dying AM radio

[1L6E6VHF]

T

Ask yourself, if you're an immigrant from Italy, and you want to hear Italian language news and entertainment, will you choose a static-filled AM broadcast on a tiny little day-time station with no budget, or would you choose streaming content from professional radio stations from Rome or Naples?
.

The problem here is the difference between what the Internet could have been, and what the Internet actually is.

Suppose you're an immigrant in the US from Italy (very rare, these days, common 90 years ago). Would to rather listen to an Italian program on your AM radio, or stare at a box on your smartphone display that reads" "Non è possibile accedere a questo flusso a causa delle restrizioni di copyright nella tua zona (Stati Uniti)?

 

[Avid Listener]

The problem here is the difference between what the Internet could have been, and what the Internet actually is.

Suppose you're an immigrant in the US from Italy (very rare, these days, common 90 years ago). Would to rather listen to an Italian program on your AM radio, or stare at a box on your smartphone display that reads" "Non è possibile accedere a questo flusso a causa delle restrizioni di copyright nella tua zona (Stati Uniti)?

Questo è un problema completamente diverso.

 

[davideduardo]

Questo è un problema completamente diverso.

Not really. If an immigrant can not listen to stations from their country, having one in the new country is a blessing.

Plus, the local station has information, ads and commentary focused on the "new" homeland.

In studies done about radio listening on the U.S. - Mexico border, it was found that immigrants don't tend to prefer the stations from Mexico, even if they can hear them clearly because they represent, from the ads to the news, a way of life that they willingly left behind and to which they do not want to return.

 

[Avid Listener]

Not really. If an immigrant can not listen to stations from their country, having one in the new country is a blessing.

Yes, really. It would only be a problem if every single source of streaming information from the old country were blocked by copyright restrictions, which is not the case.

In studies done about radio listening on the U.S. - Mexico border, it was found that immigrants don't tend to prefer the stations from Mexico, even if they can hear them clearly because they represent, from the ads to the news, a way of life that they willingly left behind and to which they do not want to return.

Then why don't they learn English, or at least stop demonstrating to demand that Americans learn Spanish to accommodate them?

And since when do American resources (the public airwaves) have to be given over to people who simply "prefer" the language of the old country? There's a lot of things that I'd prefer to hear on the radio that I can't because the suits don't think it "tests well".

 

[JeffM]

Ohhh, here we go again...

 

[davideduardo]

Then why don't they learn English, or at least stop demonstrating to demand that Americans learn Spanish to accommodate them?

We've been through this before. There are countless books, studies and papers about how language learning abilities diminishes after early adolescence to the point that adults have at best an enormous challenge in learning anything except a translation vocabulary whereby they think in the native tongue and translate what they want to say using a limited vocabulary.

There are exceptions. Most are found with better educated people who have at least a high school degree; many immigrants are not that well educated. Further, working class immigrants simply don't have the time for the degree of study required to learn better English.

Oh, and I second Landtuna's comment about Hispanics "demanding" Americans learn Spanish. In my nearly two decades of dealing with Spanish speaking Hispanics in markets from New York and Miami to LA and San Francisco, I have never, ever, ever heard anyone demand that English-only Americans learn Spanish. Since a significant part of my time in U.S. Spanish language radio was programming talk stations like KTNQ and WADO and WQBA and WIND, I'd know if there were any such sentiment.

And since when do American resources (the public airwaves) have to be given over to people who simply "prefer" the language of the old country? There's a lot of things that I'd prefer to hear on the radio that I can't because the suits don't think it "tests well".

I would prefer to hear vallenato music or an all-salsa station. And I would be not the least unhappy if every rock station changed format. But that is my taste. That does not mean that it makes good economic sense for my wishes to be fulfilled.

Stations that serve diverse communities such as Russians in New York and Persians in LA really fulfill the service requirements the FCC had in mind decades ago. And given that such stations are often on facilities that could neither adequately serve nor prosper with formats in English, the best possible use of those facilities is serving the smaller components in a community.

 

[davideduardo]

One of the key points throughout this thread has been Mr. Gleason's continual argument that AM shouldn't die because it is needed to provide a entertainment and communication medium for immigrants and aliens who don't (or won't) speak English.

You got that completely and totally wrong.

(Probably on purpose as you just love to distort a post to try to turn the argument back against the poster.)

I said that AM will survive as long as there are opportunities to make money. I did not say "AM shouldn't die" or anything similar.

I did say that one of the opportunities to make money is in foreign language and ethnic programming when there is an unserved or under-served community under a station's signal. I also said that news, news/talk, sports, religion, brokering and, in small markets, community-focused programming were also opportunities that could sustain an AM for many years to come.

As long as any or all of those options makes money for an owner (or is sustainable via a non-profit model) AMs will continue. If none of those options works for a station, then the station should probably turn in its license.

He repeats that same point every chance he gets.

No, I have never said that.

Those of us who disagree refute that point every time he makes it.

Yes, your comebacks have to do with "why don't people learn English" despite a wealth of material that shows that first generation immigrants are generally to old to successfully become bilingual and that, historically, every large immigrant group has performed the same way as to language acquisition.

So naturally, those of us who refute Gleason's point are the ones accused of taking the thread off-topic. But the great Gleason (aka "David Eduardo) is some sort of god around here, so when he drags the thread around to advocating using the American airwaves to placate immigrants and aliens, half the participants kowtow to his self-anointed position of resident sage.

Again, you are distorting and inaccurately describing my point which is "if an AM can not make money with traditional formats like CHR, news, talk and AC and such, then it can quite possibly do so with some form of religious programming, foreign language programming or other specialized programming for niche constituencies.

When it comes to immigrants, if there are enough of a particular group to create a profitable station for, then the idea is not "placating" but "serving" so that a station can go out and sell ads to merchants who desire the business of members of that group. I did not say or imply that "placating" a group was needed, so your statement about Hispanics "demanding" services in Spanish is just a load of dung.

Sidebar: I find it symptomatic of your "more intelligent than anyone else" attitude that you, "Avid Listener", make fun of my use of my given names, "David" and "Eduardo" to post. Those are my names... the ones on my driver license, deeds and accounts. I doubt your Master Card says "Avid Listener" in little raised letters.

You want us to stop refuting the argument that AM needs to hang around to benefit the non-Americans who can't or won't speak English? Then get the person who keeps putting that argument forward to stop.

Again, the problem here is that I did not say the words you are jamming in my mouth. Your effort to claim I did so is intellectually dishonest and morally vacant.

 

[BOZ Profit]

I'm pausing this thread to split the off topic political remarks and move them elsewhere. When I am done, I'll reopen BUT will only entertain ON TOPIC posts going forward.

 

[BOZ Profit]

I want to thank Frank for taking the time to go through this thread and split off the off-topic comments.

I am re-opening the thread, but it must stay on topic.

Thanks!

 

[Unregistered]

this thread could be about AM AND FM. Many Younger people generallly don't listen to AM OR FM.
"Radio" must move to the internet to survive.

 

[K.M. Richards]

"Radio" must move to the internet to survive.

This has been discussed in many other threads here at RD.

We as an industry know that terrestrial radio will eventually die, and there are several widely divergent opinions as to how long that will take. The consensus is that AM will go long before FM and a small part of that is based on smartphones already having FM receivers built into them. At some point TANSTAAFL* will kick in and there will be a somewhat higher use of FM as a backup to streams.

Right now, the most successful streams are already simulcasts of terrestrial radio. The second most successful are HD2 programming that also streams. The standalone stations, for the most part, are limited to 100 concurrent listeners and are pretty much a non-factor. Bandwidth costs are the issue here; the terrestrial stations are much better able to absorb the costs than are the independent streamers. As it stands right now, every listener to a stream costs the originator money and that's why the indies are at a disadvantage.

Internet radio will thrive once it can be made equivalent to terrestrial radio, where one stream is "broadcast" at a fixed cost regardless of the number of people "tuning in" to it. Until then, streams are the actual endangered mode of operation.

----

*-There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

 

[landtuna]

To do what K.M. suggests there would need to be one of two things happen:

The business model for internet streaming must change so as not to penalize the streamer for the number of listeners they draw. I don't see this as very likely however it would be the easiest to implement.

The TCP/IP technology must be replaced by a connection technology that permits an unlimited number of connections to one source. Right now TCP/IP is a one-to-one technology. The development of such a technology is probably much more realistic than the implementation considering either the entire world wide network would need to be replaced or a new network would have to be built. I see the second option as more financially possible than the first however I don't see the multiple point technology being implemented solely for the benefit of streamers. Something with significant network-wide benefit would be needed to justify such an investment.

There might be a third possibility - using something like today's repeaters to support a one-to-many connection. The reason TCP/IP is a one-to-one technology is because it is assumed that it will be used as a two-way connection. If we assume a technology that would be a dedicated one-way technology could be developed the initial connection to the stream source could continue to be two-way with the stream sent over a one-way connection. There are a number of pretty challenging problems that would have to be solved to achieve this but it could be an alternative.

 

[TheBigA]

The business model for internet streaming must change so as not to penalize the streamer for the number of listeners they draw. I don't see this as very likely however it would be the easiest to implement.

You're right...absolutely unlikely. The music business has been destroyed by the internet. They see no reason to do anything to help other industries profit from their content. For that reason alone, internet radio hasn't exploded as much as it could or should have. And amazingly, the music industry itself and musicians who stream their own songs are equally penalized by this crazy system.

 

[TGunn]

So we just fire up the AM Radio when there's an emergency. I know AM radio has been dead at least for me since 1986 when I got a weekend on air gig at an am station and my friend who worked for the airline industry said he hadn't listened to AM radio for years. Probably at least 6 years as an FM came into the market with top 40 and cash giveaways in 1980. I know Rick Dees even said in the early 80's that AM radio was dead.. Its Rushbo and Sports...about all your gonna make money with on the AM dial.

 

[Kelly A]

This has been discussed in many other threads here at RD.

We as an industry know that terrestrial radio will eventually die, and there are several widely divergent opinions as to how long that will take.

I'm not sure that's ever going to be the case. At least not in our lifetime. The Internet is nothing more than phone lines carrying data, and like phone lines have always been, come with some sort of a cost for using them. Radio is free and most consumers will always pick free over subscription.

 

[landtuna]

I'm not sure that's ever going to be the case. At least not in our lifetime. The Internet is nothing more than phone lines carrying data, and like phone lines have always been, come with some sort of a cost for using them. Radio is free and most consumers will always pick free over subscription.

Comparing the Internet and OTA radio is like comparing apples and oranges and even if they were like products most consumers pick functionality over cost. Consider the cost of landline phones (fairly cheap) versus cell phones (several times the cost of landline) - most everyone these days carries a cell and landline is disappearing.

Ask your neighbors which they would rather lose - "free" radio or "costly" Internet? You will have your answer.

 

[Avid Listener]

Ask your neighbors which they would rather lose - "free" radio or "costly" Internet? You will have your answer.

That's an "apples to oranges" question. Most folks are going to keep "costly" internet for all of the things you can get and do on the internet. So, when it comes to adding one more function to the internet, hearing radio-like music played, with no extra cost for adding that function, then that additional function is for all practical intents and purposes "free".

 

[pianoplayer88key]

This thread came up while doing a search for network cables. (Otherwise I wouldn't have even known this forum on this board existed - I usually visit DX and Reception, HD Radio and occasionally Community Radio, L.A. & San Diego boards.) I was searching to see if I could find a topic where shielded vs unshielded network cables had been discussed as to how it affects radio reception. So far I haven't yet found it, although there's another thread I'm going to look at. I just got a 75-foot Cat6 cable at Fry's, for $35, but am planning to take it back next week and either get a shielded Cat6A or Cat7 cable for about $20 or unshielded for about $9 from Newegg. I don't think it'd do much good to post another topic asking which is better, though, because due to time & other factors, I will probably have already ordered (like, before I go to bed tonight) the cable from the online vendor by the time anyone would respond to that topic.

Anyway, reading the latest page (9, on my settings) about ballgame delays vs not, got me thinking. What happens when the radio station is not running on delay (like, if you're sitting in the stands with a radio and hear it called on-air as you see it live), and a fan sitting immediately below the press box cusses at the top of their lungs (with words that would make the f-word, c-word, n-word, etc. seem like common sweet language you'd hear at a Catholic or Baptist sunday school)?

Something that David Eduardo said several posts up also got me thinking. In my opinion, I think it can be beneficial for some english speakers to learn a second language, like Spanish, especially if you happen to live near the Mexican border like I do (I'm about 15 miles from XEPE's transmitter site), or you're a DXer learning Spanish (or other languages) as an aid in ID'ing DX catches. I don't know enough español to converse comfortably in it, although I can say a few things, and can often ID a station in Spanish.

 

[joebtsflk1]

This has been discussed in many other threads here at RD.

We as an industry know that terrestrial radio will eventually die, and there are several widely divergent opinions as to how long that will take. The consensus is that AM will go long before FM and a small part of that is based on smartphones already having FM receivers built into them. At some point TANSTAAFL* will kick in and there will be a somewhat higher use of FM as a backup to streams.

Right now, the most successful streams are already simulcasts of terrestrial radio. The second most successful are HD2 programming that also streams. The standalone stations, for the most part, are limited to 100 concurrent listeners and are pretty much a non-factor. Bandwidth costs are the issue here; the terrestrial stations are much better able to absorb the costs than are the independent streamers. As it stands right now, every listener to a stream costs the originator money and that's why the indies are at a disadvantage.

Internet radio will thrive once it can be made equivalent to terrestrial radio, where one stream is "broadcast" at a fixed cost regardless of the number of people "tuning in" to it. Until then, streams are the actual endangered mode of operation.

----

*-There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Standalone streamers, like the one I administer, exist mainly for the satisfaction of their owners. It's like DXing in reverse, seeing how many listeners you can attract and from what areas. We're usually happy if we have 10 or 15 simultaneous listeners, and that's fine. More listeners = more costs and I don't see the small amount of revenue we could gain is worth the gamble.

AM radio...sad to say but it's toast. Successful AM formats will migrate to FM. Music formats on FM will be swimming an upstream flow with the under 30's.

 

[Unregistered]

AM Radio has generallly been doomed since the 80's when FM radio became successful.
Airing Talk on AM just put off the eventual failure of AM which we are now witnessing .