Maybe you haven't noticed, but the manufacturers are in China. And they really don't care much about making radios any more.
They make more money with phones and TVs and computers and just about everything else.
-
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
Is this a sign of the future for AM Radio?
- Thread starter DavidEduardo
- Start date
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the manufacturers are in China. And they really don't care much about making radios any more.
They make more money with phones and TVs and computers and just about everything else.
You're making my point. The manufacturers will make equipment to the buyer's specifications. If no one advocates for something better then the manufacturer will take the cheapest path and the buyer (automaker) will take it.
It is not.
73 CFR Part 15.209 specifies how much RF any device can emit in various frequency bands. Find me a car being sold that exceeds those limits, then we can talk about that manufacturer being "exempt".
Do you speak Chinese? The former president acted tough with them, but he didn't accomplish a thing. They still own TiKTok, they still steal our software, and they still do whatever they want. If they don't listen to King Don, what chance does some lobbyist in a cheap suit stand? The Chinese are marketing GLOBAL. That's what we used to do. If the US wants audiophile radios, that's just not a big enough market. It's a niche in the US, so you can imagine where it ranks globally.
And there are a couple of audiophile companies that make the kind of radio you're talking about. They're not big sellers, because as I said the audiophile market is small. The mass market is using ear buds listening to low grade mp3s.
K
Kevin
Guest
The average household has 1.5 radios per household (2020), the number of households in the U.S.A.128.45 million (2020) that comes out as 192.67 million radios in the U.S.A. for households. Now you have the number of vehicles in the U.S.A. that number is 273.6 million (2020) all with radios. 192.67 plus 273.6 = 466.27million. Now the number of smartphones in the U.S.A. is 275.66 million (2020). Now the number of radio receivers out number smartphones by 190.61million. Now the big question is what is the time spent listening to radio versus streaming on a smartphone? Any ideas, I’ll hang up and listen for the answer.
Does that include the one or two in the garage? Probably not.
K
Kevin
Guest
I just hope that if you have batteries in any of those radios in the garage, that they don’t ruin the unit. Battery acid is a terrible thing.
That's OK...it's attached to this big steel thing with a gas engine. We call them cars. They have radios. Lots of them.
K
Kevin
Guest
If you read what I posted, there is a number of radios for vehicles and that number is 273.6 million, that is pretty much a solid number because every vehicle has a radio. So I didn’t forget the fact that cars have radios. I thought you were referring to the garage or workshop radio. And here a some more numbers from the F.C.C. December 31, 2020 The number of radio stations in the U.S.A. are as follows,
AM Stations 4551
FM Commerical 6699
FM Educational 4195
Total 15445
FM Translators and Boosters 8420
Low Power FM 2136
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw 1.5 radios per household. That doesn't include lots of devices people use as radios while in the household. That's the problem with those statistics. If you asked me, I'd say I have four smartphones in my house. That would be the truth. Only one of them is operational.
K
Kevin
Guest
I get what you’re saying. I don’t write the stats, I just read them and am passing it along to others, all of this is on Google and for what it’s worth one can believe it or not. Personally, I believe that the smartphone is more popular and used more for entertainment purposes than radio. I see this in my household and in my adult children and grandchildren‘s households. Again it goes back to time spent listening and radio is losing this battle.
I dug a little deeper, and it was part of something called "The Infinite Dial," done by Edison Research. The article went on to talk about many other ways people listen to radio beyond the traditional home radio. To put it in context, the broader question is how do people listen to music? They used to buy CDs or records, bring them home, and play them on home stereos. Now, maybe 10% of the people do that. But back when they listened to CDs on home stereos, they also listened to radio. It wasn't a one-or-the-other thing. What we see is that while they don't buy CDs any more, they still listen to radio. So the real story here is the decline of the CD and the rise of streaming, with the monetization of the music business shifting from hard product to soft. All of that is happening while radio listening continues, because radio listening is a different process than listening to personal music.
K
kenglish
Guest
Aren't they talking about intentional radiators? Those would be things that are designed to make RF signals, for the purpose of providing communications. Unintentional radiators are what the motors in an electric car are.
That's why I'd like the FCC to test some right-off-the-lot vehicles, and see what they really put out, as well as see what it would really take to make them quieter.
BTW, don't these vehicles need a Part-15 compliance sticker on them somewhere?
47 CFR 15.109 defines the limits for unintentional radiators, not 15.209.
Yes, I meant 109, not 209, as Keith corrected. Cars and other products sold in the US must pass both.
It's no mystery to the designers how you might make the RF emissions less. But you're not going to get a major manufacturer to purposely design for 10dB below regulations just for fun. There's a consumer product I worked on that cleared regulations for unintentional emissions by less than 1 dB, in use in Canada today. We did just enough mitigation to pass regulations, and no more.
The Part 15 statement is in the manual for my car.
K
kenglish
Guest
As long as it clears (in the actual products), that's fine. I'd like to see what numbers come off equipment that is purchased off the shelf.
Of course, the requirements may change in the future. Remember that the FCC rules defining Class-A and Class-B were written decades ago, when they figured that few people in residential areas would be near "those new-fangled computer doo-hickies".
I know the cell-phone folks would love to tighten-up the rules on interference to their receivers. And, doesn't the FCC still consider the word "harmful" to be the deciding factor in "harmful interference"?
Of course, the requirements may change in the future. Remember that the FCC rules defining Class-A and Class-B were written decades ago, when they figured that few people in residential areas would be near "those new-fangled computer doo-hickies".
I know the cell-phone folks would love to tighten-up the rules on interference to their receivers. And, doesn't the FCC still consider the word "harmful" to be the deciding factor in "harmful interference"?
words like "harmful" are subject to interpretation, and the FCC is full of lawyers.
K
kenglish
Guest
Not sure if it was ever resolved, but the FCC cited some folks in LA a few years back for interference to a local cell site at 700 MHz. They (and the cell provider) determined it was a spur from the security camera, mounted above their garage door. It was declared "harmful interference", even though the receive site was twenty-feet away, at the end of their driveway.
It's generally pretty easy to find the report submitted to the government. Just type the FCC ID on the label into Google and it should pop up.
Harmful interference is the standard for broadcast and other fixed-point services. If WQQQ and WZZZ have overlapping contours that would not ordinarily be allowed, but the applicant can show there are no actual listeners in that area (say, the overlapping contours would be over San Francisco Bay), the FCC may permit it. Because consumer electronics
Would that permission be rescinded if the government started using Alcatraz again?
- Status