• 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

spiritof67 said:
If I were a manufacturer of audio gear, I'd come up with a technology that used a form of RDS data to switch a broadcast signal to its internet stream, provided it has one, and get other electronic and car manufacturers on board with it. Both AM and FM. All the licensing and proprietary BS kept to a minimum so it gets adopted faster.
Click to expand...
This already exists. On my car, if I am listening to an FM station and the signal starts to fade, I get a message on the display where it says, "Weak signal" and asks me if I'd like to flip to the Internet stream. It does not work for all stations and does not always work as expected...but it's a step in that direction. The feature is dependent on the car having Internet access via either the onboard Wi-Fi hotspot, or via the hotspot feature of your mobile phone.

It's sort of neat, but you can also just hit most streams up on iHeart, Apple Music, Audacy or TuneIn.
 
TheBigA said:
I don't see anyone investing money into something with no hope for a return. That's why you're asking for. At one time, FM was a proprietary technology. Radio companies had to pay to use it. Then the patent ran out. HD is still under patent. Any new technology would also still be under patent laws.
Click to expand...
I anticipated a comment like this from you, and as usual, you didn't disappoint. Whatever.

luperm said:
This already exists. On my car, if I am listening to an FM station and the signal starts to fade, I get a message on the display where it says, "Weak signal" and asks me if I'd like to flip to the Internet stream. It does not work for all stations and does not always work as expected...but it's a step in that direction. The feature is dependent on the car having Internet access via either the onboard Wi-Fi hotspot, or via the hotspot feature of your mobile phone.

It's sort of neat, but you can also just hit most streams up on iHeart, Apple Music, Audacy or TuneIn.
Click to expand...
This is closer to what I'm thinking, and I'm glad a manufacturer is trying to do that.
 
TheBigA said:
I don't see anyone investing money into something with no hope for a return. That's why you're asking for.
Click to expand...
It is done all the time in the computer and internet technology worlds. All the standards the internet operates on, as defined and laid out in RFCs, are examples (here, here). Free and open source software, and even closed source freeware, which have been things since the dawn of personal microcomputers, are examples of giving away money as a matter of good will. Remember: not investing the time you're devoting to making such wares into other, paying forms of employment is the same as investing money into those things themselves.

And the open and closed source freeware products available these days are not tinker toys. You can technically run a fully-functional, fully-featured computer in a fully productive fashion without paying anything for any of its software -- from the operating system up -- thanks to the open source community. Only the hardware will cost you, and since computers exist in a technology cycle where they're tossed for recycling on average after just a handful of years, often times, that hardware can be free or nearly free for you, if you're not interested in bleeding edge processing loads like BTC mining.

I think when it comes to public technologies like broadcasting, the standards that underpin their inner workings (modulation schemes, codecs, etc.) should only be considered for acceptance by the FCC if no patents are attached. Make all your money selling the hardware and competing to offer the most premium software implementations. Otherwise adoption rates falter, because companies always drag their feet on implementing patent-encumbered ($$$) technologies. Sometimes you even get chicken and egg infinite loops where nobody wants to pay for the rights until there's a large enough market demand, but large market demands fail to materialize because everyone's hesitating, keeping the technology in a state of obscurity. And then you have the dreaded scenario where multiple parties offer competing specifications and begin suing and counter-suing. Whole technologies can sometimes come and then go obsolete during those lengthy legal battles. Unsubtitled hint:

kirk-wrath-of-khan-star-trek-khaaan.jpg

At one time, FM was a proprietary technology. Radio companies had to pay to use it. Then the patent ran out. HD is still under patent. Any new technology would also still be under patent laws.
Click to expand...
Were they ever able to pay to use it to any meaningful degree, with all the obstruction Armstrong endured for years after his invention of it? I always thought FM was an example of a technology that was able to experience rapid adoption because its patents had expired by the time that adoption finally occurred.

P.S. Small plug for my favorite freeware hex editor for the Windows platform since 2003, courtesy a very generous German software hobbyist.
 
yeoldeschool said:
It is done all the time in the computer and internet technology worlds.
Click to expand...

There are ways to monetize technology in the internet that don't exist in broadcasting.

yeoldeschool said:
Were they ever able to pay to use it to any meaningful degree, with all the obstruction Armstrong endured for years after his invention of it? I always thought FM was an example of a technology that was able to experience rapid adoption because its patents had expired by the time that adoption finally occurred.
Click to expand...

There was a lawsuit between RCA and the Armstrong family that ended in a settlement. That coincided with the end of the Armstrong patent. His estate chose to not renew the patent. After that. RCA, GE, and other major manufacturers began producing AM/FM portable radios.
 
TheBigA said:
There are ways to monetize technology in the internet that don't exist in broadcasting.
Click to expand...
My point was that a great number of the people in the open source community don't exploit those opportunities. Commercial interests scoop up the products of their labor and make money from them for themselves, but that's something the community tolerates knowing that private end users benefit no less, and often more.

There was a lawsuit between RCA and the Armstrong family that ended in a settlement. That coincided with the end of the Armstrong patent. His estate chose to not renew the patent. After that. RCA, GE, and other major manufacturers began producing AM/FM portable radios.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Naturally. :(
 
TheBigA said:
I don't see anyone investing money into something with no hope for a return.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Whether it an audio alternative or expansion of the FM band, there is no consumer interest.
TheBigA said:
That's why you're asking for. At one time, FM was a proprietary technology. Radio companies had to pay to use it.
Click to expand...
The patents were principally for receivers, and manufacturers had to pay a fee to use them. However, in the 1950's the lack of progress by FM stations in offering exceptional and unique programming was totally limited, so few people want to buy sets anyway.

Were there a lot of interest in FM in the 50s, manufacturers would have developed other technologies such as what they did, anyway, in the 60's when there were a series of developments in FM programming that started to make listeners take an interest.

By comparison, in the early 50's FM was being used, in one example, to broadcast ads to the passengers of city busses.
TheBigA said:
Then the patent ran out. HD is still under patent.
Click to expand...
That affects receivers but has very little effect on stations that buy very inexpensive licenses. HD has bee shown to not be of interest other than uses like supporting translators. Other inventions, like FM stereo, became very popular.
TheBigA said:
Any new technology would also still be under patent laws.
Click to expand...
Unless the development, like FM stereo, was "open" for manufacturers to use.
 
luperm said:
This already exists. On my car, if I am listening to an FM station and the signal starts to fade, I get a message on the display where it says, "Weak signal" and asks me if I'd like to flip to the Internet stream.
Click to expand...
Remember that this systems was developed for FM in Europe where most nations have "national" stations with many transmitters on different frequencies. The system can automatically find the best signal and flip to it.
 
Please don't hate me too much for bringing this thread back to life...

But Im trying to find an update online regarding the 'AM radio in vehicles act'. Is this now dead in he water? Still on the back burner for Congress? I haven't received any email updates from the NAB in a looooong time.
 
T
KilowattKat said:
Please don't hate me too much for bringing this thread back to life...

But Im trying to find an update online regarding the 'AM radio in vehicles act'. Is this now dead in he water? Still on the back burner for Congress? I haven't received any email updates from the NAB in a looooong time.
Click to expand...
This appears to be the latest.

It's 'sitting on the calendar which seems to mean

“We acknowledge this exists… we’ll get to it when hell freezes over or a leader forces the issue."

I suspect it's functionality dead
 
Mediafrog+ said:
Australia’s ABC begins moving AM formats to FM:
Click to expand...
And they're moving away from AM in a sensible and incremental way.

The US would do well to allow the inevitable reduction of AM to take place geography rather than try to mandate it across all city and rural areas. (I believe the car mandate does that.)
 
wadio said:
The US would do well to allow the inevitable reduction of AM to take place geography rather than try to mandate it across all city and rural areas. (I believe the car mandate does that.)
Click to expand...

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is owned and funded by the Australian government. The US government doesn't own any radio stations. With the demise of CPB, it doesn't even fund any domestic radio stations. So we're talking about two different things.

If the US government were to tell AM owners to shut down, the government would either have to compensate them for their financial loss or provide replacement space somewhere else. Such a shut-down might be interpreted as the government restricting free speech.

The car mandate isn't aimed at radio station owners or electronics manufacturers. It's aimed at car companies. It's not law yet. It's coming from congress, not the FCC.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
Australia’s ABC begins moving AM formats to FM:

www.abc.net.au

ABC Radio move to FM signals the end of an era for Perth listeners

With the ABC's three Perth radio stations switching from AM to the FM band, it is the end of an era for the 94-year-old transmitter in Hamersley.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Australia actually makes sense on AM. Vast distances and little population. Cities I can see moving to FM like the article describes but not in the interior. Actually the interior is where LW would work. Antenna farm in Alice Springs but I don't believe Australia has a Broadcast band there
 
TheBigA said:
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is owned and funded by the Australian government. The US government doesn't own any radio stations. With the demise of CPB, it doesn't even fund any domestic radio stations. So we're talking about two different things.

If the US government were to tell AM owners to shut down, the government would either have to compensate them for their financial loss or provide replacement space somewhere else. Such a shut-down might be interpreted as the government restricting free speech.

The car mandate isn't aimed at radio station owners or electronics manufacturers. It's aimed at car companies. It's not law yet. It's coming from congress, not the FCC.
Click to expand...
>> If the US government were to tell AM owners to shut down ... <<

That's not what I was suggesting -- just that mandating AM in cars might slow the process.

Both congress and the FCC should stay out of it and let the station owners decide what to do, IMHO.
 
wadio said:
Both congress and the FCC should stay out of it and let the station owners decide what to do, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Once again, the car mandate has nothing to do with AM owners. Companies are shutting down AMs despite this proposed legislation. It has nothing to do with keeping AM stations on the air. There's no money in it for radio, so it's useless. There will be lots of AM radios in cars and no stations to pick up.

The station owners want to get something, such as a free FM license. I don't see that happening.
 


Back
Top Bottom