OK. Then what do YOU want to do.

[clouseau]

Ok let's assume in this alternate universe that AMHD is disallowed effective 12/31/2008. Who has an effective 3 paragraphs which describes what the FCC should do to save AM radio. Please address address the following points. This is not designed to be advesarial. Remember I'm a Eureka 147 fan. (The radio system, not the minor league soccer team).

Be sure to address...
1) The continuation of AM radio overall. Save all of it. Save some of it. Kill it altogether. Move it. Redesign it. Whatever. If you're doing new radios, be sure and discuss cost per listener etc..etc.. AMHD sucks isn't a good answer by itself.

2) Sound Quality... Does you solution address this. Does it need to. What is a possible solution. Teens will listen to today's Hottest Hits on AM should come with at least a tangential explanation...

3) Coverage... Day coverage, Night coverage, Electrical interference Specifically address how you deal with this. If your answer is "Tough" then say so. I suspect most solutions to this overall problem will have an area that includes the thought "Too bad for someone" on some point. Be honest. We're solving, not selling.

4) Equity. It's ugly but there is a political factor here. Address frankly how the larger FM "Haves" end up in relation to the small AM "Have Nots". If you're proposing a nationwide Sirius channel for a daytimer in Lewes Delaware, you probably ought to justify your answer.

5) Practicality. Does your plan stand a snowball's chance in hell of working. Be specific of who's ox gets gored. Somebody is going to get screwed out of something somewhere. Who is it? How and what do they lose? How does that fit into the whole picture? Does it seem fair.

OK... I started this post off with "Give us 3 paragraphs." It's clear that a good plan has a lot more paragraphs and only needs about 10 additional classes to get you a masters degree. But seriously. What should the FCC and "Radio" do? If there's any serious interest, I'll round 'em up and I'm sure the government will ignore them en masse.

Guess I'll need to buy that pencil sharpener. If you have a plan, please label it. As in start with "My Plan" or "A PLAN". If not, feel free to comment anyway.

My head spins with how many ways I've probably just violated the TOS of the board.

I'll have to think about my answer to the question, though....

And no foul if you don't propose something. The board if supposed to be for fun, not for homework.

Clouseau

 

[clouseau]

I commited a cardinal sin and replied to my original post for one reason. You don't need the answer to comment. So I'll start...
----------
Good question. I don't think AM sound quality, as it is, can be competetive for music with younger listeners when up against FM with the same programming.

I'll have to see if I have a better idea...

 

[KB1OKL]

I commited a cardinal sin and replied to my original post for one reason. You don't need the answer to comment. So I'll start...
----------
Good question. I don't think AM sound quality, as it is, can be competitive for music with younger listeners when up against FM with the same programming.

I'll have to see if I have a better idea...

Well just to answer that one thing if IBOC can broadcast a signal 30 KHz wide why can't AM stations open up and broadcast up to at least 10K? They would only be 20 KHz wide and also wouldn't be constant like IBOC so it wouldn't obliterate adjacent's like IBOC does. I'll bet most people wouldn't notice a huge difference between that and 15 KHz like FM.

 

[Play Freebird]

It will be impossible to maintain consistent day/night coverage and overcome electrical interference unless AM licensees are granted "digital transition" allocations in VHF, UHF, or perhaps the upper portion of HF spectrum. AM IBOC completely misses the mark on these problems, which are much more significant than the frequency response thing. Therefore, a plan that makes the much more sense is BMC's "Channel 5/6" proposal or something similar:

http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0100/t.14795.html

NAB (which shares a cozy bed with iBiquity) insists this idea must be stopped dead in its tracks. But, as is often the case, NAB's arguments are lame and contradictory. In response to BMC, NAB claims reallocation of Channels 5 and 6 is impractical because it would disturb the "carefully crafted" DTV Table of Allocations -- but then a few paragraphs later, they predict that stations will want to change channels voluntarily after the transition is complete, due to unforeseen interference issues. If they really want low-band channels (and I doubt they would), why not 2, 3, or 4?

Their secondary argument is based on a list of 250 LPTV and translator stations currently operating on Channels 5 and 6; NAB implies that none of these would be able to find an alternative channel. But take a look at Attachment A and see where most of these LPTVs are located -- places like Chualhbaluk, AK, Jack's Cabin, CO and Glens Ferry, ID. Yeah, right.

http://www.nab.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filings1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12992

I'd like to see an economic study comparing these two alternatives:

A) Continuing with the current IBOC plan, taking into account iBiquity licensing fees, new equipment costs, the need to rebuild directional antenna systems at many stations, significant decline in AM station values due to increased interference, consumer dissatisfaction (because the system doesn't really work), etc.

vs.

B) The cost of moving a handful of full-service TV 5/6 stations and 250 LPTVs to new channels.

How could Plan B really cost more?

 

[Savage]

I've posted this several times before, but I'm happy to accept your challenge, Inspector.

a. Revise the NRSC standard to mandate 12.5 kHz bandwidth, reduced to 10 kHz at night, which is easily accomplished with today's digital audio processor/limiters. Some adjacent-channel interference will result but it will be extremely minor, especially compared with the IBOC mess.

b. Mandate C-Quam AM Stereo and AMax within a 3-year time horizon.

c. Release a Policy Statement encouraging receiver manufacturers to develop new radios using the foregoing along with DSP technology to reduce noise.

d. Work with the NAB (which would require waking them out of their corrupt slumber) or consumer electronics organization to develop a certification program for Hi-Fi AM. Receiver designs and prototypes could be submitted and if type-accepted, could be advertised as "New Hi-Fi AM" radios.

e. Hire 100 new engineers - note, NOT lawyers or bureaucrats - as a Part 15 Enforcement Task Force. Establish a complaint website and toll-free number for consumers, citizens, engineers and station operators to report consumer devices which radiate excessive interference. Make sure there is a draconian fine structure in place beforehand.

And (f) - this one is controversial, I admit - limit all nighttime AM broadcasting to 25kw maximum. The reduction in field strength would be minimal - only 3db in most cases - but that would be more than offset by the reduced skywave interference. Distant skywave service would be very minimally reduced. And the quieter, more sensitive/selective AM Hi-Fi receivers would take full advantage of this. Greenies would appreciate the halving of utility consumption.

(When WYSL filed for its 20,000 watt daytime upgrade, we also considered 50kw. The design would have required two more towers and ground systems, would have cost a half-mil more, would double power consumption and guess what? Would have moved the daytime 5.0 mv/m contour out a whopping ten miles, and the 3db increase in signal strength wouldn't even be noticed by any typical listener. Not worth it to feed the fish in Lake Ontario.)

The best part: totally compatible. No receiver obsolescence. If they wanna keep listening to Rush and the ballgame on their All-American Five or their Kraco Dashboard Avenger they bought at K-Mart for $59 in 1979, they still can.

 

[Savage]

If the foregoing were to be implemented in good faith, I think you'd see a tidal wave of support from AM broadcasters. My plan provides complete equanimity among stations which comports nicely with the way most AM radio is consumed. Small-market teakettles could continue to broadcast high school football to limited audiences without being wiped out by IBOC adjacents. Big-market clears could continue comprehensive service to dense metro populations. Regionals could reclaim their nighttime coverage from the sea of noise.

Here is an approach I'd bet broadcasters would be enthusiastic about supporting and promoting. An industry volunteer organization (don't trust the NAB, it's too political) like stopiboc could produce valid, non-insulting promos boosting the New World Of The New AM Radio - Hi-Fi AM! Listen on your existing receiver, or head down to the CC or BB and get a new Hi-Fi AM Radio and hear the difference!

Want to see real industry growth? Think about how something like 4000+ of 13,000 USA radio stations (those would be the AM properties) are totally neglected and underutilized, and how sporting new music formats, could attract a whole new audience, be it niche flavors or other offerings uniquely suited to the band - like oldies.

AM is a vast resource to resuscitate the radio industry, if you look at it that way.

Sorry to get so enthusiastic. I know it sounds incongruous from this "naysayer" (a label I wear with pride, BTW.)

 

[rbrucecarter5]

b. Mandate C-Quam AM Stereo and AMax within a 3-year time horizon.

This is DOOMED unless the FCC mandates all receivers over a certain price range include AMAX C-Quam, they way they mandated teletext for the deaf on TVs.

 

[pocket-radio]

One good benefit of IBOC, Am stations made digital improvements to their processing and it’s compatible with C-Quam AM Stereo and Amax.

I believe to attract “new” listeners to the AM band again broadcasters will have to do more than just playing another 70’s format or conservative talk radio.

Disney radio in Jacksonville is just one example. While ratings are almost none existent they blow other dominate stations away on a local level with remotes and events because of Disney’s merchandising and brands. Soccer moms come out of the woods just to get product for their kids. For a station that has no numbers that speaks to the idea of compelling content.

With imporved marketing and local talent this station cold show better in ratings too.

 

[w9wi]

Ok let's assume in this alternate universe that AMHD is disallowed effective 12/31/2008. Who has an effective 3 paragraphs which describes what the FCC should do to save AM radio. Please address address the following points. This is not designed to be advesarial. Remember I'm a Eureka 147 fan. (The radio system, not the minor league soccer team).

Be sure to address...
1) The continuation of AM radio overall. Save all of it. Save some of it. Kill it altogether. Move it. Redesign it. Whatever. If you're doing new radios, be sure and discuss cost per listener etc..etc.. AMHD sucks isn't a good answer by itself.

The fundamental problem with AM is that there are FAR too many stations.

If one could ignore Point 5, the correct answer would be to put all the AM callsigns into a hat, and pull out callsigns & put them into a cookie jar until the jar contained 20% of the callsigns.

Those stations would keep their licenses. The ones in the hat: cancel them all.

Then redistribute the survivors around the band.

Obviously this would never pass Point 5.

To some degree the problem will take care of itself, and the economic downturn will accelerate the correction. However, I fear the correction will take so long that the entire AM service will die first...

2) Sound Quality... Does you solution address this. Does it need to. What is a possible solution. Teens will listen to today's Hottest Hits on AM should come with at least a tangential explanation...

3) Coverage... Day coverage, Night coverage, Electrical interference Specifically address how you deal with this. If your answer is "Tough" then say so. I suspect most solutions to this overall problem will have an area that includes the thought "Too bad for someone" on some point. Be honest. We're solving, not selling.

It's too bad for someone.....

Largely, coverage is improved by deleting stations. And thus removing protection requirements imposed on other stations, and allowing those other stations to "let out their patterns"/increase power.

Electrical interference, unfortunately (and as an avid radio ham I hate to admit this) I think this cat is permanently out of the bag. If the FCC were to begin strict enforcement of Part 15 this noon, the electrical utilities and consumer-equipment makers would have their lobbyists on the Hill by tomorrow getting Congress to delete Part 15; if Congress refused to act and enforcement were effective it would still take decades to get the non-compliant gear out of service.

4) Equity. It's ugly but there is a political factor here. Address frankly how the larger FM "Haves" end up in relation to the small AM "Have Nots". If you're proposing a nationwide Sirius channel for a daytimer in Lewes Delaware, you probably ought to justify your answer.

5) Practicality. Does your plan stand a snowball's chance in hell of working. Be specific of who's ox gets gored. Somebody is going to get screwed out of something somewhere. Who is it? How and what do they lose? How does that fit into the whole picture? Does it seem fair.

I just don't see any way small stations can see any real improvement in conditions...

Here's what I'd propose:

- The Act of Congress that required deletion of stations that stay off the air for more than a year was a very good idea, but didn't go nearly far enough.

Any station that doesn't broadcast at least the minimum number of hours specified in 73.1740 for at least 26 weeks of the preceding 52 would be subject to involuntary time-sharing -- another station could file to use facilities that would interfere with that station during the hours not used by the first station.

Any station that doesn't broadcast at least the minimum number of hours specified in 73.1740 at their licensed power/antenna height for at least 26 weeks of the preceding 52 would be subject to having their license modified to the reduced facilities, allowing other stations to relax interference protection. If they didn't operate the minimum number of hours at at least the minimum power for their class, they would be downgraded; the station would be deleted altogether if they failed to operate at the minimum for the lowest class. (at least 100 watts ERP for FM; at least 141mV/m @ 1km (roughly, 250 watts) for AM)

- Blanket authorization for AM IBOC would be canceled. AM stations wishing to use IBOC could apply for authorization to do so. They would have to show that analog stations could be licensed for the station's site and the proposed IBOC power on each of the two channels below and above the station's own channel. For example, if WYSL wished to run IBOC daytime, it would be required to show that 200-watt daytime-only analog stations could be authorized on 1020, 1030, 1050, and 1060KHz at WYSL's existing site and with their existing antenna system. (as a practical matter I would not be surprised if no station could make such a showing for nighttime AM-IBOC operation. Some daytime operation would probably be possible in many cases.)

- I disagree with Bob Savage about the desirability of powers in excess of 25kw. I would propose removing any limit on station power beyond that necessary to avoid interference to other stations. (in practice, it is unlikely more than a tiny handful of stations would find it possible to increase power beyond 50kw without interfering with other stations. But maybe that would change as more marginal stations are deleted?) (economics and environmental restrictions would probably also form a pretty effective limit to station power) Since Part 15 is not likely to be effectively enforced, raw power is really the only way to overcome it.

- Develop some kind of mark for radios containing DSP circuitry. Probably the best development I've seen come out of HD Radio are DSP receivers. HD receivers really are excellent performers for reception of analog stations.

- Assign TV channels 2-6 for FM service on a secondary basis to TV. Many places have one or more TV stations operating in these channels even after digital transition, and it's way too late to force these stations to move now. (in some northern markets quite simply, the tower work season is already over and will not resume until well after February) However, no place uses all five channels. For example, here in Nashville the presence of a post-transition digital channel 5 will preclude the assignment of channel 5 and most of channel 6 for radio operation. However, there's no reason channels 2-4 and the top 2MHz of channel 6 couldn't be used for radio.

Limit access to these frequencies to existing AM licensees. Require that their AM licenses be canceled once surveys show at least 90% of new radios being sold and at least 70% of radios in service cover the new band.

- Enforce the requirement that X-band stations surrender either their X-band or their regular-band license after five years of X-band operation. The X-band was created to clear out interference in 540-1600 but in most cases, the regular-band stations are still operating. They shouldn't be.

- Reverse the restriction on non-fillin FM translators: require that they not be controlled by or receive support from their primary stations. Require that they be controlled by entities that would be eligible to control a LPFM station at the same site - i.e., require local ownership. Allow existing translators with non-compliant ownership to continue to operate with their existing primaries, but they would not be allowed to change to a different non-compliant primary, nor to transfer control of the non-compliant primary and the translator to the same owners.

This would make more translators (or at least their frequencies) available to small AMs to improve coverage and evade interference.

 

[Carmine5]

Assuming that the EXB proposal goes nowhere (very likely) and that HD Radio for FM remains (very likely), I propose the following:

Radio conglomerates that have both AM and FM stations in the same market and AM/FM combos should continue to migrate their AM content to HD-FM side channels and, eventually, surrender their AM licenses. The AM band should then be "re-packed" city-by-city so that stand alone, low watt and mom and pop AM stations can have some 'breathing room' to either increase their power or simply enjoy broadcasting a full band signal without interference from neighboring stations. AMAX AM stereo would be very nice but not mandatory. Perhaps, down the road, AM could become digital only using DRM.

This is a variation of the infamous "thin the herd" proposal. Except in this case it isn't the standalone, low watt or mom and pop operators that are being asked to take a hit but the megla-radio behemoths and group operators (and even with this the only thing being asked is that they make more efficient use of their existing HD-FM signals).

C5

 

[jegrant]

How about the BMC proposal, for large conglomerates, and the Savage proposal, for mom & pop or otherwise "independent" or "small group" stations?

That way, those who can afford to vacate the AM band can either go to digital "low" FM on the former VHF Low TV band, or to an existing HD-2. Those who remain on the AM band will be able to offer decent audio that will be compatible with all existing radios.

 

[clouseau]

Some random thoughts on the situation.

It seems to me that there needs to be a multi pronged approach to the whole AM situation. Here's a few random things "I" see.

1)W9WI is right (Nice website BTW). There are too many transmitters on the AM band. At night the band is a mess. I've got lots of spots on the dial where during the day, the band is a mess. These issues are mostly not caused by IBOC. Just bad spacing. When we're done playing here, let's reallocate the ased on existnig treaties

2)Todays analog AM fidelity is not suitable for music.

3) Politically, no child can be left behind. That is, EVERY existing AM broadcaster needs to be able to continue to have a broadcasting outlet of some variety.

These are my rock solid, stone cold lead pipe lock truths about what needs to happen.

Now a list of ideas which I think could help.

1) AM graveyard channels should remain. While some stations may wish to try and improve, if these folks like things the way they are, they should be able to remain. These channels are uniquely suited for local information programming. That's code speak for "All the crappy little talk stations can continue to do what they're doing if they want". Hundreds of these facilities serve their communities well. Those wishing to try and play music in another band should be allowed the opportunity if it exists. Many will remain where they are. Perhaps down the road, these stations , en masse should get ANOTHER power increase to 1500 or 2000 watts. The wide open spaces are ruined on these freqs. Give it another shot of power to overcome the dimmers and continue on. These stations have 2 choices. Continue at a slightly higher power with "Talk" fidelity or try and move. (Existing radios work).

2) Eliminate Class "D" AM operation at night. IF you want to operate at night them migrate. You have 3 years. Sundown = Transmitter off. Your choice. We'll show you where.(Existing radios work)

3) Big AMs. As in 50 KW all the time. You can stay, or you can "TRY" to migrate. You're probably already into AM talk. Stay there. We'll try and ease the mask for a little more fidelity. Hopefully the loss of the "D" on your channel during the day(Migration) and at night (Now priohibited) will improve your lot in life. Still, you'll be talking or moving. Play music if you want. Good luck with that. (existing radios work)

4) The regionals. WFIL, WWRL, KILT, WJW (Or whatever it is in Cleveland now), 710 in Kansas City, WQAM, WTVN, KTSA etc etc These folks are a big challenge. They should like the reduction in "Band Population". MOst of these folks are talk by now anyway. MAybe the afore mentioned relaxing of the mask for slightly better fidelity... (Existing radios work)

5) Above all else.. STOP granting AM new station or upgrade applications. NO MAS!!

SO this helps. But those left behind have existing AM low quality audio. But a better signal due to the decluttering.

Where did they all go??

Sit down for this one...

They went to second adjacent FM.

No wait!!! Stop... Breathe. It CAN work....

Right now, existing FCC rules and interpretations allow for a 40db difference between Desirable and undesirable signal levels at 2nd adjacent FM stations for translators If you are inclined as a broadcast engineer. you see that little "Holes of interference" are allowed so long as they are not popluated. This is what allows 2nd adjacent translators. I propose we move the vast majority of these "Migrators" to a class of station called an "A-0" (That's A-ZERO for those of you in Rio Linda) .5 KW at 500 meters as a default. That means, according to existing policy, The intterference is just over 1000 yards from the base of the tower. Sited away from population, it works. But who gets screwed?

Well... Zone one.

All B-1 stations become C-3 stations. All B's become C-2's. No one's facilities change. All radios work identically to the way they did before... But we administer the entire country a litle differently. There are no more <60 dbu pritections. Just like in the rest of the country.

Did I mention no FM station has to lower power under this plan?

This slight ADMINISTRATIVE change would allow for 2nd adjacent stations. We could even require them to meet the initial "no population" in the interference area criteria for translators.

I also propose that these new "refugee" stations have priority over existing translators. IOW, they can apply for and displace them. Like full power TV and LPTV. After the first round of migration, we could allow translator operators who were displaced to move anywhere in their area as an LPTV-Like "Displacement application." Even most of THEM won't get the axe.

So I'm looking at

1) AM basically becomes big station talk. Small market locals move to FM 2nd adjacent. Graveyards get an option.

2) a system is set up, similar to the DTV table of allotments. Someone defines who gets what. Most will cope. Some will file for a change. a very few will sue. And when we're done, the "DTV like" AM radio fix will be over. Remember

No new AM stations.

No downgrades in transmission power for existing FM's.

Lots of new 2nd adjacent translators (Who are actually you new low power neighbors,)

Bunches of new free space on the AM band.

What needs changing?

Note it does NOT say "My Plan" at the top.

Clouseau

 

[TheBigA]

The fundamental problem with AM is that there are FAR too many stations.

Exactly.

Let's face it...what's the point of having 6000 AM stations if they all run the same 20 syndicated shows?

Simply drop the number of stations down to maybe 200 superstations, max of 2 total per owner, and shut the rest down.

Double their bandwidth, increase their power, and let the chips fall where they may. Screw localism and diversity.

 

[DStroyer]

valid, non-insulting promos boosting the New World Of The New AM Radio - Hi-Fi AM! Listen on your existing receiver, or head down to the CC or BB and get a new Hi-Fi AM Radio and hear the difference!

There is NO way you're going to attract anybody under the age of 55 back to AM radio by using a term like "Hi-Fi AM".

The term "Hi-Fi" seems really outdated. The last people to use that term were probably rich audiophiles in as late as 1999, who mainly now use the term "high-end audio". When I hear "Hi-Fi", I think of the RCA Victor console system my parents received as a wedding gift in 1959: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMoM8Y-E5UY

Somebody's going to have to think of a "sexy" new term.... Like "Clear AM", or "AM Overdrive", or "Turbo AM"?

 

[Savage]

Ok, fair enough. I was thinking "Hi-Fi" might not be sound outdated because of ubiquitous "W-Fi" terminology, but you could be right. So....recruit a focus group, a marketing organization, and pick a term that works. I'm not married to "Hi-Fi AM."

The point is, have a marketing strategy for a newly-minted AM plan which is promotes all stations interested in growing and succeeding, with equanimity based on fair principles. Develop AM with a realistic technical improvement plan which actually works. As opposed to HD-AM.

 

[Chad-Stevens]

What I'll do when I rule the world, or at least its airwaves.

1) First wait to see how well the DTV transition goes in February. I'm not convinced that the new president isn't going to face his first domestic crisis with this damn-fool plan.

1A) For all this talk about protecting TV allocations, I'm left wondering if there will be any need at all for OTA TV in 20 years or so, since only 15% or so of households rely on it now and that number is certain to drop after the transition. Maintaining towers and equipment to broadcast to a handful of oldsters and inner city residents? For all the talk of the poor, I see very few people willing to install a rooftop antenna to keep free TV. (I say this as an OTA viewer who has come to terms with the fact that I am going to lose ABC and PBS in February, lest you think I have no pity.) Most people are going to suck it up and add a TV subscription as just another one of life's expenses - just like cell phones which were once only playthings of the rich and pretentious, now even the poorest of the poor won't leave home without them. Can you picture a day when the entire TV spectrum is simply re-allocated? I can, but we'll stick with 76 MHz as Japanese spec FM gear is already being produced in large quantities.

1B) FCC Type acceptance for FM radios immediately mandates reception of 76-88 whether or not these channels open up for radio. It would be of minimal additional cost for equipment manufacturers as they are already producing radios that tune 76-108 in vast quantities now.

2) If the DTV transition goes well, or at least well enough that the grumblings of viewers who get screwed over can be brushed aside - or at least tuned out - then an immediate and permanent freeze on new apps for ch. 5/6 and the MW Band. Leave any exceptions whatsoever and it will stretched a mile wide like the mayhem we've seen with translators. Apps for new full-power FM's - assuming you could even shoehorn them in - on 88-108 are frozen for a period of seven years.

3) For the first five years, ONLY existing AM's and existing LPFM's can apply to simulcast in 76-88. Stations taking this plunge must shut down the old frequency permanently after five years.

4) No translators PERIOD in 76-88, or at least this simple restriction: translators may be no more than 120 miles from the primary station or located within the same state as the primary. This is intended for the benefit of the public radio chains and remote Alaskans, and not intended to help the Family Radios, and K-Loves of the world.

5) In years five through seven existing full power FMs under 10kW may apply to simulcast in 76-88. Old freq must be shut down in two years.

6) Freeze on new apps for 88-108 is lifted.

 

[pocket-radio]

Screw localism and diversity.

Done that..

 

[Chuck]

I also propose that these new "refugee" stations have priority over existing translators. IOW, they can apply for and displace them. Like full power TV and LPTV. After the first round of migration, we could allow translator operators who were displaced to move anywhere in their area as an LPTV-Like "Displacement application." Even most of THEM won't get the axe.

Since you are the owner of some translators, I'm fairly amazed that you would be happy with this part of the plan. Here I'll have to differ with you, since I'm not a big fan of any form of confiscation. That goes for anybody, not just translator operators. Even though they are a secondary service, I'd prefer an approach where station owners aren’t forced to do anything. If a translator operator wants to voluntarily sell their station so another station may use the frequency, that is an entirely different story. In fact, there are a lot of translators that could be improved by switching them to some form of local programming. Then there are others that actually contribute something positive to the communities they serve.

That said, I think utilizing second adjacents should be a "no-brainer." 500 watts at 500 feet would work well in many instances. The reports of "unacceptable interference" are largely over-exaggerations, especially on today's car radios.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The fundamental problem with AM is that there are FAR too many stations.

Exactly.

Let's face it...what's the point of having 6000 AM stations if they all run the same 20 syndicated shows?

Simply drop the number of stations down to maybe 200 superstations, max of 2 total per owner, and shut the rest down.

Double their bandwidth, increase their power, and let the chips fall where they may. Screw localism and diversity.

Only problem with that is: Who's going to be the poor schmuck who has to tell the losing station owners they have to go out of business...and who's going to pay the costs of all that litigation when most of them decide to sue the government for an (in their view) arbitrary and capricious decision?

 

[Savage]

Idiocy.

This proposal is akin to dealing with the escalating costs of health care by the tidy expedient of putting all the sick and old people into a lottery - with the losers being marched (or wheeled) in front of a firing squad.

Only nitwits with no stake in the outcome, who can safely watch and pontificate from the sidelines, propose such nonsense.