-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FCC's AM Ressurection Plan
- Thread starter WhiskeyRobber
- Start date
Still nothing about enforcement of existing Part 15 unintentional radiator rules.......
Without addressing the interference issue at the source, this proposal is more politics than engineering.
The man made noise can be addressed.
The naturally occuring noise will still exist, and cause the same problem it always does with digital transmission
in the MW range.
Without addressing the interference issue at the source, this proposal is more politics than engineering.
The man made noise can be addressed.
The naturally occuring noise will still exist, and cause the same problem it always does with digital transmission
in the MW range.
Still nothing about enforcement of existing Part 15 unintentional radiator rules.......
Without addressing the interference issue at the source, this proposal is more politics than engineering.
Agreed.
The man made noise can be addressed.
Disagreed.
I mean, from a technical standpoint it can be addressed. From a political standpoint, it can't.
Congress isn't going to appropriate the FCC enough money to hire enough agents to inspect every shipment of imported electronic gear. (and the President won't ask for it) In the impossible case that Congress *does* appropriate enough money, retailers will raise holy hell about government regulations driving up the price of electronic equipment. In the impossible case that the government *does* succeed in stopping the importation of noisy electronic equipment.. the AM industry will still face the huge base of noisy equipment that's already been imported & sold. (there was a release in the Enforcement Bureau just last week -- a business whose noisy lights are wiping out TV reception in the neighborhood -- they've been contacted twice by FCC agents & told the lights must be replaced -- their response to the agents is "the lights work fine, I'm not going to replace them".)
And just imagine what would happen if FCC agents started knocking on doors in suburban neighborhoods & insisting on coming inside to confiscate noisy computers.
============================
I know I've said this too many times already but...
Most of the proposals in this NPRM attempt to prop up stations with non-competitive signals. That's the wrong way to do it. AM's issues come from too many signals. This forces stations to reduce power (especially at night) in order to avoid interfering with each other -- but those reduced powers are too low to overcome noise, both natural and man-made.
We should encourage marginal AM stations to *stop* operating -- not to *continue* operating.
We should encourage marginal AM stations to *stop* operating -- not to *continue* operating.
Unfortunately, that is counter to the FCC's agenda for the past 50 years. They don't want to decide which stations are "marginal," and they don't want to reduce the number of licensees. By eliminating night time restrictions, they are increasing the amount of interference.
The irony of this report is they know what the problem is. They identify and recognize it early in the report and it's that the audio quality of AM is lower than FM or any other audio distribution service. Then they don't do anything that addresses that significant problem. Until they find a way to improve the audio quality of AM, the only option will be to move existing stations to FM, and that isn't fixing AM, but rather giving up. Plus it creates an interference problem for FM.
MDCL is really only helpful for generator powered (no shore power) or high power 25kW + signals.
Modifying AMs for shorter antennas will only greatly increase night skywave interference.
Eliminating ratchet rule and modifying day and night coverage rules will not lessen interference.
Class C night interference greatly increased and Class C night coverage greatly reduced because of the 6dB night power increases granted Class Cs a couple of decades back. More is less as far as AM night power boosts go.
Breaking up the Clears and allowing the daytimers night service has really turned the MW band into an interference zoo. Doesn't look like many people realize this fact.
Allowing AMs to add a translator more easily is probably the best bandage offered here.
-
Modifying AMs for shorter antennas will only greatly increase night skywave interference.
Eliminating ratchet rule and modifying day and night coverage rules will not lessen interference.
Class C night interference greatly increased and Class C night coverage greatly reduced because of the 6dB night power increases granted Class Cs a couple of decades back. More is less as far as AM night power boosts go.
Breaking up the Clears and allowing the daytimers night service has really turned the MW band into an interference zoo. Doesn't look like many people realize this fact.
Allowing AMs to add a translator more easily is probably the best bandage offered here.
-
Last edited:
Unfortunately, that is counter to the FCC's agenda for the past 50 years. They don't want to decide which stations are "marginal," and they don't want to reduce the number of licensees. By eliminating night time restrictions, they are increasing the amount of interference.
Very true. I mean, the quick fix for the AM band would be to revoke every license issued since World War II, but that's as likely to happen as removing every piece of consumer electronic gear that infringes Part 15.
But I do think there are two things they *can* do that, while they wouldn't *solve* AM's problems, would at least make things a bit better. Specifically:
1. *Don't* prop up failing stations! Let them fail.
2. Allow existing AM stations which launch FM translators to silence the AM transmitter if they wish.
True, in the end improving the audio quality of AM is what it's going to take to make the band competitive. AM's audio quality woes can be tied directly to inadequate signal strength. (poor transmitted bandwidth and poor dynamic range both address poor signal-to-noise ratios) I don't think we can address audio quality until the signals are strong enough to support decent fidelity.
Giving away FM translators to AM stations is not solving the problems with the AM band-- instead, it just further degrades the FM band by creating more interference. You can't fix one radio service by ruining another!
There are way too many AM signals packed into the AM band, and the physical characteristics of radio propagation at medium wave frequencies mitigates against providing a high quality local service. Even a 1 kW signal will travel for hundreds or even thousands of miles. People complain about electrical noise, but interference from HD radio digital sidebands has added greatly to the amount of interference in the band. Yet, the industry persists in allowing this to continue even though nobody is even listening! What's up with that?
You can't have a broadcasting service that doesn't provide the same quality of reception within a defined area 24 hours a day. AM doesn't, and never will. No amount of technology is going to change that.
I don't believe that AM radio can be salvaged at this point-- what the FCC has proposed here is just rearranging the deck chairs. Once mobile Internet service becomes ubiquitous, over-the-air radio broadcasting-- including FM-- will become superflous. Yes, many stations will continue to operate by airing infomercials, time-brokered programming, and the like. As long as owners are making money, or think they might be able to make money, they are not going to go off the air, and there isn't any reason why we should make them. But we don't have to listen to that, either. Thankfully.
There are way too many AM signals packed into the AM band, and the physical characteristics of radio propagation at medium wave frequencies mitigates against providing a high quality local service. Even a 1 kW signal will travel for hundreds or even thousands of miles. People complain about electrical noise, but interference from HD radio digital sidebands has added greatly to the amount of interference in the band. Yet, the industry persists in allowing this to continue even though nobody is even listening! What's up with that?
You can't have a broadcasting service that doesn't provide the same quality of reception within a defined area 24 hours a day. AM doesn't, and never will. No amount of technology is going to change that.
I don't believe that AM radio can be salvaged at this point-- what the FCC has proposed here is just rearranging the deck chairs. Once mobile Internet service becomes ubiquitous, over-the-air radio broadcasting-- including FM-- will become superflous. Yes, many stations will continue to operate by airing infomercials, time-brokered programming, and the like. As long as owners are making money, or think they might be able to make money, they are not going to go off the air, and there isn't any reason why we should make them. But we don't have to listen to that, either. Thankfully.
This discussion works best if we all choose our wording carefully. There are two issues at work in this discussion and I'm not sure they belong in the same discussion, but not doing so is like trying to unscramble an egg you just cooked.
(Issue 1) Saving the AM band.
(Issue 2) Saving a particular broadcast operation that is good, is needed, and has fulfilled it task for years. A "good steward" of an A.M. station, particularly in small markets, rural areas deserves a route to some other frequency, some other band in return for years of GOOD service. (Yes, we all know a lot of A.M. stations that simply deserve to be snuffed-out. They do nothing valuable, nothing worth saving. The problem is: Who get's to make the decision who is the worthy operator and who is the unworthy operator. THAT is the task that I think the FCC does NOT want to take on.)
Allowing an existing A.M. operator to acquire an F.M. translator and then after a transition period maybe take the A.M. silent is not about saving the A.M. band. It is about saving business people who "have done the right thing" through the years for their community. And the process has to include provisions that some other entity cannot apply for that silent A.M. frequency and bring it back to that community. By the same token, a station 30, 50, 80 miles away on an adjacent A.M. frequency should have the opportunity to up their power, add night time hours, or switch to the vacant frequency, but in that new community.
Unfortunately we don't have that Biblical hero named Solomon available to decide who gets to occupy portions of the A.M. band that are taken out of service in a nearby location.
For those of you familiar with Federal farm programs in the last 40 or 50 years, think of this as a "Land Bank" program for broadcasters. Take the "field" out of production and receive a reward from the government.
(Issue 1) Saving the AM band.
(Issue 2) Saving a particular broadcast operation that is good, is needed, and has fulfilled it task for years. A "good steward" of an A.M. station, particularly in small markets, rural areas deserves a route to some other frequency, some other band in return for years of GOOD service. (Yes, we all know a lot of A.M. stations that simply deserve to be snuffed-out. They do nothing valuable, nothing worth saving. The problem is: Who get's to make the decision who is the worthy operator and who is the unworthy operator. THAT is the task that I think the FCC does NOT want to take on.)
Allowing an existing A.M. operator to acquire an F.M. translator and then after a transition period maybe take the A.M. silent is not about saving the A.M. band. It is about saving business people who "have done the right thing" through the years for their community. And the process has to include provisions that some other entity cannot apply for that silent A.M. frequency and bring it back to that community. By the same token, a station 30, 50, 80 miles away on an adjacent A.M. frequency should have the opportunity to up their power, add night time hours, or switch to the vacant frequency, but in that new community.
Unfortunately we don't have that Biblical hero named Solomon available to decide who gets to occupy portions of the A.M. band that are taken out of service in a nearby location.
For those of you familiar with Federal farm programs in the last 40 or 50 years, think of this as a "Land Bank" program for broadcasters. Take the "field" out of production and receive a reward from the government.
Last edited:
I do think if we allow marginal AM facilities to die out (either by moving to FM or by shutting down altogether) the vast majority will not be resurrected. NIMBYism will take care of much of it; so will the prohibition on new Class D stations. (maybe the smartest thing the FCC has done for AM in my 50+-year lifetime)
As much as I think some stations with years of service may deserve some help, I also note that many of these AM operators have had a perfectly good FM & chose to cash it in. Should they get both the cash and the full-time-signal-at-the-expense-of-someone-else?
As much as I think some stations with years of service may deserve some help, I also note that many of these AM operators have had a perfectly good FM & chose to cash it in. Should they get both the cash and the full-time-signal-at-the-expense-of-someone-else?
For those AMs which accept FM translators, should the AM be on a clear channel and offer a 'compromised' nighttime service patter, that stations should be made to shut down nighttime operations. With the abandonment of 730, 800 and 1570 by the Mexicans, I feel there should be a 'use or lose' proposition for those and other abandoned channels. I feel though at outside of a few frequencies, FM translators should be given out sparingly. All in all the REAL solution lies in reducing RF interference (which despite all the nay-saying I feel can be done), rescinding the 7.5 Hz bandwidth regulation and allow for stations to go to at least 10Hz with a maximum of 14Hz. I feel IBOC has proven itself to be a flash-in-the-pan and should be rescinded!
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.