Signing off stations permanently

[radiophiler]

An article at the bottom of radio-info's home page today suggests that the radio dial is too crowded and that the industry might be better served by signing off stations.

Canada has done that largely with its AM band.

I'd be for it, under certain circumstances. Exception: In less populated, non-coastal areas, I'd be reluctant to sign off too many stations where few existed in the first place. With Internet radio, the ability to create niche formats is almost limitless. People who would argue that they'd miss a 1,000 watt AM station could find the programming they want on Internet stations.

The FCC seems to be going in the other direction: It's trying to find ways for AM daytimers to have a 24-hour presence via FM translators.

It would also unclutter the AM band and allow other stations to increase power on crowded frequencies (1230, 1400, 1450). That would be a benefit.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Spectrum Erosion?

I don't understand the point of giving up local signals that can serve a local populace on equipment that is widely available, portable, and inexpensive. That's exactly what you're proposing.

If radio station valuations are "corrected" so that the cost of stations comes more in line with their revenue, you'd have a medium that can deliver local content efficiently and profitably, serving the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The problem is not with "too many signals", the problem with with overvaluation of those signals.

You can argue that shutting down the AM band, or a portion of it, would free up spectrum for establishment of an increased number of digital channels. That sounds great, except for the fact that we don't have enough compelling programming content now to keep listeners interested - especially in younger demographics. Expanding the number of channels will further dilute content until radio becomes like cable TV - 300 channels and nothing worth watching.

The biggest problem with AM is the lack of fidelity for music. IBOC promised to solve that problem, but has delivered little more than digital hash and interference with local broadcasting. Other technologies may prove better at improving AM fidelity without making millions of existing receivers obsolete. The alternative is taking some of those frequencies designate for local service out of the AM band and reworking them as digital channels. AM daytimers and low-powers would have the option of going digital, or perhaps going to FM repeater networks.

 

[skippertthomas]

Well said, 'Rox'.... With the forthcoming effort of Congress and the FCC to give the Class "D" AM's the 2.0 m/Vm
daytime equal 60dBU on the FM side, and experienced radio people willing to live in rural counties and suburban counties, the future can be bright for AM/FM1's (translator) in those low cost communities.. Most "D"s are not next to IBOC "A"s... Some exceptions, but most problems are the "B" regionals and "C" 1kw fulltimers with IBOC smashing them from the left or right side of their frequencies.. Also, the NRCS switch is a joke.. It's like a muddy 'Dolby' encoder on a 'mono' source... Let us turn those OFF..... Don't squeeze us out, anymore...

 

[w9wi]

Re: Spectrum Erosion?

The biggest problem with AM is the lack of fidelity for music.

I would strongly disagree with that statement.

I think by far the biggest problem with AM is coverage. Few places have more than one or two AM stations that can be heard interference-free at night throughout the market. Often, those one or two AM stations are in fact successful.

And really, the only way to fix that problem *is* to shed stations. IMHO the band contains roughly 5x as many stations as it can reasonably host for 24/7 service. Of course, it would be politically impossible to cancel 80% of AM licenses - so I guess I really can't see a very bright future for the service.

Neither IBOC nor AM Stereo address the fundamental issue of nighttime coverage. (arguably IBOC makes the problem worse) FM translators for smaller AM stations are a good idea, though at the risk of damaging coverage on the *FM* dial. IMHO the FCC definition of FM "protected coverage" is way too pessimistic given modern receivers.

 

[skippertthomas]

IMHO the FCC definition of FM "protected coverage" is way too pessimistic given modern receivers. GOOD STATEMENT w9wi...... That is so true... "Skip"

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Spectrum Erosion?

I think by far the biggest problem with AM is coverage. Few places have more than one or two AM stations that can be heard interference-free at night throughout the market. Often, those one or two AM stations are in fact successful.

Very good observation. Of over 1700 stations on AM in the top 100 metros, only about 240 have a signal that covers at least 80% of the market, day and night.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Spectrum Erosion?

IMHO the FCC definition of FM "protected coverage" is way too pessimistic given modern receivers.

Since about 80% of average FM station listening takes place in the 70 dbu contour, and another 15% in the 64 dbu to 70 dbu range, there is very little usable signal out to the protected 54 dbu. While car radios seem to do well farther out, the fact is very little listening takes place anywhere near the protected contours for either FM or daytime AM.

 

[skippertthomas]

David, That is true in Mega to Large Markets that make up the majority of our US Population.. But out in the Flyover like the 160+ market I am in.. the Metro County Leaders need the 54dBU on the Indiana and Illinois side to market to a large rural area that feeds into the economy of our Hub Metro City... ADI numbers mean something in the 100 to 300 sized markets.... Geez? Our TV market stations have 28 to 37 counties in three States to reach.. Our FM's have almost the same footprints..... Just a different field in the 'flyover'...

 

[AugC]

fm translators for am stations...again a waste of band space.....i'm so sick and tired of the damn translators!!!
get over them....i think class a and b fm should have the opp to up the power. also, there should be an industry standard on tuners...should be sensistive and selective. but AS for am stations to get fm attotments...please...

 

[skippertthomas]

Well, in the case of suburban towns with NO local media on the electronic spectrum, I think it CAN work.. The way it would work for three of the AM's here is two would have enough coverage of their primary area and home county to be more 'publically involved' and less off the automation.. Yet, their signals would not afford them any chance of temptation to bite off the whole enchalatta of the the rated market.. Only a tamale of it.. The third AM is in the heart of the population and tries to take a part of the the pie in the main part of the rated metro.. Great day signal, but without night coverage they get less ad support and struggle to survive or show a 'blimp' on the scale... Just how it would work, here...