Good News for AM Radio

[RedStateTalkRadio]

Did you guys see this at Talkers.com?

NAB Issues Reply Comments on AM Band Revitalization.

The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding its proposals for revitalizing the AM band and NAB, in its reply comments, reiterates its “support for most of these proposals, and suggests certain other policy changes that would further enhance the public’s AM radio service.”

In summary, NAB states it “agrees with most comments in favor of opening a filing window for FM translators in which only AM stations may participate, as a means of extending the benefits of cross-service translators to more AM stations and their listeners. While translators obtained in this window should generally remain linked to the acquiring AM station, NAB submits that it would be reasonable to allow such translators to be transferred under certain limited circumstances, such as financial hardship.”

NAB also says it supports “relaxation of the proposed limit of one FM translator per AM station, to accommodate AM stations with unusually large or irregularly shaped service areas, as well as opening the filing window to all AM radio stations on an equal basis, regardless of class or ownership structure. The record also demonstrates support for the FM translator processing approaches set forth in the ‘Mattoon’ and ‘Tell City’ waiver cases. Retention of the former, and approval of the latter, will expand the universe of eligible cross-service translators, and foster efficient spectrum use by enabling more translators to be fully utilized.”

 

[TheBigA]

As I've said before, allowing AM stations to operate on FM through translators doesn't do anything to revitalize the AM band. It actually hastens its destruction, by giving the public the ability to hear quality programming on FM. The worst thing you can do for AM is give owners the ability to transfer their content to FM.

I'll have to rad the entire notice from the FCC, but from what I read here, it's not good news at all for AM.

 

[RedStateTalkRadio]

I agree with what you say to a point, but if it helps to keep them viable financially, which is I think the point, then maybe it is good. Let's face it. For many AM stations, if something doesn't change and change soon, they ware going to go silent in ever increasing numbers because unlike the federal government, they can't print money and/or borrow their way out of the mess that most of them are in financially.

If they no longer exist at all, that can't be better than allowing them to venture into FM translation. Or is it?

 

[TheBigA]

But then it's not really AM Band Revitalization. It's a government bail out for radio owners.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

But then it's not really AM Band Revitalization. It's a government bail out for radio owners.

Interesting distinction.

But maybe having a debate about the priority to the bail-out: Are we saving the AM band... or are we saving a particular group of owners is not the correct framing.

Are we bailing out listeners who will not be able to find a replacement source probably should be the FCC focus. However, evaluating listeners prospects in a given service area may well be a task no one is smart enough or wise enough to deal with.

I favor some form of AM bailout in rural/isolated markets. Bailing out the AM band/owners in a metro market that currently has 40, 50 or 70 broadcast stations should be off, WAY OFF the radar.

 

[MarioMania]

That's one way to kill AM

 

[Small Market Guy]

But then it's not really AM Band Revitalization. It's a government bail out for radio owners.

Allowing them to license translators isn't a "bailout". If the government were paying for the transmitters and towers, THAT would be a bailout.

It's not exactly revitalizing the AM band, either, though. It's giving AM radio station operators a chance to diversify. It's one of the few things the FCC has gotten right anytime in recent years.

 

[TheBigA]

Allowing them to license translators isn't a "bailout". If the government were paying for the transmitters and towers, THAT would be a bailout.

They are giving away a public resource, and not opening that up to all applicants, but rather giving preference to existing licensees. They're also looking to exempt those translators from counting against current ownership limits. There is a huge financial value in all of that. I'd suggest the value exceeds the one-time cost of transmitters and towers. I wonder if it's taxable as capital gain.

 

[Wimmmex]

I agree with what you say to a point, but if it helps to keep them viable financially, which is I think the point, then maybe it is good.

Well...are we trying to revitalize the AM band...or the AM owners. (These are two different and distinct things.)

In most big cities there is very little room for even one translator. Which begs the question...which of the many operators gets a translator? And what does this do for the rest of the AM stations that don't/can't get a translator?

The FM translator solution is not a solution for revitalizing the AM band....and for those that propose it, it is a give-a-way that may benefit ONE AM operator in a given city...but does nothing for the rest.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The FM translator solution is not a solution for revitalizing the AM band....and for those that propose it, it is a give-a-way that may benefit ONE AM operator in a given city...but does nothing for the rest.

I agree with part of what you are saying. There may only be one translator available in a lot of "cities".

I can't see how adding one, two, or eve three translators in a metropolitan area does much of anything for the public, or for the industry.

The place where granting FM translators to an AM station make even a little bit of sense is in cities that have only ONE station that is an AM daytimer. Overgrown county seat has a full-time AM and a daytime AM... what does adding a second signal do there? Not much. But down the road, in the next county, out in the rural area, if the only station in town is a daytimer, granting an FM translator opens up night-time service. In little towns where the only station is a graveyard AM station, for all practical purposes all they have is a daytimer so give them a translator.

Now what do we do in a small market where there is a 5-kw station, directional and/or low power at night? That's where the wheels begin to fall off of my plan and we need that King Solomon guy from the Hebrew Bible to show what a wise man would do with the AM band.

 

[TheBigA]

Well...are we trying to revitalize the AM band...or the AM owners. (These are two different and distinct things.)

That's why I call it a government bail out. It's potentially a windfall for owners. But it takes the last bit of quality programming from AM and moves it to FM. How does that revitalize AM?

The place where granting FM translators to an AM station make even a little bit of sense is in cities that have only ONE station that is an AM daytimer.

Have you checked into this? I imagine that it's relatively easy to get a translator in a rural area now. You probably don't need a new FCC rule to get it done.

 

[Small Market Guy]

They are giving away a public resource

They're allowing current license holders to USE a public resource. That's not giving it away. A resource that wouldn't be used at all otherwise.

 

[Wimmmex]

They're allowing current license holders to USE a public resource. That's not giving it away.

And the license (holder) is now worth twice what it was before. No kidding the AM operators want them.

And does nothing to bring people to the AM band.

And..begs the question....who gets the windfall...and who doesn't? Those politically connected?

Do we need more translators rebroadcasting what is already available on AM. Do we need more religious, foreign language, non-local programming on FM translators?

 

[flybynight]

The best way to revitalize the AM band WAS to broadcast better content instead of the garbage that is on instead.

As soon as stations started sacrificing weekends for marathon infomercials, the demise was already set into motion.

While content suffered, more audio choices emerged. AM will be dead sooner rather than later, and radio itself played a part in accelerating that demise.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The best way to revitalize the AM band WAS to broadcast better content instead of the garbage that is on instead.

As soon as stations started sacrificing weekends for marathon infomercials, the demise was already set into motion.

While content suffered, more audio choices emerged. AM will be dead sooner rather than later, and radio itself played a part in accelerating that demise.

We all have to assert some conclusions we have (but may not be able to prove) when we offer our observations on this topic. Who decides what is "better content" and what is "garbage".

If we could be legal about it, and be so brazen, if we walked down he street and stopped people who are listening to something and said "Let me hear what you are listening to I'm going top even give you a gold star for listening to better content, or bonk you on the forehead like the You Could Have Had a V8 commercial if you are listening to garbage."

We could set up roadblocks like the deputies do in my neighborhood to check everyone's car registration and drivers license, but instead we would have the deputy ask: "What are you listening to? I'm am going to spray paint a big orange colored X on the side of your car if you are listening to garbage!"

If I run a little daytimer out in rural America, what was I supposed to do when SONY introduced the Walkman and suddenly people could decide for themselves that they could boycott my station in favor of something... garbage or golden... on their $50 marvel. Never mind that I am deeply in debt having bought into the idea that if I present good programming on my radio station, the audience will show up. Never mind that I work 15 and 16 hour days to keep my little teapot radio station perking, now I need to track down Walkman people one by one and ask them: "How do I get you back?" There just are not enough hours in the day!

Now, let go back and focus on metro markets. Assume for a minute you are in a market that has 43 licensed broadcast stations. Are there really 43 different "better content schemes" available? And does success come because You just invented the 44th version of better content.... or is the fate of your radio station in the hands, not of listeners and potential listeners, but in the hands of decision makers at ad agencies that don't feel the need to program their brains to understand 43 different programming contents?

On the Arkansas Board there is discussion about a radio station temporarily off the air because the Managing Partner allowed the business side of the station to get out of hand. (NOT the programming side!) The thread caught my attention because it was the very first radio station I ever worked for. There was a link to a print story about the situation, and the Managing Partner was quoted saying something about "I probably don't have a future in the accounting profession."

How many stations are running "garbage" on the weekend because the owners and operators don't know enough about ACCOUNTING to facilitate better content?

(I've not met the young Arkansas manager but have enjoyed his posts on forums in the past, and he shows up in my visits to Facebook and from that exposure, I view him as a person who probably understands better content.

 

[Avid Listener]

We all have to assert some conclusions we have (but may not be able to prove) when we offer our observations on this topic. Who decides what is "better content" and what is "garbage".

Each listener decides for himself. If enough listeners like your content and know that it is available, you'll get plenty of listeners. If not enough like your content, or worse, if they don't even know it's on the air, then you won't.

If I run a little daytimer out in rural America, what was I supposed to do when SONY introduced the Walkman and suddenly people could decide for themselves that they could boycott my station in favor of something... garbage or golden... on their $50 marvel. Never mind that I am deeply in debt having bought into the idea that if I present good programming on my radio station, the audience will show up. Never mind that I work 15 and 16 hour days to keep my little teapot radio station perking, now I need to track down Walkman people one by one and ask them: "How do I get you back?" There just are not enough hours in the day!

It's really not that tough, regardless of whether you're the only station in a small market, or one of a bunch of stations in a big market. Broadcasting success is a two-part process. First, you have to be transmitting something that enough people want to hear more than they want to hear what everyone else is transmitting. You don't have to be good. You only have to be better than your competition. Your broadcast content can be total garbage, but if it's fresh garbage, and the competition has smelly, spoiled rotten garbage, you win!

But only if you also manage step two, the one most broadcasters are terrible at. You have to let the listeners who aren't listening to your station, or possibly even to radio at all, know that you're on the air, and what good things you are broadcasting that they'll like.

That doesn't mean ads like Your Choice for Talk. Radio insiders know what "Talk" means. Ask 100 different, ordinary radio listeners what that means, and you'll get 100 different answers. Some think it means lots of phone-in shows. Others think it means interview shows. Others think it means news reports. Others think it means people reading books aloud. Most radio insiders would be amazed at how ignorant and apathetic most potential listeners are about radio. They don't know, and they don't care.

When a radio professional attempts to convince a local business owner to buy airtime on a local station, ratings alone aren't usually enough to persuade the business owner. The local business owner is comparing the cost of radio against the cost of print media, direct mail, internet, banners towed behind airplanes, people in funny costumes dancing with a sign in front of their store, and anything else they can think of. But often, the biggest problem is simply convincing the business owner that he needs some advertising, period. Yet those same radio professionals who try to convince local merchants that they need to advertise don't seem to understand that radio stations also need to advertise, to give people a reason for turning the radio on instead of popping in a CD, or for hitting the AM band button for a change. In the radio market where I live, I can't recall seeing anything in any advertising medium that gave me a reason for even turning my radio on, let alone hitting the AM band button. I've seen some billboards with the names of some guys I've never heard of being on some AM station, though I'm not sure when. That's it.

 

[Small Market Guy]

The best way to revitalize the AM band WAS to broadcast better content instead of the garbage that is on instead.

Who decides what is "better content" and what is "garbage".

He does, of course. And we all know what his answer would be. I don't know what it is about radio forums, but they're always full of people who couldn't hack it in radio thinking they could do better.

 

[MarioMania]

I don't think there's much to save the AM band

Going all Digital won't help it, It will kill it even soner

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't think there's much to save the AM band

Going all Digital won't help it, It will kill it even soner

Here is the answer that is not acceptable to some AM station owners.

AM radio will be viable going forward only in a market where there are not adequate channels of better and more appropriate technology and content.

I keep coming back to the small markets. The percentage of the American people who live in such markets is small. But if you are among the people living in such a market, when you go have coffee with you local AM operator and ask: "Why don't you get with the times? Why don't you move over to FM. It's better!"

The answer may be: Find me a vacant channel, wizard, and we will see what we can do about it. And see if you can get the FCC to waive the high price they charge. (They don't seem to understand that some markets cannot support their fee.) And then, before you get undressed for the evening.... figure out WHERE in this market there is an affordable piece of land for an antenna that will not be shot down by the "Not In My Back Yard" crowd when I get down to zoning.

Larger cities.... there may not be any argument to defend the AM band other than: I inherited this thing from my Daddy.... and I am not closing it down until someone makes it worth my while to turn it off. As long as it still makes me some money, it keeps percolating!

I am afraid that sometimes in these discussion groups, we look at the place where WE live, figure out what would be good for OUR community, and then want to see a national policy that jams the same solution into every nook and cranny of the nation, no matter what the local customs and needs may be.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I don't think there's much to save the AM band

Going all Digital won't help it, It will kill it even soner

All technology dies at some point. The Internet will die at some point when something else comes along. The doomsayers have been forecasting the death of AM radio for 30 years and it hasn't happened yet. I'd be surprised if it happened before I'm dead.