Saving AM Radio

[TheBigA]

the need for AM in passenger vehicles has diminished to the point where Congress is wrong -- imagine that! -- to have sided with a vocal minority who believe it necessary.*

They're not voting for this because they believe it's a necessity. The fact is that the radio spectrum is a public resource, just like water, forests, minerals, and other similar assets, owned by the taxpayers. Shutting it down, or allowing it to go away, regardless of the practicality of AM radio, is politically impossible to defend. The finances of maintaining AM costs the taxpayers nothing. The costs are incurred by the licensees. In exchange, the licensees pay the FCC a fee. As I've said, there's no upside to the FCC shutting stations down. The federal government is prohibited by law from owning AM radio stations.

I think that by 2030 it will be overwhelmingly obvious that the mandate for AM in cars is/was totally insufficient to save the service,

That wasn't the purpose of the legislation.

I believe that when it comes to that point, the process is going to allow AM/translator combos to become a separately licensed FM class of service and the "link" between the licenses broken so that the AM license can be surrendered without penalty.

That's not what the FCC intended. If you read the original AM revitalization plan, they foresaw a time when AM stations would go full digital. Right now, that's obviously impractical. But by 2030, who knows? The opening I see is the chance for AM owners to sell their tower land and find other ways to merchandise their AM assets so they don't hurt the owners. On top of it, as I said, I expect them to find ways to increase the power of translators, contingent on them retaining their AM signals.

 

[K.M. Richards]

You talk about empty dial spots, coupled with the fast FM growth over the last 50 years or so, I think it was sometime in the 70s that the highest frequency in use in Vegas was 101.9 !

Longer than that, Tomás.

The first FM in the market above that frequency was a Class A rimshot licensed to Boulder City, south of Vegas (KRRI on 105.5, with a HAAT-restricted ERP of 120 watts) which signed on September 1, 1982. When the rules were changed, they later -- somewhere around 1991-92, if my research using the Broadcasting Yearbooks at David's site is reasonably correct -- upgraded to a C2 with 3.7kW.

They were sold to American General Media in 1995 and from there I have to depend on (ugh) Wikipedia to piece the subsequent history together.

AGM changed the calls to KQOL and then to KSTJ before moving the station to 102.7 as part of 105.7 being dropped into the market in 2000. Somewhere along the line, AGM exited the market and sold it to Beasley. The calls were KFRH for two years (2007-2009) and then KCYE before the most recent change to KVGS in 2022.

 

[K.M. Richards]

That wasn't the purpose of the legislation.

You missed my point and I am done trying to discuss this with you, A.

 

[TheBigA]

You missed my point and I am done trying to discuss this with you, A.

I understand your point perfectly. What you're saying makes sense from a business perspective. A lot of people think of government as a business. It's not. It's a service. Owning AM radio today in most cases is impractical as a business. The goal of the FCC is to keep AM radio active as a public resource. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent car manufacturers from eliminating access to a public resource. So allowing owners to shut down impractical AM radio stations and replacing them with FM makes perfect business sense. But that isn't what motivates the FCC.

From the government's POV, people know what they bought when they bought these AM licenses. They knew they had a practical shelf life. It's not up to the government to compensate them for making a bad business decision. Allowing them to shut down the AM station and operate the translator only would be a form of compensation.

 

[boombox4]

There is no room in any significant metro. Just because you can't hear a station where you are does not mean that the adjacent or second adjacent channels on each side are not protected from putting anything new on the "empty spots".

When Docket 80-90 allowed uncontested A to B or C upgrades, changes in COL and the like, nearly everything that could be done was done in the next decade.

While there are rural areas with truly empty dial spots, nobody wants those and many that were licensed are now silent or soon will be in the current radio economy.

OK, but didn't you say a few posts above that much of Latin America -- and much of the rest of the world, changed or removed the second adjacent channel protection requirements -- being that when they were implemented, FM radios were 'primitive', as compared to today? Why couldn't that also be done here, theoretically? Is there some engineering reason that can't be done?

Not that it would be done. I doubt the FCC is going to shake up the FM and AM bands any time soon, if ever. But in theory, if those protection requirements could be removed, wouldn't it allow for more stations on the FM band in many metros?

 

[TheBigA]

But in theory, if those protection requirements could be removed, wouldn't it allow for more stations on the FM band in many metros?

Let's pause for a moment: Removing protection. Don't we depend on government to protect us?

In answer to your question: Of course! But at what cost. One of my relatives lost their entire backyard to eminent domain, when the state decided to double the size of a nearby highway. So they lost the protection of their property rights because of population explosion. How did this happen? Money was appropriated and they were given a payment to compensate them for their loss.

Would that happen if FM stations lost their second adjacents? That would be a matter of litigation. When I receive a license, it is a partnership. There are certain rights and obligations in that license. I agree to follow the FCC laws, and they agree to protect my frequency. Part of this is going after pirates who infringe on the rights of the licensees. But if they eliminate those protections, they're basically changing the size of your property. They're reneging on their side of the deal. Or at least changing it in a major way. So what's my compensation? You might say radios are more selective now, but that doesn't change the fact that their changing the size of my property. Why hasn't it happened here as it has in other countries? Because we are a lot more litigious than other countries. If you study the battle over LPFM, you'll get a taste of what this would be.

 

[Mark Roberts]

You talk about empty dial spots, coupled with the fast FM growth over the last 50 years or so, I think it was sometime in the 70s that the highest frequency in use in Vegas was 101.9 !

Then there was Albuquerque in the early 1980s. The highest FM frequency was KKJY, 100.3 (easy listening: "K-Joy. It's 70 degrees in Albuquerque. [whisper] It's 62 in Santa Fe.") - except for KFMG, up at 107.9 all by its lonesome.

It's sure not like that any more.

 

[TomásEstefan]

Let's pause for a moment: Removing protection. Don't we depend on government to protect us?

In answer to your question: Of course! But at what cost. One of my relatives lost their entire backyard to eminent domain, when the state decided to double the size of a nearby highway. So they lost the protection of their property rights because of population explosion. How did this happen? Money was appropriated and they were given a payment to compensate them for their loss.

Would that happen if FM stations lost their second adjacents? That would be a matter of litigation. When I receive a license, it is a partnership. There are certain rights and obligations in that license. I agree to follow the FCC laws, and they agree to protect my frequency. Part of this is going after pirates who infringe on the rights of the licensees. But if they eliminate those protections, they're basically changing the size of your property. They're reneging on their side of the deal. Or at least changing it in a major way. So what's my compensation? You might say radios are more selective now, but that doesn't change the fact that their changing the size of my property. Why hasn't it happened here as it has in other countries? Because we are a lot more litigious than other countries. If you study the battle over LPFM, you'll get a taste of what this would be.

 

[brettbutlerisok]

And there are well over 1000 AM stations that must stay on the air to sustain a translator on FM. The real business comes from the FM service, but the FCC requires the AM to be on the air for a translator to operate.

Until the FCC allows those translators to be a fully-classed (A2?) and protected service, those AMs will remain on the air.

I like it that way, just consider them museum pieces. Something to bore the grandchildren with!

 

[Mark Roberts]

Me either. Lots of wishful thinking, very little acknowledgement of reality.

Here's the thing: the question really should be that of saving radio - and not just that, but separating the over-the-air interface for distribution from the content being distributed. This requires defining what radio is - and what it isn't. For example, is a stream of continuous music with no other human interaction really radio? (Leave aside whether it goes through a transmitter.) Has a clear answer to that question emerged yet? What does the economic model look like? And so on.

 

[TheBigA]

In the context of the discussion about AM radio, some will bring up how great AM once was back in the 60s, and how bad it is now. It's easy to blame big radio companies. Radio was much better when there were restrictions on how many stations you could own. Ask yourself: Then what happened? The FCC changed the rules, started cramming in more stations, shares went down because of the increased number of stations, revenue went down, and the quality went down. One could also look at the changes the FCC made in clear channel protections in the 70s, and how that affected the size of the coverage area of those stations. That destruction of AM, done by the FCC, at the same time that FM was expanding, is what led to where we are now with AM radio. So yes, the FCC could remove protections from FM, as it did from AMs, and cram in more stations to the FM band. But aren't they just making the same mistakes they've made before? Hmmm.

 

[BruceB]

Here's the thing: the question really should be that of saving radio - and not just that, but separating the over-the-air interface for distribution from the content being distributed. This requires defining what radio is - and what it isn't. For example, is a stream of continuous music with no other human interaction really radio? (Leave aside whether it goes through a transmitter.) Has a clear answer to that question emerged yet? What does the economic model look like? And so on.

Online only music channels routinely use the term radio like "Flower Power Radio","Planet Oldies Radio" just a few examples. I guess the point is the term is free to use.

 

[TomásEstefan]

In the context of the discussion about AM radio, some will bring up how great AM once was back in the 60s, and how bad it is now. It's easy to blame big radio companies. Radio was much better when there were restrictions on how many stations you could own. Ask yourself: Then what happened? The FCC changed the rules, started cramming in more stations, shares went down because of the increased number of stations, revenue went down, and the quality went down. One could also look at the changes the FCC made in clear channel protections in the 70s, and how that affected the size of the coverage area of those stations. That destruction of AM, done by the FCC, at the same time that FM was expanding, is what led to where we are now with AM radio. So yes, the FCC could remove protections from FM, as it did from AMs, and cram in more stations to the FM band. But aren't they just making the same mistakes they've made before? Hmmm.

Indeed, stereo on AM was technically feasible at the same time FM stereo was authorized. But the FCC said no because it might stifle the growth of FM. So Leonard Kahn put his system on the air in Mexico, notably on 690 XETRA (now XEWW) which serves San Diego and Los Angeles to prove it would work.

 

[TheBigA]

Indeed, stereo on AM was technically feasible at the same time FM stereo was authorized. But the FCC said no because it might stifle the growth of FM.

That's not exactly what they said. They didn't want to put their finger on the scale of the various competing systems. It would be a financial windfall for the chosen system. They wanted the marketplace to decide. You see what happened.

 

[gr8oldies]

The presidential race, especially, lends itself much more to the unrestrained, highly visual environment of online advertising than to radio, which is in the straitjacket of fairness rules and broadcast standards. I can't stress "visual" enough, as the physical appearance of both candidates is relentlessly lampooned in online advertising in a way that even standard television advertising, let alone radio, cannot hope to approach.

But Mr. Booming Deepvoice says: "if Candidate B is elected, your town is doomed. DOOMED!" I agree though, specialized online videos directed right to the expected audiene works.

 

[Kelly A]

I'm going to make it even worse. The all-digital SFN (single frequency network). The availability of HD in cars has been discussed here, and while there's no absolute statistics, it varies with market, etc, the fact remains there are a good percentage of cars out there equipped with HD radios. There's also a documented method of synchronizing HD radio transmitters into a SFN. But only on FM. What about AM? What about using several low power (100 watt or so) all-digital AM transmitters located at strategic places to fully cover a market? It's a total drastic change to current rules. Antenna efficiency rules would have to be thrown out the window (you're not going to construct many AM antennas - they have to be special, loaded devices - more akin to ham radio antennas). Interference calculations would have to be different (integrated from several sources). It wouldn't work with a regular analog signal. Too much mutual interference. But if the engineers at Xperi are correct it would work for an all-digital signal. The advantage to the concept over standard AM is that you could add coverage to a market by simply adding another transmitter in a high-growth area if that proved financially viable.

How much would it cost? Don't know. Would the FCC ever grant an experimental license for someone to try it? Don't know that either. But it sure would be fun to see if something like that works in the real world.

Dave B.

What you describe is an AM booster station. The Commission issued a handful of STA's for stations to test on-channel AM boosters. Essentially take all the quirks and physics hassles of FM boosters and multiply them by about five.
The problem was the interference zone between the primary and booster was really unlistenable, in spite of locking both oscillators to GPS, there was still a boatload of heterodyne. In the end AM boosters were a failure, and because of such poor results, the FCC decided no permanent AM boosters would be allowed.

 

[davideduardo]

That's not exactly what they said. They didn't want to put their finger on the scale of the various competing systems. It would be a financial windfall for the chosen system. They wanted the marketplace to decide. You see what happened.

Initially, in the late '78-'79 proceedings they authorized one single system out of 5. Due to lawsuits by Leonard Kahn, that was delayed almost 5 years... and by that time nearly all music listening in sales demos had moved to FM.

When it was over, to avoid "The Wrath of Kahn" they allowed a "market decision" which was a horrible cop-out.

 

[TheBigA]

Initially, in the late '78-'79 proceedings they authorized one single system out of 5. Due to lawsuits by Leonard Kahn, that was delayed almost 5 years... and by that time nearly all music listening in sales demos had moved to FM.

According to the FCC, we're both kinda right. See the 80s section:

AM Stereo Broadcasting

Stereophonic AM broadcasting in the USA uses the C-Quam system of encoding the stereo signal. This system has been the official standard since 1993. A very brief chronology of the events leading to the adoption of the AM stereo standard in the USA follows.

www.fcc.gov

The FCC initially wanted just one system. Kahn & Hazeltine appealed for a marketplace approach. The FCC agreed. Then there were more lawsuits. and by then, it was too late.

 

[davideduardo]

According to the FCC, we're both kinda right. See the 80s section:

AM Stereo Broadcasting

Stereophonic AM broadcasting in the USA uses the C-Quam system of encoding the stereo signal. This system has been the official standard since 1993. A very brief chronology of the events leading to the adoption of the AM stereo standard in the USA follows.

www.fcc.gov

That is not quite accurate; the FCC description left out lots of details. In 1978 I had signed contracts / orders for the first production unit from both Harris and Motorola. The FCC, before the objection by Kahn, had actually approved one of them. But Kahn was ready, the FCC was legally prevented from authorizing use of any unit.

The FCC initially wanted just one system. Kahn & Hazeltine appealed for a marketplace approach. The FCC agreed. Then there were more lawsuits. and by then, it was too late.

Kahn was Hazeltine. The company was Kahn-Hazeltine and Leonard Kahn was the CEO. So it was just Leonard who made the window of opportunity for AM stereo close before any system could be used.

 

[TomásEstefan]

What you describe is an AM booster station. The Commission issued a handful of STA's for stations to test on-channel AM boosters. Essentially take all the quirks and physics hassles of FM boosters and multiply them by about five.
The problem was the interference zone between the primary and booster was really unlistenable, in spite of locking both oscillators to GPS, there was still a boatload of heterodyne. In the end AM boosters were a failure, and because of such poor results, the FCC decided no permanent AM boosters would be allowed.

Someone in New Mexico might want to check and see if the KKOB booster in Santa Fe is still in operation, its listed on FCCdata.org. I don't see anything there that indicates it was taken off the air. On 770 with 230 Watts ND fulltime.