Saving AM Radio

[Dondd]

There's no benefit if no one listens. The result is the same.

The government's job, as outlined in the constitution, is to manage the public resources. The spectrum is one of those resources. Having the government keep AM available in cars is simply managing the public resources. The taxpayers aren't paying for it. Nobody's required to use it.

The taxpayers pay for the FCC and congressional action. Every congressional rep is funded by taxpayers.

I ain't no "libertarian," but this move to force automakers to carry AM -- mostly to artificially prop-up and protect AM conservative talk radio -- the fragile and weak media it is -- from market forces - is one big fool's errand.

 

[TheBigA]

The taxpayers pay for the FCC and congressional action. Every congressional rep is funded by taxpayers.

Nope. The licensees and the sale of spectrum pay for the FCC. It's the job of congress to follow the constitution. That's what they get paid to do. Passing a law that protects a public resource is part of their job. It has nothing to do with conservative radio. It's a bipartisan bill.

 

[Michi]

If Congress seriously wants to save AM radio, they need to remove the HD loophole from the legislation. With Elon coming on as co-president, I don't see that happening.

 

[davideduardo]

You said, " If a lie is said over and over and over on the Internet, it seems to be considered "truth"." That's paraphrasing Hitler. I didn't mean anything beyond that!

It is not paraphrasing Hitler (who did not say that, anyhow,) but making a specific reference to AI "absorbing" a large quantity of errors and concluding that any majority sentiment was, thus, true.

Not the same as government propaganda. It's about AI's ability to take majority opinions and statements and assume that quantity means quality.

My first girlfriend in Ecuador had numbers on her arm. My first two engineers were survivors. I assisted Israeli intelligence in tracking suppliers to Martin Bormann through my social and business contacts. I am very sensitive to any reference to Nazis.

 

[davideduardo]

A friendly disagreement..
Disagree all you want, but it's the height of hypocrisy for "conservative" talk radio to demand the "strong arm of government" (how many conservative hosts overuse that phrase?) short-circuit "market rules" and protect their narrow partisan profession?
If almost no one listens to AM, why force automakers to do something not in their economic interest?

You continue to use false information to make an invalid point.

Nationally, over 30% of all people listen to AM radio regularly. Those people find something of interest there and continue to use that band regularly. Talk formats are just one of the offerings, as there are sports stations, religious ones, large coverage farm info stations in the Midwest, foreign language stations and lots of other stuff on AM that something like 80,000,000 or more Americans listen to.

Those are the facts. Not a "narrow partisan profession".

And "conservative" is an accurate label for the once great talk radio... Dems., "leftists", "wokes," never-Trumpers, moderate Repubs- essentially, anyone different from their narrow partisan views -- need not apply.

Let's be consistent and let the market decide.

Yeah, but base the decision on actual facts. You don't like conservative talk, but are forgetting the service of a WNAX or a KWKW or KIRN and hundreds and hundreds of AMs that serve important communities of listeners.

As a great example, you might look at this About US

 

[davideduardo]

If Congress seriously wants to save AM radio, they need to remove the HD loophole from the legislation. With Elon coming on as co-president, I don't see that happening.

What they should really do is let translators that are linked to AMs get a permanent non-dependent license which would, then, allow the AM to be cancelled. At that point, a few remaining AMs might be able to have less interference and even expand coverage.

 

[TheBigA]

What they should really do is let translators that are linked to AMs get a permanent non-dependent license which would, then, allow the AM to be cancelled. At that point, a few remaining AMs might be able to have less interference and even expand coverage.

The deal the FCC made with licensees is they would get a valuable FM frequency to help pay for operating the AM. You want to absolve them of their responsibility for nothing. We call that a windfall profit. The government gets nothing for it except a bunch of AMs no one wants.

 

[davideduardo]

Another question is, "What's the value of the information transmitted?" It's one-way! Whether from AM, FM, a bullhorn or whatever, does it really help those in need?

If there is a choice of "no information" and some information, I'll take "some".

A cellphone provides a way to get advice and ask for help. Bolstering cell service might be a better objective.

There is no economically feasible way to make cellular service as dependable as the AM service I described in Puerto Rico. Most cell sites have backup batteries for a few hours of lost power, but their locations will not legally or societally allow generators with fuel storage and noise. Adding solar or "bigger" batteries is no possible in many if not most cases.

So cellular service is among the most vulnerable of communications methods in a disaster. It can take days, weeks and even months (as was the case I referred to) to get to and restore cell sites. An AM radio station can go over mountains and lakes and hills and penetrate basements and gullies.

 

[davideduardo]

The deal the FCC made with licensees is they would get a valuable FM frequency to help pay for operating the AM. You want to absolve them of their responsibility for nothing. We call that a windfall profit. The government gets nothing for it except a bunch of AMs no one wants.

The government would be clearing the band of bad AM signals for the most part, with the opportunity for other stations to increase power or reduce directionality. The FCC could easily say, "if you exchange your AM for a permanent FM your license fee will be equal to or greater than that of the two lesser licenses."

The FCC grants of translators were not specifically destined to "pay for" anything. They were intended to help dying businesses survive at a time when the AM allocation system, imposed by the FRC and FCC, has proven itself to be inadequate for urban sprawl, man made noise and technological changes in general.

In my opinion, granting full FM permanence for translators is simply compensation for what was, about 85 to 90 years ago, a bad AM allocation system that was seriously broken 60 or more years ago.

 

[TheBigA]

In my opinion, granting full FM permanence for translators is simply compensation for what was, about 85 to 90 years ago, a bad AM allocation system that was seriously broken 60 or more years ago.

This government is saying it will hold licensees to the deals they made. That's what Brendan Carr is saying. He's not interested in fixing what happened 60 or 90 years ago. He says he will "enforce" the system as it exists. If these stations want something from this government, they have to be willing to give something in return. What promise will they make? Some would like these licensees to promise to operate them with more local news. Would that be OK with you? The FCC allows you to shut off your 1K dead AM station in exchange for increasing your commitment to local news coverage to a certain number of hours a day. That's what it means to have a transactional president.

 

[davideduardo]

This government is saying it will hold licensees to the deals they made. That's what Brendan Carr is saying. He's not interested in fixing what happened 60 or 90 years ago. He says he will "enforce" the system as it exists. If these stations want something from this government, they have to be willing to give something in return. What promise will they make? Some would like these licensees to promise to operate them with more local news. Would that be OK with you? The FCC allows you to shut off your 1K dead AM station in exchange for increasing your commitment to local news coverage to a certain number of hours a day. That's what it means to have a transactional president.

It goes deeper: show that translators without AM expense would make more taxable money and you have an argument any government would at least listen to.

I doubt that any party's government would institute content requirements again. It took decades to get rid of the "News/Public Affairs/Other" requirements and the 25 pound box containing your license renewal application.

 

[BruceB]

There's no benefit if no one listens. The result is the same.

The government's job, as outlined in the constitution, is to manage the public resources. The spectrum is one of those resources. Having the government keep AM available in cars is simply managing the public resources. The taxpayers aren't paying for it. Nobody's required to use it.

Thank you BigA for adding some common sense to this...much needed.

 

[TheBigA]

I doubt that any party's government would institute content requirements again. It took decades to get rid of the "News/Public Affairs/Other" requirements and the 25 pound box containing your license renewal application.

Carr said this last week. It sounds like a content requirement to me:

Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest. When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation,” Carr concluded.

There are several issues the NAB wants from the FCC. What are they willing to give back?

 

[semoochie]

It is not paraphrasing Hitler (who did not say that, anyhow,) but making a specific reference to AI "absorbing" a large quantity of errors and concluding that any majority sentiment was, thus, true.

Not the same as government propaganda. It's about AI's ability to take majority opinions and statements and assume that quantity means quality.

My first girlfriend in Ecuador had numbers on her arm. My first two engineers were survivors. I assisted Israeli intelligence in tracking suppliers to Martin Bormann through my social and business contacts. I am very sensitive to any reference to Nazis.

As I mentioned later, it was not actually Hitler's quote but rather that of his propagandist. In any event, I didn't say you quoted Hitler, only that you paraphrased the quote to make a completely different point, nowhere near government propaganda! As such, mine was a completely innocent comment but I'm sorry it offended you. That was certainly not my intention. I assure you that you are no more offended by the nazis than am I!

 

[Michi]

What they should really do is let translators that are linked to AMs get a permanent non-dependent license which would, then, allow the AM to be cancelled. At that point, a few remaining AMs might be able to have less interference and even expand coverage.

The only way that we can truly accommodate AMs on FM with a viable service that can properly serve their communities of license under §307(b) is to expand the FM band. There seems to be right now a steady rate of attrition of AM licenses. The band is slowly thinning out. I may be supportive of AM stations being able to eliminate their AM stations and keep their translators only under the following conditions:

• The FM translator remains secondary status (meaning that the AM broadcaster could be put out of business if displaced by a full-service FM and there's no place for the AM station to go).
• The FM translator remains equal in status with LPFM and must continue to protect LPFM stations.
• The ERP of translators remains at 250w or less. (there are a lot of implications here to the contrary, including international agreements)
• Since the translator is no longer filling in an AM facility and there is no reference contour or radius, §74.1235(b) would apply, though I would entertain existing translators being grandfathered in at their exact parameters today, but any future modifications would invoke §74.1235(b).
• Only existing AM licensees would be able to do this. We are not creating a new "program originating translator" service for a future filing window.

Once auction authority comes back, the FCC should open a filing window for AM major changes only. No new stations.

 

[davideduardo]

The only way that we can truly accommodate AMs on FM with a viable service that can properly serve their communities of license under §307(b) is to expand the FM band. There seems to be right now a steady rate of attrition of AM licenses. The band is slowly thinning out. I may be supportive of AM stations being able to eliminate their AM stations and keep their translators only under the following conditions:

• The FM translator remains secondary status (meaning that the AM broadcaster could be put out of business if displaced by a full-service FM and there's no place for the AM station to go).
• The FM translator remains equal in status with LPFM and must continue to protect LPFM stations.
• The ERP of translators remains at 250w or less. (there are a lot of implications here to the contrary, including international agreements)
• Since the translator is no longer filling in an AM facility and there is no reference contour or radius, §74.1235(b) would apply, though I would entertain existing translators being grandfathered in at their exact parameters today, but any future modifications would invoke §74.1235(b).
• Only existing AM licensees would be able to do this. We are not creating a new "program originating translator" service for a future filing window.

Once auction authority comes back, the FCC should open a filing window for AM major changes only. No new stations.

The only way you will get the NAB to give support is if translators are upgraded to 1000 watts, perhaps with a height limit of 300 feed; existing "super translators" such as the ABQ group would be grandfathered as long as they don't move.

You will not get NAB acceptance in my opinion unless that "new" class is protected itself and is superior to LPFM stations.

Location and "mobility" would be restricted to within a certain distance from the city center of the existing city of license. I say that as I really doubt that we will ever get away from the idea that, for example, a Newark station is any different than a New York City one. In much of the world, stations are granted to serve a market area, not specific cities and their suburbs. But that is whole separate subject.

I agree that only existing operating AMs would be eligible. Silent AMs would not qualify, and AMs that had been silent and simply turned on just to apply would also not qualify.

As over the air listening becomes more and more limited to in-car mobile listening, I really believe that LPFMs will disappear as they don't even cover the average commute distance in many if not most locations.

 

[MarkW]

If AM delivers programming and an overall listening experience that consumers wish to consume, they will purchase an automobile that offers AM radio or will buy aftermarket equipment that includes the AM band. Simple as that. No government intervention needed.

Some cars offers SXM and others do not. I will only consider purchasing a vehicle where SXM is part of the OEM infotainment system. Although I am appreciative of SXM, I certainly do not want the government to force automakers to include SXM.

I am highly skeptical of the earlier claim that 80 million Americans listen to AM radio weekly. When including other methods to access AM stations' content such as streaming and FM translators, that figure may be true.

Reception is terrible on the AM band, and in many cars (such as my own), the audio fidelity on the AM band also sounds like complete garbage. In my case, it's no big deal since I access AM station simulcasts on FM HD2 channels. The NAB should concentrate as much if not more energy trying to improve manufacturing standards for in-car radio units and reducing susceptibility to interference sources if it truly cares about preserving AM radio's long-term viability.

Inclusion of the FM band, the shortwave band, and the weather band on car audio receivers is not mandatory. AM radio should not be given any special treatment.

 

[davideduardo]

I am highly skeptical of the earlier claim that 80 million Americans listen to AM radio weekly. When including other methods to access AM stations' content such as streaming and FM translators, that figure may be true.

It comes right out of Nielsen cume data for rated markets.

Yes, it may contain streaming data if the stream is a 100% simulcast.

And, yes, it can contain translator listening. But in nearly all rated markets, translators do not account for a high share of listening as their coverage is so limited. There are a few markets, like Albuquerque, where there is a group of significant translators on a high location, but in few other markets is the share of AMs with translators anything more than a couple of percent.

Reception is terrible on the AM band, and in many cars (such as my own), the audio fidelity on the AM band also sounds like complete garbage. In my case, it's no big deal since I access AM station simulcasts on FM HD2 channels. The NAB should concentrate as much if not more energy trying to improve manufacturing standards for in-car radio units and reducing susceptibility to interference sources if it truly cares about preserving AM radio's long-term viability.

Efforts like that have been tried over and over, going back to trying to get the government to require FM in all radios, ideas about having FM stereo required, AM analog stereo, IBOC AM stereo and the like. The only case where there was no suggestion to get government intervention was, fortunately, quadraphonic.

Inclusion of the FM band, the shortwave band, and the weather band on car audio receivers is not mandatory. AM radio should not be given any special treatment.

The concept behind requiring AM is that it is the only radio service capable of providing information to a totally devastated area where there is no local media broadcasting, limited or no phone and cell phone service, etcetera. AM signals are capable of being heard from over a hundred miles away in the daytime and a thousand or more at night.

There is a counter argument that most AM stations have no news department and can't provide service. To the contrary, the emergency broadcast system allows "authorities" at the governmental level to issue notices and provide information directly, irrespective of the normal content of those stations.

I'll repeat the case of one of the worst hurricanes in recorded history in 2017 in Puerto Rico where one AM station gave ongoing coverage and information when there were no TV station on the air, no FMs, no cell phones, no landlines, no electricity for up to several months in some areas and for quite a few entire days everywhere. Similarly, it was the reinforced WWL in New Orleans that provided service initially after that city's hurricane and flooding when no other media was available.

 

[TheBigA]

If AM delivers programming and an overall listening experience that consumers wish to consume, they will purchase an automobile that offers AM radio or will buy aftermarket equipment that includes the AM band. Simple as that. No government intervention needed.

Some cars offers SXM and others do not. I will only consider purchasing a vehicle where SXM is part of the OEM infotainment system. Although I am appreciative of SXM, I certainly do not want the government to force automakers to include SXM.

SiriusXM is not a public resource. The radio spectrum is. Big difference. The government is responsible for the management of the public resources. That includes natural resources such as forests, minerals, water, and the radio spectrum. They do so for the benefit of the American people. Profit making companies shouldn't interfere in the obligations of the government to serve the people.

The AM in Every Vehicle Act has nothing to do with programming, radio companies, or radio employees. It's not meant to save jobs or assist radio listening. It's simply about management of the radio spectrum as defined by law. What people do and how they behave is up to them. This wouldn't be necessary if auto companies simply did what they've done for years.

The obligation to serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" is part of the law all radio stations must follow. That same law applies to all licensees of all similar public resources. The water company must do the same thing. Following the law is part of the covenant licensees make with the government. When another commercial enterprise makes a decision that affects the ability of a licensee to serve the public interest, then it's incumbent on that government to protect that resource. If not, the entire basis for broadcast law is in danger. Might as well drop any such obligations on broadcasters.

Inclusion of the FM band, the shortwave band, and the weather band on car audio receivers is not mandatory. AM radio should not be given any special treatment.

The only reason AM is included is because its the only band being threatened by car makers.

 

[ajaynejr]

Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. .

Not mandating AM radio in cars will have the eventual if not imminent effect of making the airwaves as whole as a public resource seem even more scarce.

Establishing a new band and mandating of car radios to receive it would have the effect of making the airwaves as a whole as a public resource seem less scarce. From my present vantage point it seems like opening up 82 to 88 MHz (the former TV channel 6, immediately adjacent to the present FM band,) would seem like an easy almost no-brainer for new FM stations even if not all of it were available in some cities.