FCC Commissioner's Comments on AM

[TheBigA]

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.

The whole reallocation thing is such a huge hornet's nest that the FCC would probably want to shy away from the whole thing.

Keep in mind that their agenda is more about making frequencies open to minorities. Those folks have already put in a claim on any new allocations.

But this entire discussion is moot because the FCC won't be giving away spectrum space to profit making companies for free. These companies have made a lot of money buying and selling this space, and the FCC wants to take a slice.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Sad but true.... The FCC these days is nothing more than a nasty auction house that also likes to tax people via fines and fees. They are actually worse than worthless. They are a nuisance and a inhibitor of things really benificial to the public as a whole. It is all about the $$$$$.

 

[bmcglynn]

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.

The whole reallocation thing is such a huge hornet's nest that the FCC would probably want to shy away from the whole thing.

The last time that was done if I recall from my readings was back in the 1940's. That is one part of the problem for certain - populations have shifted to suburbs in the North East, and other parts of the country have grown substantially since then. Because of that, most DA patters bypass a large part of a market's populace.

Today, a new band plan or reallocation would never happen. Not to mention the cost thrown on operators who would have substantial capital expense to keep compliant. I would imagine that most operators would carefully evaluate keeping the lights on versus turning in the license when faced with a mandatory million++ expense to realign signals and re-market frequency positions. Not to mention legal action from economic impacts on coverage shift.

It all comes down to QRM and skywave interference for AM. Work around those, and the service has a chance to be improved.

Brian

 

[BobOnTheJob]

The rest of the 2-6 band should be offered to AM broadcasters on a secondary basis to EXISTING TV stations.

My first thought on this was that having big "gaps" in the band wouldn't work. But isn't that a typical situation in markets now? Indianapolis has no full power 24/7 AM stations below 1070...all full timers are in the top half of the band. And no listener thinks anything about that allocation fact...nor would they if there were no radio stations between 82 and 88mhz around Philly.

 

[TomT]

There are only two realistic solutions to nighttime coverage--and a blanket power increase is not one of them. You can't fight physics. The more signals you launch into the ionosphere at night the more signals you will have coming back down from the ionosphere.

!. Fewer stations--and fewer stations on at night.

2. FM translators used to keep more daytimers off the air at night.

 

[spt87]

Primarily by approving FM stereo but not AM stereo at the same time (I know at least RCA had the Belar AM system ready and I believe the Kahn system dates back that far as well). If they had approved stereo for AM with FM stereo both would have become univeral in receivers together.

Secondly, and I may have this wrong, but I believed I read the FCC had required FM tuners in radios over a certain dollar value. I can't find any reference to that now, though, so I may be wrong. I might be confusing mandatory UHF tuners in TVs.

They certainly did other things to encourage FM - banning simulcasting, giving out licenses with minimal red tape, encouraging the non-commercial uses to help pull listeners over. Of course these won't apply to AM in its current state but my point is the FCC pushed the new band so they should be willing to now push the old one to help it survive.

Years ago I read a post elsewhere on receiver mandates and the point was made that radio is a system. Mandating improvements on the transmission side is pointless if the receiving side can't take advantage. This commissioner who wants to help revive AM has only transmission side recommendations. Other posters on various RD boards have more transmission side suggestions. That's great, but if only a niche audience willing to hunt down and pay for low volume (aka: expensive), high end AM tuners can take advantage, it won't make a dent in the problem. All receivers need to get these improvement so the mass market gets exposed to them.

 

[TheBigA]

!. Fewer stations--and fewer stations on at night.

Who determines which stations get shut down? The FCC? They're not in the business of constricting media. Their agenda for the past 30 years has been to expand outlets. That agenda hasn't changed. They're still adding more stations, and take pride in it.

That's great, but if only a niche audience willing to hunt down and pay for low volume (aka: expensive), high end AM tuners can take advantage, it won't make a dent in the problem. All receivers need to get these improvement so the mass market gets exposed to them.

The FCC has said that it won't mandate any receiver changes for radio. And the CEA is absolutely opposed to any mandates (such as FM in cell phones), and will fight them if proposed.

 

[w9wi]

The last time that was done if I recall from my readings was back in the 1940's. That is one part of the problem for certain - populations have shifted to suburbs in the North East, and other parts of the country have grown substantially since then. Because of that, most DA patters bypass a large part of a market's populace.

FWIW the last major frequency shift was in 1941 a few months before World War II -- and even then, they just shifted stations in blocks (everyone on 1200 moved up 30KHz, etc.) to open up a few clear channels for Canada & Mexico. The last shift that really changed the landscape was in 1928. (yes, 84 years ago...)

 

[Chuck]

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.

That certainly works for me. It's a "common sense" approach. I understand that "common sense" died quite some time ago in Washington, but there is always hope.

 

[Ai4i]

The last shift that really changed the landscape was in 1928. (yes, 84 years ago...)

Every time I see an 833 address on a house, I think...they just don't understand about that very, very special number.

 

[WNTIRadio]

Any AM that has a translator(s) that either replicate or exceed their nighttime coverage should be able to shut down at sunset. I know of a station running 250w DA that fits that criteria perfectly.

Any AM station that has a translator(s) that replicates their daytime coverage should be migrated to the FM band as well.

Status of these translators should be changed from class D to a new class, like an A1. That way they can't get bumped/displaced.

 

[KeithE4]

The last shift that really changed the landscape was in 1928. (yes, 84 years ago...)

Every time I see an 833 address on a house, I think...they just don't understand about that very, very special number.

The shift from 833 to 10 killercycle-spaced frequencies began in 1923. The FRC station purge (for lack of a better term) happened in 1928.

 

[Kmagrill]

Any AM that has a translator(s) that either replicate or exceed their nighttime coverage should be able to shut down at sunset. I know of a station running 250w DA that fits that criteria perfectly.

When I tune into AM radio at night on my clock radio, I hear only a couple of stations. We have a 5kW class B DA and a 1kW non-DA class C. I hear lots of power line noise and other impulse interference, but I don't hear much interference from other stations to either the class B or the C. We have some class B daytimers with micropower at night which I cannot hear. I also cannot hear very much else on those channels or very many other channels either. In the car, I can hear most of the micropowered stations and a lot more dx. So, my observation is that it's important for signals to reach clock radios and home stereos because people have to be able to listen at home, not just in the car. Clock radios are so insensitive that it takes about a millivolt to get into one, even marginally. Under those conditions, interference from other stations seems like less of a problem than is simply being invisible to prospective listeners. While nighttime interference is a huge problem for select stations, the issue that AM radio has as an industry is that the band appears empty to most listeners after dark. So, why tune into a band that only offers two listening choices when FM has 25+?

I suppose my theory can be distilled to the old saying of we may be putting the cart before the horse when we consider taking some stations off after sunset to benefit others. Worrying about the quality of service can only occur if there is a usable service at all. If your station benefits from another station in another city being dark, you probably have other daytimers in your town that would suffer the same fate, leaving the band nearly deserted after dark. I would submit that this condition would further marginalize AM as whole by reducing the listener's choices. Ultimately, this drives them to the FM band. Thus, while your station may benefit in the short term, listeners will continue to trickle away and in the long term, your situation will be worse off.

Any AM station that has a translator(s) that replicates their daytime coverage should be migrated to the FM band as well.

Status of these translators should be changed from class D to a new class, like an A1. That way they can't get bumped/displaced.

Now that is an interesting idea. I see four problems:
1. AM coverage almost always exceeds translator coverage, usually by quite a lot.
2. Translators may be leased by an AM, but actually owned by someone else. Very few AM stations own their translators.
3. Once AM stations have left the band, what's left to draw listeners to the band?
4. Should every AM that gets an FM counterpart be forced to migrate to FM? If not, who gets to stay on AM?

Still, this idea has possibilities as a voluntary method of getting stations migrated to FM. I think the only way it could work is if the FCC let AM stations use contour rules and allowed more powerful facilities than the basic 250W translator.

 

[TomT]

If you listen on a car radio (or something like the Grundig G-8 with more sensitivity) you will definitely hear interference unless you live within a mile of the station.

The graveyard channels are perhaps the worse (1230-1240-1340-1400-1450-1490). Our local station on 1490 is chopped up with skip within 3~4 miles of the transmitter; it would definitely benefit from a translator at night. And it was these channels that lobbied years ago for a nighttime power increase from 250 to a 1,000 watts--which only increased nighttime interference.

 

[markbohach]

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.

Maybe more likely than you might think. The sunsetting would take a long time- perhaps a decade or longer.

It worked for digital television- and while that transition was delayed a few years and had it's protesters, it went
forward and we have a fully digital TV transmission system. (and tons of old obsolete TVs out there).

 

[VelvetR]

It worked for digital television- and while that transition was delayed a few years and had it's protesters, it went
forward and we have a fully digital TV transmission system. (and tons of old obsolete TVs out there).

And cable outfits get tens of thousands of new victims because all those viewers completely lost off-air pickup. The signal they were getting in analog may not have been great but it was usable and it was FREE.

 

[Kmagrill]

If you listen on a car radio (or something like the Grundig G-8 with more sensitivity) you will definitely hear interference unless you live within a mile of the station.

The graveyard channels are perhaps the worse (1230-1240-1340-1400-1450-1490). Our local station on 1490 is chopped up with skip within 3~4 miles of the transmitter; it would definitely benefit from a translator at night. And it was these channels that lobbied years ago for a nighttime power increase from 250 to a 1,000 watts--which only increased nighttime interference.

I worked for a 1230kc station during the power increase. Given the high level of interference that already existed at 250W, we thought that 1kW was pretty great. Finally, the station could be heard on the rapidly growing side of town at night. Eventually, of course, the background noise caught up with the power increase and now it's as if it never happened.

I would posit that the vast bulk of consumers don't own a Grundig G8 or anything like it. They probably have a stock car radio and even if it's an aftermarket, it probably was selected for its mp3, AAC, bluetooth or other features besides a good AM section.

Almost all of us have a generic clock radio that we wake up to, so try the test to see how many AM stations you can get at night and of those, how many can you hear significant interference on when properly tuned to the target station.

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.

Maybe more likely than you might think. The sunsetting would take a long time- perhaps a decade or longer.

It worked for digital television- and while that transition was delayed a few years and had it's protesters, it went
forward and we have a fully digital TV transmission system. (and tons of old obsolete TVs out there).

I think the reason that worked for TV is that the old TVs became useless without converters which were clunky. The new TVs also were available in much larger sizes and with better image quality, plus they are thinner and lighter and fairly cheap. I recently bought a 46" LCD TV on closeout for $349 which is less than a lot of 20" TVs cost 25 years ago. Finally, the lifespan of the average TV is only 10 years, but radios often live many times longer. Still, there are a lot of CRT televisions still kicking around hooked up to CATV and satellite receivers.....

 

[TheBigA]

It worked for digital television- and while that transition was delayed a few years and had it's protesters, it went
forward and we have a fully digital TV transmission system. (and tons of old obsolete TVs out there).

It really was a boondoggle as far as the government is concerned. They spent billions giving people converters. They resolved once that project was over that they'd never do it again.

The other thing that made it work is half of the population didn't have to do anything because the change was made by their cable company. That would not be the case for radio.

Also, we had a technological change as HDTV came on, and that was the replacement of tube TVs with flatscreens. And that was such an incredible change, in terms of obvious quality and cost, that it was a no-brainer. Digital radio simply isn't as much of a sound improvement over FM as HDTV was to the tube. The first time I saw HDTV, I was hooked. I can't say the same about digital radio.

 

[Kmagrill]

The first time I saw HDTV, I was hooked. I can't say the same about digital radio.

Certainly, this is true of analog FM vs HD where the analog is, arguably, better than the HD.

The difference in AM quality is pretty significant, though. AM HD sounds very much better than analog. That said, the problem is anyone can turn on a $10 FM radio and get the same, or actually, a little better sound out of it than AM HD. AM HD has a lower audio bandwidth than FM and has very high compression rates, so artifacts are somewhat more noticable. So even if HD makes your AM sound nice(r), is that enough to entice people to buy a bunch of new radios given the available alternatives? I'd bet the answer is no for most. The best hope for AM HD might be that FM HD multicasting eventually drives up sales of HD tuners to the point that the users will discover some AM HD programming. This could take a very long while, waiting as HD radios slowely creep into the market. Another scenario would be where a very popular AM station is able to drive listeners directly to HD, but I think that's probably not going to happen very often.

And then there are all of the other technical challenges facing AM HD.... No simple solutions are forthcoming, I'm afraid.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

Where the boat was really missed was when the NRSC standard was put into place. The radio stations were mandated to comply with the NRSC mask but the receiver manufacturers were not. If the NRSC standard would have been executed all the way through to the listener, the AM listener would be hearing programming that sounds almost as good as what we hear on our air monitors....chock full of 7-9khz high end which is a mere 1 octave away from FM quality. And those radios would be in every home by now as the NRSC mask was put in place in the mid 1990's.