But that's because they have no other option. That was basically the situation for most people before 1965. After that they had options.
-
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
Saving AM Radio
- Thread starter BruceB
- Start date
But that's because they have no other option. That was basically the situation for most people before 1965. After that they had options.
Really? David seems to disagree:
But I don't want to see the government doing that. I think it will happen one station at a time. But eventually there will be an infection point and the job will be complete.
I guess it depends on the market. Where I live people were still listening to 61 Big WAYS, but WROQ was rock. The first FM targeting younger listeners in general was WBCY, which called itself "Charlotte's Best Rock" but had a playlist a lot like a Top 40, in 1978. There was probably little or no disco, and maybe not a lot of Black artists.
But in Mexico they changed the technical standards to allow nearly all AMs to move to FM. In fact, most of the world allows second adjacent local stations because since the 1950's radios have managed to do that quite well
He's right for Mexico. Mexico is a different country. If we lived in Mexico, things would be different.
If the FCC shut down AM radio, congress would hit the ceiling and reverse the decision.
Would they?
Congress (especially the House) has been so dysfunctional that they can barely agree on basic procedures anymore, let alone pass meaningful legislation (which ostensibly is their job).
Indeed, they seem to have almost totally abdicated most of their responsibilities. Over the past few years (especially since last year), they're basically letting the Executive branch (which includes the FCC) do whatever they want, regardless of whether or not it's proper or legal.
What does this have to do with the topic? Congress is voting on this bill, and other posters speculated about the FCC shutting down AM.
I doubt either will happen.
c
I agree, but I would add one more category. I see a lot of standalone AM stations and AM/FM combos being owned by seniors in their 70s, 80s or beyond that have the additional risk of ownership transition.
Many of these properties are likely to be orphaned if/when the owner who has shepherded them through the last 20 or 30 years decides to retire, or involuntarily retires.
For example, Sima Birach, the owner of a chain of brokered AMs, died recently, and it remains to be seen if his heirs will see a path to grow, divest, or stand firm on the business their father built.
It depends. Here's how I could see it going. The FCC announces that they're no longer renewing AM stations. The owners of those stations and the NAB sue the FCC. The far right talk show hosts and religious radio hosts motivate their listeners to demonstrate and contact their representatives. Freedom of speech! The president goes on social media and tells his FCC to rescind its order. Then congress decides it will also get involved. How does that sound?
Mexico did not "shut down" AM. Their congress declared that AM was no longer viable, and instigated administrative procedures to try to "rescue" the licensees of as many AM stations as they could.
Some were un-savable, as they were along the U.S. border and subject to the joint agreements. A few were in the 4 or 5 largest cities and there were no frequencies available. And a couple just did not want to move off AM.
The countries that have "shut down" AM tend to be ones where the government has always either owned all stations or dominated the medium.
Which isn't the case here, which is why I said that we won't do what Mexico did. If the FCC tried, there would be lawsuits for years.
Mexico's system for broadcasting is almost identical to ours. While some states as well as a smallish national group own some stations, nearly all stations are privately owned. The major difference is that they allowed multiple station ownership in the same market back as far as the 50's.
Again, Mexico did "nothing" as far as ending AM broadcasting. They opened the door through technical changes in their rules for about 80% of all AMs to have the option to move to FM.
Anyone who wanted to could have kept their AM. In fact, when closing all AMs in a market area would have deprived some of service, the AM had to be kept operational along with the new FM (I am simplifying this a bit as the process of moving to FM could be a bit more complicated, but that is "administrative law" and not the intent of deciding to "save" the AM licensees by giving them a way to FM.
So, were we to adopt the system Mexico did, there would be no lawsuits. Mexico just said, "We think AM is dead. If you want to try to move to FM, we will make it easier. But if you don't want to, just stay as you are."
The FCC already did that with the AM Revitalization plan. But they couldn't transition everyone to FM because the FM band is too crowded. The FM signals they got weren't equal to the AMs they replaced. The next problem is that FM is becoming less viable as a commercial entity.
Most of what you stated about Mexico also applies to Canada, our neighbor to the north. And, in both cases, what appears to have made the FM frequencies available for the AM moves was that both countries, especially Canada, were not issuing as many new FM licenses during the 1980s as the U.S. did.
No, it does not. Canada has owned huge national Francophone and English networks "forever" and the regulations on content are absurdly restrictive.
Significantly, Canada has attempted to make sure any new stations don't hurt existing ones.
Canada had always limited the number of stations based on economics, while the U.S. based it on technical possibilities.
Mexico allowed for AMs to move to FM by changing channel separation technical rules.
Neither case was at all like that in the United States.
It amazes me that such owners haven’t thought ahead and planned for this. Did they think they were going to live forever? There always needs to be a succession plan in place for any business, whether it involves heirs, a sale, or a shutdown.
Also business owners should never assume that their children or other family members will take over. Those people may have other ideas of what to do with their life.
It's not so much that they don't want to retire or don't want to plan. But there's not a ton of graduates coming out of Wharton with a dream to buy a marginal AM standalone or AM-FM combo in some place like Clinton, IL.
It is my hypothesis that there are a ton of AMs that fit that mold, although I say that with only anecdotal evicence.
I personally have worked with owners who were entertaining offers on their radio stations for years. Some got a good enough offer to sell, and others did not and left their business to their widow or children.
They should probably ban all radios without AM. With today's DSP chips it cost nothing to include a band. That's why so many cheap transistor radios have SW now.
The problem with that is next to nobody is buying radios.
Then it wouldn't make any difference, as long as mandating AM doesn't cost anyone anything, mandate AM.