• 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

NAB Opposes Low-Power AM Service!

> What a big surprise, that the NAB would oppose LPAM.
> More from Radio and Records.
htt> p://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_11_21/topstory.asp
>
> Rich
> HDR
>

Again we are fed the hype from the NAB (FCC to follow also) regarding so called interference issues, quote:

'The NAB has been staunchly critical of potential interference problems Low-Power FM radio presents for existing full-power FM stations'

But we all know and read the many studies that have proven no interference exists to justify The NAB opposing the LPFM. Their main gripe is having potential ad revenue and listenership dropping, but you know they only have themselves to blame.

Now comes Amherst Alliance with a good plan to divy up the last bastion of AM radio for which the NAB has practically abandoned and now they CARE???

Once again I hope the FCC does not give in and provides the needed intervention to help save LPAM.

Let's not let the NAB flex it's muscles and demand everyone boycott it's products that they advertise, create dissention among it's ranks and educate the public regarding this hideous institution!

Radiopilot
 
> Again we are fed the hype from the NAB (FCC to follow also)
> regarding so called interference issues, quote:
>
> 'The NAB has been staunchly critical of potential
> interference problems Low-Power FM radio presents for
> existing full-power FM stations'
>
> But we all know and read the many studies that have proven
> no interference exists to justify The NAB opposing the LPFM.
> Their main gripe is having potential ad revenue and
> listenership dropping, but you know they only have
> themselves to blame.
>
> Now comes Amherst Alliance with a good plan to divy up the
> last bastion of AM radio for which the NAB has practically
> abandoned and now they CARE???
>
> Once again I hope the FCC does not give in and provides the
> needed intervention to help save LPAM.

Your points are right on, Radiopilot.
Please send them to the F.C.C.

Hopefully, the newer members of the F.C.C. will give no credibilty to the NAB's interference claims, especially after that false "aircheck" submitted by it, to stop LPFM.

DE
 
> > What a big surprise, that the NAB would oppose LPAM.
> > More from Radio and Records.
> htt>
> p://www.radioandrecords.com/Newsroom/2005_11_21/topstory.asp
>
> >
> > Rich
> > HDR
> >
>
> Again we are fed the hype from the NAB (FCC to follow also)
> regarding so called interference issues, quote:
>
> 'The NAB has been staunchly critical of potential
> interference problems Low-Power FM radio presents for
> existing full-power FM stations'
>
> But we all know and read the many studies that have proven
> no interference exists to justify The NAB opposing the LPFM.
> Their main gripe is having potential ad revenue and
> listenership dropping, but you know they only have
> themselves to blame.
>
> Now comes Amherst Alliance with a good plan to divy up the
> last bastion of AM radio for which the NAB has practically
> abandoned and now they CARE???
>
> Once again I hope the FCC does not give in and provides the
> needed intervention to help save LPAM.
>
> Let's not let the NAB flex it's muscles and demand everyone
> boycott it's products that they advertise, create dissention
> among it's ranks and educate the public regarding this
> hideous institution!
>
> Radiopilot
>

The NAB has developed such an out-of-touch, myopic view of the broadcast world. They've managed to alienate themselves from LPFM, Satellite Radio, Part-15 and now potential LPAM license holders. The only groups that are still in their fold are the full power commercial and non-com stations. And even there, they lost NBC for a time.

At the rate they're going, the NAB will cease to be relevant. My main concern right now is this; who in Congress are they lobbying to get LPAM stopped?

db
 
Death throes?

It may take a while to wash, but it looks as if AM broadcasting and the NAB as we know them are in real trouble. I agree with db's comments about this. I have been alienated from all broadcasting or vice versa, AM FM and TV for many years now, and very rarely listen. I grew tired of the obtrusive and excessive advertising, the lack of local interest programming, and the lack of choices on the broadcast bands. I stopped watching TV before the Cosby show. I subscribe to commercial free satellite TV and pay for web streaming of radio programming.

I have noticed, however, that maybe things are changing. I was mobile today and tuned to a local AM blowtorch, and though I have not listened in months, I noticed that their local news was better than before. Still pretty poor, but better.

I would hope that the NAB would take the magnaminous position of others who find themselves in their situation: "We welcome competition because it makes us better" and mean it.

Yeah, sure. I once entered a competetive activity and was told by an established entity that "the more the merrier". I knew he didn't mean it and his operation tanked. So did mine, but others were sucessful.

Vote with your tuning buttons and they will be gone.

Neil
 
> > Again we are fed the hype from the NAB (FCC to follow
> also)
> > regarding so called interference issues, quote:
> >
> > 'The NAB has been staunchly critical of potential
> > interference problems Low-Power FM radio presents for
> > existing full-power FM stations'
> >
> > But we all know and read the many studies that have proven
>
> > no interference exists to justify The NAB opposing the
> LPFM.
> > Their main gripe is having potential ad revenue and
> > listenership dropping, but you know they only have
> > themselves to blame.
> >
> > Now comes Amherst Alliance with a good plan to divy up the
>
> > last bastion of AM radio for which the NAB has practically
>
> > abandoned and now they CARE???
> >
> > Once again I hope the FCC does not give in and provides
> the
> > needed intervention to help save LPAM.
>
> Your points are right on, Radiopilot.
> Please send them to the F.C.C.
>
> Hopefully, the newer members of the F.C.C. will give no
> credibilty to the NAB's interference claims, especially
> after that false "aircheck" submitted by it, to stop LPFM.
>
> DE
>

Let's see, the NAB is opposed to LPAM because of potential interference issues, but is staunchly behind AM IBOC, which has demonstrated interference issues...
 
> > > Again we are fed the hype from the NAB (FCC to follow
> > also)
> > > regarding so called interference issues, quote:
> > >
> > > 'The NAB has been staunchly critical of potential
> > > interference problems Low-Power FM radio presents for
> > > existing full-power FM stations'
> > >
> > > But we all know and read the many studies that have
> proven
> >
> > > no interference exists to justify The NAB opposing the
> > LPFM.
> > > Their main gripe is having potential ad revenue and
> > > listenership dropping, but you know they only have
> > > themselves to blame.
> > >
> > > Now comes Amherst Alliance with a good plan to divy up
> the
> >
> > > last bastion of AM radio for which the NAB has
> practically
> >
> > > abandoned and now they CARE???
> > >
> > > Once again I hope the FCC does not give in and provides
> > the
> > > needed intervention to help save LPAM.
> >
> > Your points are right on, Radiopilot.
> > Please send them to the F.C.C.
> >
> > Hopefully, the newer members of the F.C.C. will give no
> > credibilty to the NAB's interference claims, especially
> > after that false "aircheck" submitted by it, to stop LPFM.
>
> >
> > DE
> >
>
> Let's see, the NAB is opposed to LPAM because of potential
> interference issues, but is staunchly behind AM IBOC, which
> has demonstrated interference issues...
>


Totally wacked thinking on their part! We all need to do our part and write to our so called elected officials and the FCC and demand that these idiots discontinue their discourse and allow the public to determine what is good for the future of radio and not the NAB. Since when does the budget for the FCC comes from the NAB or do our taxes support it?

Hopefully there are those in office that happen to frequent these boards and pick up a clue everynow and then!

Radiopilot
 
Re: NAB = Not About Broadcasting?

> It may take a while to wash, but it looks as if AM
> broadcasting and the NAB as we know them are in real
> trouble. I agree with db's comments about this.

I do too!

I have
> been alienated from all broadcasting or vice versa, AM FM
> and TV for many years now, and very rarely listen. I grew
> tired of the obtrusive and excessive advertising, the lack
> of local interest programming, and the lack of choices on
> the broadcast bands. I stopped watching TV before the Cosby
> show. I subscribe to commercial free satellite TV and pay
> for web streaming of radio programming.

This is true for me as well, except we still do not have any paid TV sservice. The wife and I finally decided to join Netflix and pick what we want. My
station now streams as a "free station" so no one has to pay to listen.
>
>
> I would hope that the NAB would take the magnaminous
> position of others who find themselves in their situation:
> "We welcome competition because it makes us better" and mean
> it.

I believe the NAB was a useful organization at one time, but it is no
longer about broadcasting. They're lobbyists. Our local stations, especially
the AMs, are worse. The content is satellite-fed dreck listened to by no one.

My wife works for the school system. She has often come home and told me, "I wish there was one station we could play in the school van where we didn't have to worry about the language." The kids in the van were kindergartners and first graders. I finally made her a "safe" tape to play.

Neil, I was an operations manager for an AM station here that used to have local shows in morning drive, part of the midday, and again in late afternoon.
It had listeners, we had contests with active participants and the station was making money. Even then, we found the NAB to be pretty useless in helping that station in any way as it was an independent standalone AM. After I left it went to a different format under a leasee, who plays satellite..dreck. I find my former employer's station unlistenable now.
>
> Yeah, sure. I once entered a competetive activity and was
> told by an established entity that "the more the merrier".
> I knew he didn't mean it and his operation tanked. So did
> mine, but others were sucessful.
>
> Vote with your tuning buttons and they will be gone.

We keep trying but the dreck seems to stay...*sigh*
>
> Neil
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Proudly remembering the days of the hometown "country giant" radio stations now at
http://www.live365.com/stations/alanmccall</P>
 
Shut up the NAB with TIS/HAR challenge

> Let's see, the NAB is opposed to LPAM because of potential
> interference issues, but is staunchly behind AM IBOC, which
> has demonstrated interference issues...

One early proposal for an LPAM service involved simply using AM TIS/HAR (Travelers Information Station/Highway Advisory Radio) equipment with new rules that would allow broadcasting music and commercials, which are prohibited by the FCC's TIS/HAR rules. (Some small, isolated communities already use TISs as local radio stations within the rules--they can broadcast public events such as parades.) Information Station Specialists www.theradiosource.com makes most of the TIS/HAR systems in use today.

Since the NAB has never complained about TIS/HAR interference, if they came out against a "liberalized TIS/HAR" LPAM service on those grounds, that would make their true motives nakedly clear to all--they don't want competition. -- JasonW
 
Re: Shut up the NAB with TIS/HAR challenge

***That early proposal was from Chris DiPaola. Never really got the time of day at the FCC and was promptly shelved.

The NAB is on its way out. They are losing members because they no longer function very effectively or positively promote broadcasting. Apparently they are too dumb to figure out a slew of new commercial LPAM stations are potential paying members.


> > Let's see, the NAB is opposed to LPAM because of potential
>
> > interference issues, but is staunchly behind AM IBOC,
> which
> > has demonstrated interference issues...
>
> One early proposal for an LPAM service involved simply using
> AM TIS/HAR (Travelers Information Station/Highway Advisory
> Radio) equipment with new rules that would allow
> broadcasting music and commercials, which are prohibited by
> the FCC's TIS/HAR rules. (Some small, isolated communities
> already use TISs as local radio stations within the
> rules--they can broadcast public events such as parades.)
> Information Station Specialists www.theradiosource.com makes
> most of the TIS/HAR systems in use today.
>
> Since the NAB has never complained about TIS/HAR
> interference, if they came out against a "liberalized
> TIS/HAR" LPAM service on those grounds, that would make
> their true motives nakedly clear to all--they don't want
> competition. -- JasonW
>
 
Re: NAB = Not About Broadcasting?

> > Vote with your tuning buttons and they will be gone.
>
> We keep trying but the dreck seems to stay...*sigh*

The problem, unfortunately, is that the less and less money a station makes, the more and more dreck will be broadcast. Even if it's all bartered, the station will stay on the air. The only way we're going to get things to change is by constantly pushing the station's ownership/management to actually do something. Call them up. Get your friends and family to call them up. The more people speak out about how bad it's become, the more pressure will be put on the station to turn things around, and eventually it will have to happen. Boycotts alone won't do it.

Post 970 dedicated to my local dreck broadcaster (although it's not as bad as it could be), WKHM Jackson, Michigan.<P ID="signature">______________
"Once a week, recovering illusionist Roy Horn reportedly visits Montecore, the tiger that mauled him. Though disturbingly, they’re conjugal visits!" -- Horatio Sanz
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
It's a long way to the bottom in AM radio

Below satellite dreck there is infomercial dreck.

Below infomercial dreck there is checkerboard infomercial dreck (different brokered shows on different days of the week).

Below checkerboard infomercial dreck there is checkerboard infomercial dreck with shows done over the telephone (the Battaglia school of broadcasting).

If your favorite station is only down to satellite dreck, it has a long way to go.
 
Re: It's a long way to the bottom in AM radio

> Below satellite dreck there is infomercial dreck.
>
> Below infomercial dreck there is checkerboard infomercial
> dreck (different brokered shows on different days of the
> week).
>
> Below checkerboard infomercial dreck there is checkerboard
> infomercial dreck with shows done over the telephone (the
> Battaglia school of broadcasting).
>
> If your favorite station is only down to satellite dreck, it
> has a long way to go.

If you're referring to WKHM, then yes, they definitely still have a long way to go. They do at least have two live and local programs in the morning (one of which, though, is total crap), and while they pre-record their newscast (there's only one) and repeat it throughout the entire day, they at least have a local newscast (however badly it may be done).

Like I said, it's not as bad as most, but it's still bad enough to be called "dreck" :)<P ID="signature">______________
"Once a week, recovering illusionist Roy Horn reportedly visits Montecore, the tiger that mauled him. Though disturbingly, they’re conjugal visits!" -- Horatio Sanz
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom