM radio – and of course, the big boys wanted to hang onto those FM assignments to keep them out of the hands of potential competitors.

As late as the early 1960’s, the big guys still weren’t taking FM seriously. In fact, CBS didn’t object when the late Dave Kurtz, an engineer by training, applied for a short-spaced assignment in Philadelphia on 101.1, co-channel with WCBS-FM in New York. That station, now WBEB (B101), is a legend today—as is Dave’s surviving partner, Jerry Lee.

Now as for the consolidators’ investments in digital being merely seed money, you’re absolutely wrong again. The basics of today’s “HD” FM had been tried and found wanting, by no less than the NRSC, in the late Eighties. Of course, that was before the big boys had that body packed with their own representatives.

The consolidators invested because they wanted to keep IBOC alive. Why? Because they didn’t want competition from new broadcasters in an entirely new digital band in the UHF range (where digital broadcasting belongs)--just as their predecessors feared competiton from the then fledgling FM band.

And if IBOC equipment costs and the patent royalties are too pricey for small broadcasters like Bob Savage’s WYSL and the stations our friend TR1992 (from Reply #14) works for—and if those small stations are getting clobbered by the useless digital hash being generated by the blowtorch stations—that’s just icing on the cake for the greedy, rapacious consolidators!

 

[davideduardo]

Both network O&O’s and large independents simulcast their AM programming on FM not only to save money, but also to make the new band, where some stand-alone FM’s were making a go of it, less attractive to ordinary listeners because there would be less new and different programming and thus less incentive to buy an FM radio – and of course, the big boys wanted to hang onto those FM assignments to keep them out of the hands of potential competitors.

That does not explain that even in major markets like Cleveland there were empty table of allocations channels open for filing well into the 60's, and some mid-tier markets like Norfolk/Portsmouth had channels available as late as 1970. Nobody was blocked.

As late as the early 1960’s, the big guys still weren’t taking FM seriously. In fact, CBS didn’t object when the late Dave Kurtz, an engineer by training, applied for a short-spaced assignment in Philadelphia on 101.1, co-channel with WCBS-FM in New York. That station, now WBEB (B101), is a legend today—as is Dave’s surviving partner, Jerry Lee.

Yet that station was not successful until the very late 60's, and then due to an FCC push to get simulcasting FMs to separate... most of the simulcasts were by relatively independent companies like, for example, Storer. Storer, in fact, sold a number of FMs then because they thought the band had no potential.

Now as for the consolidators’ investments in digital being merely seed money, you’re absolutely wrong again. The basics of today’s “HD” FM had been tried and found wanting, by no less than the NRSC, in the late Eighties. Of course, that was before the big boys had that body packed with their own representatives.

When Lucent was going to stop development in the early 90's, Ibiquity got financing and stepped in to reinvent the system with new codecs, and a combination of technologies. The Broadcaster investment is very small and was definitely seed money to keep the ball from being dropped.

The consolidators invested because they wanted to keep IBOC alive. Why? Because they didn’t want competition from new broadcasters in an entirely new digital band in the UHF range (where digital broadcasting belongs)--just as their predecessors feared competiton from the then fledgling FM band.

Digital on a separate band has failed in Europe and Canada, and never even attempted elswhere in this Hemisphere. The radio industry knew that only an inband solution, backwards compatible, like FM stereo, might work.

And if IBOC equipment costs and the patent royalties are too pricey for small broadcasters like Bob Savage’s WYSL and the stations our friend TR1992 (from Reply #14) works for—and if those small stations are getting clobbered by the useless digital hash being generated by the blowtorch stations—that’s just icing on the cake for the greedy, rapacious consolidators!

The licensing fees are minimal and market / station adjusted. Mr. Savage found the money for a 20 kw AM transmitter and a costly directional. Were he interested, he could install HD... if his directional is broadbanded enough.

 

[davideduardo]

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.

AM NRSC bandwith is 10 kHz. HD stations generally roll at 5 kHz, and the average AM radio is off 10 db at 3.9 kHz. In other words, it does not matter.

 

[TheBigA]

The consolidators invested because they wanted to keep IBOC alive. Why? Because they didn’t want competition from new broadcasters in an entirely new digital band in the UHF range (where digital broadcasting belongs)--just as their predecessors feared competiton from the then fledgling FM band.

This is plain BS. The biggest enemy here isn't "the consolidators," as you call them, but the US Government, who has stated many times that it has no interest in creating a new digital band for radio in UHF. Everyone knows it, and it has never been an option. The government would rather sell that space to data users for much more money. When you have a greedy government competing against greedy private business, the government always wins.

If those small stations are getting clobbered by the useless digital hash being generated by the blowtorch stations—that’s just icing on the cake for the greedy, rapacious consolidators!

I really get tired of these endless and unproven conspiracy theories. The fact is that HD Radio isn't restricted by ownership. In fact, the aforementioned Jerry Lee, who is an anti-consolidator, is part of the HD Alliance. The biggest promoter of HD Radio is government-sponsored public radio, not the big radio companies. And as I said earlier, the real problem here is not the radio industry, but the government, who is using HD Radio to promote its agenda of cramming more stations in an already-crowded dial. If the government wanted to prevent interference, it could. But then, they'd have fewer radio stations for the public, and that's not what they want. When government greed is thrown on top of private industry greed, the government always wins. We as a people have more to fear from an ever-growing and idiologically driven government than we do from private industry.

 

[Savage]

BigA, I definitely agree with you about Big Government being Public Enemy #1, and these days the "Dear Leader" style invasion of private rights and ideologically-driven mandates, supported by major print and TV media, is scarily Orwellian.

I sorta agree with you about how most of the problems plaguing broadcasting are driven by policy wonks in Washington. I say "sorta" because the FCC didn't develop IBOC, nor did it mandate that the private sector do so. IBOC was the bastard child of Westinghouse, Gannett, and other big private companies (who were then in radio in a big way, back in the early 90s, but have since left the scene.) The FCC just jumped on HD Radio and started pushing it. The reasons why are typical and obvious.

One reason why IBOC is such a scourge is because the FCC used to be run by engineers who never would have tolerated the idiotic interference HD generates. Until about 1995 or so this proposal would have been met at the Commish with, "forget it, until you come up with a system that doesn't trash the allocation scheme by making every station occupy 3 channels instead of one." But today, the Commission is driven by politician-lawyers with no interest in engineering or, frankly, interest in a radio spectrum that serves the public, and even less interest in the welfare of broadcasters. The FCC is all about generating revenue for the federal government, so they can ladle it out in outrageously wasteful ways to reward special interests and "grievance groups."

What's wrong with the FCC is symptomatic of what's wrong with government on all levels in the U-S these days. When the public and other legitimate interests get shafted, stuff like IBOC happens.

 

[TheBigA]

What's wrong with the FCC is symptomatic of what's wrong with government on all levels in the U-S these days. When the public and other legitimate interests get shafted, stuff like IBOC happens.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[radiotower40]

BigA and Savage, excellent posts! I couldn't agree with you more. You are absolutely correct in your last few posts.

I wish I could say that I was happy that I agreed with you, but what you posted is the absolute truth, and is pretty
scary. The only thing I can say is that, not all, but many more people are beginning to see with their own eye's what
is going on.

David, please tell me you were trying to be humorous, when you suggested that smaller stations, such as the one's
I work for should invest in HD "technology". If anything Ibiquity and the FCC should pay us for willfully and
intentionally disrupting our signals. Also to suggest that WYSL has enough money to upgrade their signal and
build more towers to do so, means they should be willing to invest money in junk "technology"? David, with all
due respect, I know you have a great knowledge of radio, from personal experience, and real world, hands on
experience, but you may be a little of touch with small independent broadcasters and what we deal every
day.

We have a license to have our coverage area's protected from interference, with HD on, that is not happening, yet,
the people doing it to us, are allowed to continue. Our stations also have the responsibility to follow our license,
including lowering our power and changing our DA patterns at the times specified in our license, and we follow
that exactly as we should. Perhaps we should ignore our license and stay at full power at night and interfere with
other stations. Oh wait, we would be subject to hefty fines. That's the law. Any engineer will tell you that there is
no way that IBOC can fit onto one frequency without sending out interference to adjacent frequencies. I would ask
why they are not subject to fines, but, I don't need to, they paid off the right people so they have an open license
to interfere.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

A few years ago I had the opportunity to sit down with two former Commissioners at the FCC, Reed Hunt and William Kennard at a dinner, who shed quite a bit of light on how the upper politics work at the FCC and the relationship to Congress. The key buzz word that drives everything to those with no technical experience, yet involved in political decision making is DIGITAL. Congress LOVES the word. Digital is good, it’s the future, it’s efficient, and the picture on my TV hooked to “digital cable” looks great! What’s not to love with digital anything??

What drove the DTV discussion with Congress and later mandate, was the influx of cellular phone carriers converting from analog modulation to digital. All of a sudden, a chunk of spectrum tied up with one phone call, can now carry hundreds or thousands of phone calls by going ‘digital’. So Reed Hunt while testifying before Congress, suggested that digital was the future for broadcasting, television in particular. The bonus to Congress was the suggestion that if broadcasters moved to digital technologies like cellular carriers, all the extra spectrum could be auctioned off to future business interests which could take better advantage of the spectrum with the magic use of DIGITAL (whatever that is).

Fast forward to 2009- The digital TV transition is for the most part complete after going somewhat better than expected. To the folks at the FCC and Congress, radio is still “analog” and thus deemed woefully inefficient and archaic. Meanwhile the thurst by business for more spectrum remains, yet much of the old VHF TV spectrum just isn’t sought after by the digital spectrum users because of atmospheric and man-made noise. Uh oh, now what? As many of you have seen, the FCC is looking to carve out TV spectrum for more “digital” services like broadband Internet so Ma and Pa living out on the farm can update their Facebook ™ page.

And radio? To Congress and the politicians, it’s a dying and inefficient technology that hogs too much spectrum that could be auctioned off.

 

[BRNout]

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.

Hang on now. Are you actually implying that WBZ has increased listenership BECAUSE of IBOC? There's no way that you can prove such a thing. To the contrary, their analog signal (which is how over 99% of their audience hears them) is thin and compressed. And, though I know it doesn't count, they are no longer accessible via skywave in much of the eastern US due to hiss from fellow IBOC practitioners (near Chicago, where I live, KDKA and WHO are the culprits).

Without the bad sounding audio, who's to say that WBZ's ratings wouldn't even be a little higher? Content ultimately drives ratings.

Well above, I couldn't help but see Mr. Eduardo's comment about KDKA and that it lost audience because of a competing news/talker on FM. That's true but it's far from the WHOLE story. When Clear Channel flipped WPGB to news/talk, they soon managed to grab the N/T format's most popular talk shows away from KDKA. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, all are on WPGB - along with a popular semi-local morning show. Again, content ultimately nailed KDKA....not simply the AM versus FM thing. In Boston, where a Greater Media has an FM talker to compete with WRKO, it's a tighter race and has been for the several years that WTKK has been on 96.9. In this case, WRKO has held on to Limbaugh and local celeb Howie Carr. The rest of their lineup is forgettable and their ratings have sagged as a result. But they also stay pretty competitive with WTKK - no small feat when their nighttime signal misses a good 1/3 of their DMA. So, David, your comment is too simplistic and not entirely accurate. If the AM has the compelling programming, merely sticking a half-hearted competitor on FM isn't enough to win the day. The FM still needs the content that people want. When they get it is when the AM is decimated (as KDKA has been).

By the way, this bit about IBOC on AM not legitimately hurting anyone (aside from dxers who don't matter) is laughable. In this thread, we have excellent testimonials from Savage and TR describing how the hiss stomps all over their respective stations - within their supposedly protected contours. In the case of WYSL, I can personally tell you that it's a fact. I've heard it. They get clobbered by WBZ's hiss and it's every single night. The FCC should never have allowed this system to run at night and, in doing so, we see how their original mission has been co-opted by deep-pocketed corporate interests.

 

[KB1OKL]

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.

I live 40 miles east of WBZ, it used to be a powerhouse, there are days and nights it hardly comes in at all now since they unfortunately turned on the 30+ kHz wide FOR NOTHING saddlebag whooshy obliterating sidebands and I'm talking with an R-390A and 400' long wire antennas phased to receive it. 1000 to 1050 Khz is nothing but white noise some nights with two tinny sounding carriers interspersed in the sea of noise.
My father who also lives down the street used to listen to WBZ religiously at night asked me if I knew what the problem was at WBZ which he used to listen to on his clock radio. He brought me upstairs and turned it on and showed me how bad it now comes in which it was, and asked me why it now was fading and coming in lousy. I just asked him again if he listens to it at night, the answer was no partially because of changing announcers and partially because of the fact that it doesn't come in anymore. I have THE vaunted Sony iBlock receiver and it barely comes in in IBOC and when it does it is so sibilant and artificial sounding I don't know how anyone could listen to it for more than 30 seconds.
iBlock is increasing AM listenership? hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheBigA]

Are you actually implying that WBZ has increased listenership BECAUSE of IBOC? There's no way that you can prove such a thing.

First of all, NO I'm not saying that. If you read my posts in this thread, my point was that IBOC has neither hurt nor helped audience. This was in response to Savage's comment that it has caused listeners to leave, to which I said: prove it.

However, what we know is that there has been a slight increase in listeners in the last two years based on Arbitron. What we don't know is why. However, IBOC hasn't hindered their ability to attract listeners.

Without the bad sounding audio, who's to say that WBZ's ratings wouldn't even be a little higher? Content ultimately drives ratings.

That falls into the realm of speculation. My point remains that it isn't driving existing listeners away.

By the way, this bit about IBOC on AM not legitimately hurting anyone (aside from dxers who don't matter) is laughable. In this thread, we have excellent testimonials from Savage and TR describing how the hiss stomps all over their respective stations

Once again, you’re diverging from the point of my post. Read replies #16 and #17. Hiss stomping on their stations is not Dan Mason’s problem. He is using FCC approved equipment, and operating it within their guidelines. And Savage has reported this problem to the FCC. And that’s where things stand.

But I disagree with the opinion that the FCC’s mission has been “co-opted by deep-pocketed corporate interests.” If that was true, the FCC wouldn’t promote LPFM and other proposals that large radio companies don’t want.

 

[TheBigA]

iBlock is increasing AM listenership? hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. But it also isn't driving existing listeners away. And the ratings of WBZ don't lie.

 

[BRNout]

iBlock is increasing AM listenership? hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. But it also isn't driving existing listeners away. And the ratings of WBZ don't lie.

You can't prove that any more than I can prove the reverse. WBZ has made some tweaks to their programming content that are far more likely to have impacted ratings than anything else. As for WBZ's analog audio (the mode in which most people hear it) while running IBOC, KB10KL is absolutely right. It sounds flat with a lower volume level than without the IBOC exciter turned on.

Now, it's possible that this hasn't hurt their ratings. But, I maintain that it can't possibly help matters. Many AM radios are of a wideband design so the "hiss" is clearly audible in the background of the main channel. That's even true of a decent percentage of car radios. It sounds lousy and contributes to some listener fatigue. Maybe it's cost them 0.1 rating points that they otherwise would have had - we'll never know. I'd seriously doubt that they have gained listeners simply by running that crap. Too few people own and use HD radios for that - made even worse because many of those radios don't even have AM reception capability.

There's no way to know how many people have quit trying to listen to AM thanks to it becoming a ghetto of noise. IBOC hiss has made a huge contribution to this.

 

[TheBigA]

Now, it's possible that this hasn't hurt their ratings.

Once again, read my posts, and read them with your own personal bias turned off. You'll see that I say exactly what you just said above.

 

[BRNout]

Now, it's possible that this hasn't hurt their ratings.

Once again, read my posts, and read them with your own personal bias turned off. You'll see that I say exactly what you just said above.

I don't think so - it seems more like we are just agreeing to disagree on that aspect. And you have yet to admit that IBOC makes a station's analog audio sound like crud. Some do better with it than others, but all sound thin and many literally have hash audible in the background. Depends on how hard they're pushing the sidebands. That can't possibly help listenership....it just can't.

One group where ratings have most definitely been hurt by IBOC are smaller AMs where IBOC hash beams in from out of market signals via skywave. Ask yourself, why has nothing been done about that?

 

[SirRoxalot]

It's almost like there's some kind of conspiracy to kill off the AM band, so the bandwidth can be reallocated...

 

[davideduardo]

It's almost like there's some kind of conspiracy to kill off the AM band, so the bandwidth can be reallocated...

What could the band be used for? There is only a roughly 1.2 MHz band to begin with, and the quirky propagation makes it unsuitable for most uses. Just look at how little use is made of long wave, just below 530 kHz...

In any case, the band is expiring of its own accord. It needs no help.

 

[TheBigA]

That can't possibly help listenership....it just can't.

That's not the point. I'll say it again, in case you missed it: It hasn't driven existing audiences away. If it had, then stations like WBZ and WINS would not consistently show up in the top of their market's ratings. "Not hurting" is not the same thing as "helping."

Ask yourself, why has nothing been done about that?

I think that has also been dealt with in this thread. Nothing has been done because the government wants more stations crammed into the same space. They're also blowing away 3rd adjacents to cram in LPFM.

 

[SirRoxalot]

What could the band be used for? There is only a roughly 1.2 MHz band to begin with, and the quirky propagation makes it unsuitable for most uses. Just look at how little use is made of long wave, just below 530 kHz...

In any case, the band is expiring of its own accord. It needs no help.

You overlook the possibility of using it like cellular - LOTS of low-power towers with multiple channels, providing compressed digital audio or text messaging. With low power, frequencies could be reused a relatively short distance away, and you wouldn't have the problems of "quirky propagation". Know any market that would like a bunch more bandwidth for audio or text messaging, or companies that would be willing to pay for that bandwidth?

 

[davideduardo]

You overlook the possibility of using it like cellular - LOTS of low-power towers with multiple channels, providing compressed digital audio or text messaging. With low power, frequencies could be reused a relatively short distance away, and you wouldn't have the problems of "quirky propagation". Know any market that would like a bunch more bandwidth for audio or text messaging, or companies that would be willing to pay for that bandwidth?

I've heard 50 watt AMs over 2000 miles away... meaning at night the potential for skip interference is horrendous. Imagine calls from sites all over the hemisphere competing with each other as soon as the sun went down. Add in the irregularities of groundwave propagation even in small areas and you have a system that does not have predictable coverage.

And, again, there is only about a megahertz of total band there... about one twentieth of the spectrum that the FM band has. Of corse, the need for rather large antennas can't be easily obviated as that is as much a function of wavelength as anything else.