FCC Commissioner's Comments on AM

[bmcglynn]

Last week at NAB, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai commented on the decline of AM radio and forming a committee in early 2013 to report on what could be done to breathe live back into it. He cites that AM Radio now comprises less than 20% of all hours tuned; 10% for the 12-24 demographic (which is surprisingly high to me). The rules for AM Radio have not been revisited since 1991. Since then, interference has gotten worse.

Some areas of potential improvement mentioned were:
1. Across the board power increases - Similar to what Richard Aresenault requested to the FCC
2. Anti-Skywave Antenna Technology development and implementation
3. Synchronous AM Transmission Technology

Noticeably absent was any discussion of HD radio for AM. Seems that Commissioner Pai agrees (at least implicitly) that HD IBAC (In-Band, Adjacent Channel) is not part of the solution.

For the actual text:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0919/DOC-316374A1.pdf
(Page 5)


Brian

 

[TomT]

All three ideas whose days have come and gone.

Solutions that will help?

1. Kill HD for AM. Just generates interference to the adjacent channel stations. AM stereo worked, didn't interfere, but still couldn't beat FM;

2. Allow about 2/3rds of the stations to die;

3. Put teeth in Part 15;

4. Allow fill-in translators for AM to "bump" "satellators."

 

[bmcglynn]

All three ideas whose days have come and gone.

Solutions that will help?

1. Kill HD for AM. Just generates interference to the adjacent channel stations. AM stereo worked, didn't interfere, but still couldn't beat FM;

2. Allow about 2/3rds of the stations to die;

3. Put teeth in Part 15;

4. Allow fill-in translators for AM to "bump" "satellators."

From the Commissioner Pai's comments, it is a breath of fresh air that the Commission is looking at ways to improve the service versus being dismissive about it being "Antiquated Modulation". From the three priorities, I would agree with the first two of them - where they could be economically practical to implement.

As an operator of a 1KW graveyard station, what's killing us are three things:
1. Increased electrical noise at peoples' workplaces due to lax standards on devices with switching power supplies
2. Nighttime coverage. We loose 2/3 of our coverage area after sundown
3. The perception and awareness of AM radio

The first two items require a technical solution. What the Commission is talking about could conceivably address them. As for item #3 - that is a business and marketing issue. To even address issue #3, you need to be able to get the station consistently in order to even start to attract people to the band.

AM Ground-wave reception has many advantages over FM in hilly terrain. We have a class-A FM tied to our AM, and it has great hilltop-to-hilltop coverage. In many of the villages around our area that would benefit from our station, we would need to invest in a network of synchronous FM boosters to serve ($$$'s). Even class-B powerhouse stations run into these issues. A strong Ground-Wave AM with great nighttime coverage addresses this beautifully.

As for translators on the FM band - I would agree that a tighter policy may have made sense. I would also argue that they may not be necessary if:
1) AM stations could have nighttime coverage nearly equivalent to their daytime coverage
2) AM audio performance were close to FM audio quality

IBOC failed, and C-QUAM got off to a bad start. Comparing the two standards, C-QUAM stereo provided a much better experience than IBOC. If you allowed AM stations 15KHz bandwidth and applied the Digital Signal Processing power used for IBAC decoding towards AM noise reduction, you would have a very listenable signal that rivals FM signal quality. In all counts, it would be far superior to the artifact-laden signals of FM HD.


How do you get there? Next comes the policy question:

One thought is that you allow a cross-the-board power increase for stations that meet modern technical standards. For those that do not, either let them wither or force off the air.

Allow a 3-10 dB power increase for stations day and night, but require:
1. Station must be in C-QUAM stereo with 9.5KHz bandwidth
2. Station must reduce sky-wave emissions to xx MV/m (through modern antenna design)
3. Propose strict DSP noise reduction requirements on auto receiver manufacturers
4. Kill IBOC on AM

Operators that are willing to invest would be serious about AM and would be the likely benefactors of the improved signal. Those that do not, would likely be on the path to pull the plug anyways.

Brian

 

[TheBigA]

Yep...good comments. But keep in mind that Commissioner Pai is only one of five Commissioners, and he represents the minority.

For most of the past 12 years, Commissioner Michael Copps was in a similar position, before retiring earlier this year. He spent most of his time at the FCC giving speeches like this one, saying a lot of things that people outside the Commission agreed with. Copps' problem was getting his fellow Commisioners to agree. He was unable to get proposals passed, even when his party became the majority. Why? Because it required the ability to get others on the commission to agree.

I don't know Commissioner Pai. He sounds like a well-minded person. He's only been at the Commision for four months. Time will tell if he's able to get something done.

 

[radiomonkey2]

All three ideas whose days have come and gone.

Solutions that will help?

3. Put teeth in Part 15;

At one time causing interfering noise in a residential area was a grievous no-no. Apparently the Commission has abdicated all responsibility in this area. At some times in my home in the western Twin Cities suburbs, I cannot even listen to an AM talk station 10 mi. away, due to someone's apparent light dimmer in the neighborhood. Then there are the noisy street lights, DSL noise, etc.

When I moved into my home some 20+ years ago, I could orient my Superadio to null out a semi-local (western WI) on 740 to be able to hear a co-channel 500 watt station in Iowa. These days, the noise level is so high, it makes listening to the WI station unpleasant. Forget the IA station.

Thanks, FCC.

 

[spt87]

Whatever is done will require some mandates being placed on the receiver manfacturers:

1 - analog AM stereo mandatory if analog FM stereo is present in the receiver.
2 - require bandwidth out to whatever the maximum the FCC allows the broadcasters; allow an auto adjust system that reduces bandwidth in steps on weaker signals (or allow user selectable option).
3 - digital noise suppression.
4 - eliminate the AM/FM button - make it continuous tuning so AM and FM share the presets and seek/scan function scan from 530 to 106.7 (with a gap in the middle between 1710 and 88 of course). This alone would help alot for the lazy who never bother to hit that button.
5 - mandate AM capability in FM tuners but some exceptions may be required for devices under a certain size.

And for both the transmission and reception side:
1 - restart research into a possible RDS type capability for AM
2 - for IBOC-FM the technology should be advanced to allow for failback from an FM HD2 or HD3 to an AM channel (and vice versa) since those sub channels are popular for simulcasting AMs.
3 - IBOC on AM - I'm on the fence. I know the drawbacks but it seems to work well enough in some cases. Leave it as an option for the broadcaster.
4 - Possibly look at RDS enhancements to allow for auto switching between analog FM and AM simulcasts based on signal strength or high noise levels.

The FCC handicapped AM to boost FM in the '60's so some payback is owed. Also the AM Stereo waffling in the early '80's ruined that rollout of that technology.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC handicapped AM to boost FM in the '60's

I have absolutely no reason to believe that's true. The FCC has done lots of stupid things in the last 50 years. But their main MO was to increase licensees on both AM and FM. And that's what they did, by cutting power of AMs and by cramming more FMs in markets. We're paying for both of those decisions now. In effect their decisions handicapped both AM and FM.

But really the only thing they had to do to boost FM in the 60s was make simulcasting illegal.

The FCC will not place any mandates on receiver manufacturers, and you can take that one to the bank.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Whatever is done will require some mandates being placed on the receiver manfacturers:

// snip //

And for both the transmission and reception side:

The FCC handicapped AM to boost FM in the '60's so some payback is owed. Also the AM Stereo waffling in the early '80's ruined that rollout of that technology.

I have a philosophical difference that causes me to reject just about all of your specific suggestions. And of course any suggestion I have is likely to be met with rejection by yet other people.

It is not the job receiver manufacturers to solve the AM/FM balance. If a broadcaster chooses to be an AM broadcaster... and they is likely to happen when there is NO FM channel available to replace the existing AM, then that broadcaster has to provide programming that will cause people to want to listen. Programming that causes the person to understand the difficulty of switching bands and frequencies.

The radio receiver retail market seems to be on life support. If you start mandating all kinds of weird capabilities for receivers, the number of receivers available for retail will plummet to somewhere near zero.

Radio is about listening. What does RDS have to do with listening? We are currently in a pendulum swing that has music sitting in the throne and RDS apparently is quite useful there. If AM is to survive, is there is a need for the additional channels that AM provides, then it only will be because there is some non-music programming that people want to hear. Automatic switching back and forth between simulcasting AM/FM is useless if we expect every channel in use to be providing unique programming content.

I can see the value of the FCC cracking down on sources of the interference signals.

 

[TheBigA]

I can see the value of the FCC cracking down on sources of the interference signals.

Me too...I can see the value of it. But I don't see it happening. At all.

The FCC as a body isn't very interested in OTA radio. Sure, one Commissioner gave a great speech. But the rest of them are sound asleep.

And the sad part of it is just about anything I can think of that OTA needs right now to grow would require some form of FCC regulation. And it's not going to happen.

 

[davideduardo]

The FCC handicapped AM to boost FM in the '60's so some payback is owed. Also the AM Stereo waffling in the early '80's ruined that rollout of that technology.

How did the FCC handicap AM back then? There was no significant change in the rules... and almost all the good facilities were handed out in the early 30's, with a very small number of good ones shoehorned in Post-War.

What has handicapped AM is the urban sprawl following W.W. II whereby metro areas outgrew the signal coverage of most if not all the local AMs. In fact, in the top 100 US markets, only about 150 stations cover 80% or better of the market geography day and night... an average of a station and a half per market.

What the FCC did do in the early 60's was approve FM stereo and then it required, at the start of 1967, that AM / FM simulcasts be stopped, except for a few cases of daytimers and a couple of ethnic stations, in the larger urban areas of the US.

But i don't recall the FCC doing anything to "cripple" AM. Coverage issues and sound quality did that all on their own.

 

[TheBigA]

What has handicapped AM is the urban sprawl following W.W. II whereby metro areas outgrew the signal coverage of most if not all the local AMs.

Exactly. It's interesting to see how the population in this country has really shifted to areas that have very limited AM coverage, with most the 50K sticks in the northeast. It would really make sense to re-allocate AM stations, although the time to do that was 40 years ago. It's way too late now, and the FCC wouldn't want to open that hornets nest if their careers depended on it.

 

[semoochie]

The FCC refused to visit the AM stereo question, opting to build up FM instead, by providing it with a stereo signal. I would have done the same thing because 50 years ago, AM showed no signs of ever needing the help and doing so, may have hindered FM's acceptance. 20 years later, it was probably too late.

 

[Kmagrill]

The FCC refused to visit the AM stereo question, opting to build up FM instead, by providing it with a stereo signal. I would have done the same thing because 50 years ago, AM showed no signs of ever needing the help and doing so, may have hindered FM's acceptance. 20 years later, it was probably too late.

This was one of the late Leonard Khan's big complaints. In 1960, he proposed a working AM stereo method to the FCC which was not adopted due to the desire to encourage FM growth. Certainly, adoption of Kahn AM stereo would have radically changed Kahn's fate and fortunes. Would it have helped AM? Maybe for a short while, but what made FM superior isn't stereo. As many FM stations have found out, most listeners don't even notice when transmitting in mono. AM's Achilles' heel is poor bandwidth of the receivers and susceptibility to noise. Stereo would not and did not change that. Even so-called wide banded AM radios didn't sound as good as FM and were far more susceptible to impulse noise.

Any technical aid to AM today would require technology that can mimic FM or CD quality within the primary service contour, or at least, primary community of stations. Anything less is going to be perceived as inferior. Currently, there are three (that I know of) technologies that potentially offer this:

1. Ibiquity's HD (IBOC)
2. DRM
3. Kahn's CAM-D

Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

CAM-D was basically Kahn's analog AM stereo system with monaural high frequency information transmitted digitally. The digital and analog transmissions are blended together in the receiver, in real time, to produce a more natural sounding broadcast. The digital portion of the signal, being mono, reduces the perceived stereo effect while the analog AM portion leaves the receiver susceptible to traditional AM impulse noise. CAM-D, as proposed, did not have a path to fully digital broadcasting in the future, however, it might have been possible to further develop the system to allow for this.

Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) is an all-digital system popular on shortwave and suitable for AM. Because it does not have an analog component, DRM can only be decoded on digital receivers, of which there are very few available. Most are in Germany. The lack of backwards capability to analog AM is a sticking point for most USA broadcasters that don't want to lose their analog revenues.

HD's issues and strengths have been hotly debated and scarcely need to be rehashed yet again. It is a contentious debate with high emotions on both sides. Technically, HD is a hybrid system, meaning that it can be transmitted simultaneously with analog AM, or it can be turned into a fully digital system with enhanced capabilities. Currently, HD is the only system with a significant number of available receivers in the USA.

There may be others and other methods may be yet invented.

As a generalization, any technical solution offered needs only be effective within the primary service area for the AM station. While it's interesting to be able to listen to stations many miles away, most stations do their selling within their 5mV city grade service contour with a smaller number still selling as far out as the 2mV service contour. No doubt there are lots of exceptions to this, but it should hold true for most situations.

So, the question is what are the most effective ways to improve AM radio within the 5mV contour? Power increase? Maybe. Enforce part 15? Definitely, a good idea. Digital? Probably, but there are no perfect solutions on the table. We may have to settle for in imperfect system. AM stereo? No. Just transmitting analog AM stereo doesn't address the underlying issues with analog AM.

 

[speakerman]

The horse is already out of the gate on interference. People don't want to put up with it unless they were already used to it (grew up with it). I don't see how the Commission would do much more enforcement then they already have not been doing.

Music is out of the question for existing AM so stereo is a mute point...IMO. The hearing aid crowd would likely be the only listeners to such. I thought AM stereo was a joke back in the 70s when first introduced. A non-backward-compatible digital transmission format would be the only way to properly implement music capability on AM. All of the old radios would get to listen to digital noise. They obsoleted a bunch of the upper UHF TV spectrum and made folks get digital converter boxes to watch terrestrial TV. I'm still pissed over all of the wireless mic systems that became obsolete from the TV digital move.

What is happening with the lower previous TV channel frequencies? If they could be made available as either a simulcast or as a switch, the low power stations might have a chance. I have a Sony 7600 portable I got many years ago at a duty-free shop while on a cruise that has the FM starting at 76 Mcs. The manufactures have been producing this extended band for international use for many years.

There are so many choices now in media and many of the younger audience have opted out of regular RF transmission format delivery with the advent of all of the smart phone devices.

To me, AM still works for talk radio when broadcast from a high-power station with a good antenna system.

As has been true with the FCC...too little-too late.

 

[bmcglynn]

What is happening with the lower previous TV channel frequencies? If they could be made available as either a simulcast or as a switch, the low power stations might have a chance. I have a Sony 7600 portable I got many years ago at a duty-free shop while on a cruise that has the FM starting at 76 Mcs. The manufactures have been producing this extended band for international use for many years.

If our FM band were not oversubscribed, we could have taken the approach the CRTC did north of the border. In Canada, many FM allocations were given out to broadcasters in exchange for their AM license. Some prime dial real-estate was traded-in such as a 50KW signal on 540AM and 1150AM in Ottawa.

There is another proposition in RadioWorld that suggests that fact - recycling lower-band VHF frequencies. I could see that as a feasible option in a way in which FM is being implemented internationally. Maybe open this band exclusively for AM station simulcasts with the goal of sunsetting the AM service?. If it were a pure digital service, reasonable power levels could provide strong regional coverage, plus get around terrain issues.

I still think AM groundwave has some great advantages in mountainous terrain, which goes back to my original point - is there a technical way to reduce skywave interference to where AM stations could equalize their nighttime and daytime coverage?

Brian

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe open this band exclusively for AM station simulcasts with the goal of sunsetting the AM service?.

Great idea, but it would require the entire population to buy new radios. Not very likely.

 

[kenglish]

Trouble is, anything that requires a new radio is going to require WAITING for people to buy a new radio. Most are quite happy with what they have now, including that shiny, new iPhone....so how long would it take to replace all the radios?

What might be better is some sort of educational campaign for the public, together with some new enforcement from the FCC, on interference issues. That can be done right now, not waiting for the public to purchase new radios.

The FCC should start enforcing Part 15 regs. The power companies should do more RFI troubleshooting, and should enforce some standards on power line construction. The BPL thing needs to go away.
Listeners should know how to file a complaint with their local electric utilities.
Hams should insist that the noise floor stops rising, and gets lowered, too.
We should be vigilant over such things as "green" (LED, etc) light bulbs....some are fine, some are RFI monsters.

How many stations have any troubleshooting hints on their website, or brochures they mail out?
When was the last time you gave the FCC phone number to a listener or viewer?
When was the last time you actually went out and tried to troubleshoot an RFI problem for a listener?

 

[bmcglynn]

Maybe open this band exclusively for AM station simulcasts with the goal of sunsetting the AM service?.

Great idea, but it would require the entire population to buy new radios. Not very likely.

Agreed. It's a 10+ year play. Actually much longer if you look at the run for when FM was introduced in the 1940's until its dominance in the early 80's. The big question is whether the consumers and electronics producers would have incentive to invest in a new band.

A new band could a dud since Internet-enabled cars and low priced LTE broadband brings streaming to the car at the push of a button. Just look at DAB in Canada... like HD IBOC - a solution looking for a problem.

Brian

 

[TheBigA]

A new band could a dud since Internet-enabled cars and low priced LTE broadband brings streaming to the car at the push of a button. Just look at DAB in Canada... like HD IBOC - a solution looking for a problem.

Exactly. The only reason satellite radio hasn't been a total failure is that it's now OEM in most new cars purchased in the last 7 years. Had they not spent that money, satellite would have suffered the same fate as HD Radio.

However, I disagree that HD is a solution looking for a problem. The problem is very real, and HD is an attempt at solving it. But it's not a good solution, and we've seen that consumers have other alternatives to solving the problem. That's why any idea that requires a new device won't work. The main advantage OTA radio has is that everyone already has a few.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

My personal opinion is that smaller market stations should be allowed first choice of the old TV 6 87.7 frequency at 250 watts first. Treat it just like a translator. The rest of the 2-6 band should be offered to AM broadcasters on a secondary basis to EXISTING TV stations. Put a freeze on TV and don't allow any new ones to be added on 2-6. I feel the new "AM" band service should be in analog where the cost is affordable for both the broadcaster and reciever manufactures. Considering that many other countries use the 5-6 band for FM already in their countries it would be pretty easy for manufactures to re-tool. Also, there's a ton of old junker TV-band audio tuners out there available for use. Also, there are analog TV transmitters still laying around. I could see some of them being re-used with a new exicter and some modification. The thing small AMs need is AFFORDABLE help that could fairly quickly help them survive. The big boy stations already have enough power in many cases to cover over noise in their primary coverage area. So, the least should really be first and the greatest should be last in the new allocations IMHO.