- If we *can* develop an anti-skywave antenna design that provides enough attenuation to be worthwhile, that would be a huge breakthrough for AM. It won't help *every* station (for example, 1590 there in the Rochester area must provide *groundwave* protection to at least one station) but it would be a big deal for most.
I'm just not really convinced it's possible. For WXXI-AM, for example, you'd need at least 27dB of skywave suppression to eliminate the need to go directional at night. It is very possible that an effective anti-skywave design may be significantly *larger* than a traditional antenna, causing NIMBY problems. (on the other hand, it might allow a directional station to reduce the number of towers required)
- It would be interesting to see the unexpected side-effects of an across-the-board power increase. What would happen if the FCC sent every AM station a new license authorizing 4x the power on their old license? I suspect fewer than 25% of stations would implement the increase. Many simply couldn't afford the bigger transmitter. Others wouldn't see enough of a return on investment to make it worthwhile. (factor in new antenna-tuning networks and, probably most important, higher utility bills)
But of course, those stations that didn't implement the increase would suffer quite a bit of new interference.
The power increase could have the unexpected benefit of forcing marginal stations out of business, eliminating their contribution to the overall interference background. It would also allow remaining stations to let out their patterns.
- IMHO improved enforcement of sunset signoffs & pattern changes would largely have the same effect: not as much about reducing interference as about driving marginal stations off the air & removing their contribution to interference & coverage limits.
- I'm not that worried about IBOC. It seems to be dying on its own. The full-digital mode tests will return some interesting data but few markets have enough viable AM signals to make a full-digital operation practical.
- The Commission should find a way to hold filing windows more often. (IMHO there should be a filing window for each broadcast service at least once a year, and all applications filed during that window should be processed before the next window opens) When new frequencies open due to stations going dark elsewhere, existing stations shouldn't have to wait 3-4-5 years for the opportunity to file a major change.
The thousands of pending FM translator applications need to be processed promptly. I don't think they should receive any priority over LPFM, but I do think they deserve a prompt decision. Of course, many of these translators can end up relaying AM stations.
Maybe there should be a path to convert these to commercial LPFMs? Maybe if the AM station has a clean record with the FCC and has operated for at least 50 years, it may shut down its AM transmitter & operate only the translator?
- I think we need to be more aggressive about cancelling idle licenses. A station that doesn't operate at least the minimum schedule in the rules for at least 26 weeks a year should lose its license. A station that doesn't operate at least 26 weeks at full authorized facilities should see its license permanently modified for the reduced facilities. If the reduced facilities are below the station's class minimum, it should be reduced in class -- and if those facilities are not licensable (for example, a 50-watt AM daytimer) the license should be cancelled. No more bringing the station back up for a week once a year to retain the license, and no more using 150 watts into a 50-foot longwire for a year.
Apply these requirements to *all* services. It won't cancel nearly as many FM licenses or translators as it cancels AMs, but it will cancel *some*, and that will be spectrum available to reduce the load on 540-1700.
