THE FUTURE OF AM RADIO BAND WILL SOON BE DEAD BY THE YEAR 2010

[BobMSmith1959]

What Is Your Prediction???

According what I had heard from awhile back on a radio talk show program from a radio station that I will NOT mention, because I do not want to give out the wrong information on this board.

I do not quite recall when I heard this but it came to mind when I have heard this when I start seeing and hearing commercials about DTV. I am not much of a TV person but I am more of a radio lover than television watcher.

From what I heard that all of the radio stations on the AM frequency band, would be moving to a some type of a FM band frequency, to achieve clearer and stronger radio signals; without causing any interferences from static of electricity or bleed over from other radio stations that are more powerful than other smaller stations.

This talk radio program had said that the FCC had required every single AM radio station throughout the whole nation in the US to move to an FM Band, because the FCC wanted to use the AM band 530 KHz to 1710 KHz for governmental use. In addition, also to use the AM band for like a short-wave band for coast-to-coast broadcasting from the major cities throughout the whole United States and Canada.

Sometime by the year of 2010, AM radio stations throughout the whole nation will go blank; you
Will hear nothing on the AM band, except for certain ones, which will be run by the government.
Moreover, they said on the talk show that the reason why they’re doing this is to avoid sunset rules and interferences from each other.

I may not understand this at all of what is going on here, but it sound like a good plan from I understood from what I am gathering from this radio talk program.


For everyone on this board:

What is your prediction?

What are your feelings about this?

What do you see in this?

 

[KeithE4]

First of all, the Federal Gummint isn't allowed to broadcast to US citizens directly. This is why the VOA only beams its broadcasts to other parts of the world.

Second, 2010 is too soon. If AM as we know it were to die, 2020 is a more realistic date. The WW2/Korean War generation will be pretty much gone by then - they are the last generation to get most of their radio listening from AM.

Third, there have been several proposals to move most or all AM stations to an expanded FM band, but it would require the FCC to eliminate TV channels 2-6. They may or may not do that. Nothing will happen as long as TV is allowed to use 54-72 & 76-88 MHz.

My idea of a way to clean up the AM band is to use 530-1190 and 1500-1700 kHz for clear channel, 50-100 kW stations ONLY. In most cases, only one station would be allowed per frequency, the only exceptions being stations in Alaska, Hawaii, and stations separated by more than 2000 miles (such as, for example, WFAN New York and KTNN Window Rock AZ on 660). There would still be only one non-directional station per frequency (in this case, WFAN), the other(s) being directional only to protect that dominant station. Canadian and Mexican clear-channel frequencies (540, 740, 800, etc.) would be protected and would not have any US stations within 2000 miles.

All current Class A stations would get to remain on AM, but some might have to change frequencies. Only certain Class Bs, based on ratings, revenue, and heritage, would get a crack at remaining on AM, but most would have to move to the expanded FM band (which would be required in order to make this plan work). Every state in the Union would be allowed at least two clear-channel frequencies, although the biggest markets would get the lion's share.

Then, put the low-powered locals on 1200-1490 with 1 kW maximum power non-directional. Since there are currently blowtorches on 1200-1220 (San Antonio, Philly, & Cleveland), they would be allowed to move to other frequencies. Each station's protected coverage would be 150 miles.

Community stations (50 watts or less) would be allowed on any frequency but only daytimers would be allowed on clear-channel frequencies, and then they would have to be located at least 1000 miles from a clear-channel station.

It's an idea that's definitely a work in progress. Thoughts?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

From what I heard that all of the radio stations on the AM frequency band, would be moving to a some type of a FM band frequency, to achieve clearer and stronger radio signals; without causing any interferences from static of electricity or bleed over from other radio stations that are more powerful than other smaller stations.

What you hear was one persons opinion on what should happen. I see no record of the FCC proposing ANY of this at this time. As another poster indicated, even if agreement could be reached on what the future of broadcasting will be, it would take 10 to 20 years to get it done.

In recent years there have been too many vested interests with great lobbying ability who wanted to, who needed to protect their current assets. People who own the well placed AM stations are not thrilled about some kind of "eminent domain" program to bulldoze their existing property into some new neighborhood.

In building the Interstate hiway system a generation or two back, many naive citizens assumed the people living in those junky houses in a depressed neighborhood would be thrilled to see their slum replaced by a new hiway so they could get one of those new houses. Then they learned that if they owned the junky old home, they were going to be paid the value of a junk old home, but then to get one of nice new houses, they would have to pay the going price for nice new houses. IF THEY COULD AFFORD THAT, they wouldn't be living in the slum to start with.

We may be sitting on an opportunity. Some of the big conglomerates are going to get caught in the current national financial crunch. Some not-so-big operators are mortgaged up to here, thinking they can do what the big boys did over the last 10 years on a smaller scale. Just like that period after television hit and radio, from some business views, became an abandoned step child, there were some great bargains and some great owner-financed deals available back in the 50s and 60s. That climate may or may not happen as a result of the current credit crunch and possible devaluation of broadcast properties. DON'T HOLD YOUR BREAT WAITING ON IT.

Back to the original proposal about the FCC bring all this moving about: This country can't come to an agreement on energy, we can't come to an agreement on how to fix Social Security, we can't come to an agreement on how to finance health care, we can't come to an agreement on roads and public transportation.

Why would we dream that congress, the president, and the regulative agencies involved are going to agree on a solution to the ills of the broadcast spectrum...... which I would think ranks somewhere below all the issues I listed above.

 

[BobMSmith1959]

Here are some more reponces from my home town on the Chicago Board.


DavidEduardo
rimember

Offline

Posts: 13866

Bah. Humbug.


Re: THE FUTURE OF AM RADIO BAND WILL SOON BE DEAD BY THE YEAR 2010
« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 02:17:04 pm » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: BobMSmith1959 on Yesterday at 12:41:44 pm

According what I had heard from awhile back on a radio talk show program from a radio station that I will NOT mention, because I do not want to give out the wrong information on this board.

Bad source. Bad info. There is nothing among the FCC releases or formal inquiries about this. Nothing in the trades.

The AM band is not of much use to the FCC, while the frequencies below the current FM band have huge auction value for new technologies. I would say not to worry about this unless an inquiry or proposal for rulemaking is submitted.

Report to moderator Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Eduardo, a quasi-ficticious character, whose comments often do not even reflect those of own alter ego, let alone the views of others. Visit www.americanradiohistory.com for ancient radio lists and magazines from the 20's through the 60's.


ddybas
rimember

Offline

Posts: 71


Re: THE FUTURE OF AM RADIO BAND WILL SOON BE DEAD BY THE YEAR 2010
« Reply #2 on: Yesterday at 02:44:41 pm » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been some banter between people in the radio business, that daytime only AM stations should get some part of the current TV spectrum to use when DTV takes over in Feb 2009. DTV operates on frequencies different from todays analog TV. I guess the idea is that because the old analog TV channels will be dead, existing AM stations that do not have full time operation can have the frequencies.

But this idea is merely "talk" by the radio station personel and has not been brought up by the FCC for any consideration.

I too, do not see anything changing with the current AM band for quite some time. Inspite of it's problems with static and noise many of the #1 stations around the country are AM stations, so it's still doing well.



Report to moderator Logged



DavidKaye
rimember

Offline

Posts: 479

Okay, you got me. I wasn't going to be here, but


Re: THE FUTURE OF AM RADIO BAND WILL SOON BE DEAD BY THE YEAR 2010
« Reply #3 on: Today at 07:05:08 am » Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: DavidEduardo on Yesterday at 02:17:04 pm
The AM band is not of much use to the FCC, while the frequencies below the current FM band have huge auction value for new technologies. I would say not to worry about this unless an inquiry or proposal for rulemaking is submitted.


Several years back I wrote to the FCC as the planning for DTV was getting underway. I suggested that TV channels 5 and 6 be allocated to FM broadcast and offered first to AM stations that wanted to move, then to non-comms, and then to new stations.

I received a polite reply thanking me for my correspondence, but not knowing how to take any further steps since I wasn't a party who could profit from it or who would be damaged by it, I wasn't sure where else to go with the suggestion. The FCC doesn't seem to wish to be bothered with comments from interested parties with no axe to grind.

Today I still think the idea is good. If the FCC truly wants to serve the public interest and since existing AM stations are losing audience to FM, it seems that expanding the FM band is a rational use for the discarded spectrum. And after all, TV 5 and 6 require impractical antennas for 2-way.

I figure that TV 5 and 6 would fit about 18 full-service FM stations, which would mean that all SF and Oakland-based AMs could fit into the expanded spectrum.

Comments anyone?



Report to moderator Logged

 

[BobMSmith1959]

First of all, the Federal Gummint isn't allowed to broadcast to US citizens directly. This is why the VOA only beams its broadcasts to other parts of the world.

Second, 2010 is too soon. If AM as we know it were to die, 2020 is a more realistic date. The WW2/Korean War generation will be pretty much gone by then - they are the last generation to get most of their radio listening from AM.

I just only heard this ONLY a Few years ago, but I do NOT remember what show it was and I Don't remember the station's calls or freq it was on....

Third, there have been several proposals to move most or all AM stations to an expanded FM band, but it would require the FCC to eliminate TV channels 2-6. They may or may not do that. Nothing will happen as long as TV is allowed to use 54-72 & 76-88 MHz.

My idea of a way to clean up the AM band is to use 530-1190 and 1500-1700 kHz for clear channel, 50-100 kW stations ONLY. In most cases, only one station would be allowed per frequency, the only exceptions being stations in Alaska, Hawaii, and stations separated by more than 2000 miles (such as, for example, WFAN New York and KTNN Window Rock AZ on 660). There would still be only one non-directional station per frequency (in this case, WFAN), the other(s) being directional only to protect that dominant station. Canadian and Mexican clear-channel frequencies (540, 740, 800, etc.) would be protected and would not have any US stations within 2000 miles.

All current Class A stations would get to remain on AM, but some might have to change frequencies. Only certain Class Bs, based on ratings, revenue, and heritage, would get a crack at remaining on AM, but most would have to move to the expanded FM band (which would be required in order to make this plan work). Every state in the Union would be allowed at least two clear-channel frequencies, although the biggest markets would get the lion's share.

Then, put the low-powered locals on 1200-1490 with 1 kW maximum power non-directional. Since there are currently blowtorches on 1200-1220 (San Antonio, Philly, & Cleveland), they would be allowed to move to other frequencies. Each station's protected coverage would be 150 miles.

Community stations (50 watts or less) would be allowed on any frequency but only daytimers would be allowed on clear-channel frequencies, and then they would have to be located at least 1000 miles from a clear-channel station.

It's an idea that's definitely a work in progress. Thoughts?

[/quote]
That's sounds very interesting Keith It would be very nice if this was to happen, but from what the folks were saying on that show had said that AM signals will be sounding like FM stations , and the FM signals will sound like satielite digital signals for that extra realism sound. that's what I heard them saying on that show...

 

[KeithE4]

That's sounds very interesting Keith It would be very nice if this was to happen, but from what the folks were saying on that show had said that AM signals will be sounding like FM stations , and the FM signals will sound like satielite digital signals for that extra realism sound. that's what I heard them saying on that show...

If it was a few years ago, it sounds like they were describing IBOC, which so far hasn't exactly set the world on fire. In fact, it's been an unmitigated disaster on AM and should go away. Ancient Modulation can't be in the same band with any other mode without mutual interference. For example: The 40 meter ham band, with hams on SSB and broadcasters on AM sharing the same space. It's been a mess for decades.

 

[w9wi]

No doubt about it, AM is in trouble as a mainstream service. Personally, I think the band contains roughly 5x as many stations as it can hold. The way to fix it is to tape up every page of the NRC AM Log (a list of AM stations) to a big wall and give someone a box with 1,000 darts. They keep throwing darts at the wall until all 1,000 are gone. Then, the 1,000 stations whose entries were hit by a dart get to keep their licenses. Everyone else - their license is gone.

Then, shuffle the 1,000 lucky survivors around the dial to make the best use of the band.

Of course, this is politically impossible.

I think in the long term you'll see AM used for "narrowcasting", those who want to broadcast to a small group in a well-defined area. The mainstream music formats have already left the band, and we're seeing an increasing move of news/talk and sports formats to FM as well. Should HD Radio achieve success, it will accelerate this trend -- HD on AM is going absolutely nowhere but if it succeeds on FM we'll see spoken word AM stations simulcast on HD3. Eventually, most of the listenership will be on HD3 and it will be no loss to turn the AM signal off.

There is no way this will all happen in only two years. KeithE4 suggests 2020 is more realistic, and I agree.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

AM is in trouble as a mainstream service.

That is an interesting way to phrase what now is.

What all today IS a mainstream service. The biggest question waiting in line would be: "Is ANY form of radio, including FM actually mainstream?"

What is the hurdle that a form of communication must meet to be considered mainstream?

Is part of our problem today, politically and economially, people with vested interests are push and shoving to either keep AM as "mainstream" or keep a situation where it could return to being mainstream.

Assume for now that rather than just outright KILL all A.M. service, it became public policy to allow A.M. to find a new level of operation and service that was something less than mainstream. We arrive at a place where the owners and the employees of A.M. radio are content to be at this new level of operation.

What would A.M. then be doing? What would it look like (or sound like)? What would it NOT be doing?

 

[RFLA]

Step one, The US government would want the FM band way before the AM band as it's already removing most of the services that it had on either side of the AM band (Maritime emergency is no longer being maintianed as it once was on 500khz) and Loran A (which used 1700 khz) is abandoned for Loran C and GPS.

The government and big business rather higher FM frequencies less susceptible to interference anyway.

The Canadian government is allowing Am stations to move to FM to benefit from not having to fight interference issues at night, however in Canada, radio is higher controlled by the crown more than in the US, with stations applying for a license having to also provide a list of planned formatting in advance also.

The current US rules wouldn't allow for more stations on the air than protection for third adjacent in most areas meanign most areas couldn't support any more FMs and most radios today are cheaper built than in the 1970s and 1980s I find meaning they would have issues if say the FCC would relax down to the second adjacent rule on broadcaster spacing.

Reading , I've found that only US full power broadcasters are being pulled off air February 2009 and that's still up in the air proving the test run in North Carolina that I think will show in times of emergency the analog TV is still a valuable tool compared to the better picture (the real reason for going digital is basically so the public safety could move to 700 Mhz to get out of the crowded 800 and 900 band that is being used and abused still by cell companies and Nextel among others) .. that eliminates channels 52-69 for them as digital allows for closer spacing than a analog signal ever could.

However I've read that low power TV stations will still be allowed analog for the forseeable future and Canada has announced a target shutoff date of 2011.. two years after the USA meaning some relaxation of adjacent rules for some radio stations near channel 5 and 6 stations and that's about all I've seen so far. But I've heard the rumors of expanding the band also.

Am is dying due to it's noise and low fidelity for urban listeners, don't think it's going no wheres by 2010 also, 2020 may be a different story, however by then digital may make the Am band a hot commodty again.

But in Rural America, where hitting the seek button produces no stations on the FM band, AM radio provides a service no one can imagine unless you've been there (and I've been there numerous times)

RFLA

 

[BobMSmith1959]

Step one, The US government would want the FM band way before the AM band as it's already removing most of the services that it had on either side of the AM band (Maritime emergency is no longer being maintianed as it once was on 500khz) and Loran A (which used 1700 khz) is abandoned for Loran C and GPS.

The government and big business rather higher FM frequencies less susceptible to interference anyway.

The Canadian government is allowing Am stations to move to FM to benefit from not having to fight interference issues at night, however in Canada, radio is higher controlled by the crown more than in the US, with stations applying for a license having to also provide a list of planned formatting in advance also.

The current US rules wouldn't allow for more stations on the air than protection for third adjacent in most areas meanign most areas couldn't support any more FMs and most radios today are cheaper built than in the 1970s and 1980s I find meaning they would have issues if say the FCC would relax down to the second adjacent rule on broadcaster spacing.

Reading , I've found that only US full power broadcasters are being pulled off air February 2009 and that's still up in the air proving the test run in North Carolina that I think will show in times of emergency the analog TV is still a valuable tool compared to the better picture (the real reason for going digital is basically so the public safety could move to 700 Mhz to get out of the crowded 800 and 900 band that is being used and abused still by cell companies and Nextel among others) .. that eliminates channels 52-69 for them as digital allows for closer spacing than a analog signal ever could.

This Date: For February 2009 is ONLY for Regular Television Broadcast with is about to go all digital...
However I've read that low power TV stations will still be allowed analog for the forseeable future and Canada has announced a target shutoff date of 2011.. two years after the USA meaning some relaxation of adjacent rules for some radio stations near channel 5 and 6 stations and that's about all I've seen so far. But I've heard the rumors of expanding the band also.

Am is dying due to it's noise and low fidelity for urban listeners, don't think it's going no wheres by 2010 also, 2020 may be a different story, however by then digital may make the Am band a hot commodty again.

But in Rural America, where hitting the seek button produces no stations on the FM band, AM radio provides a service no one can imagine unless you've been there (and I've been there numerous times)

RFLA
[/quote]
Anyone else has any other Comments on this board they like to add in?.....

 

[Tom Wells]

The future of the AM band is assured. Can't say what form radio will take here, but the slice of spectrum is not going anywhere.

Given that, we can return to a semblence of the plan devised by the Fedral Radio Commission in ..1927, which respected
the peculiar advantages of skywave propogation. The stations who had to go daytime were the losers that time, but the listeners
were all winners. In the same way we now pick satellite and cable channels, they could go up and down the dial and hear
stations from at least half the continent, at least at night.

Our careless manner of adopting noise-creating technolgies has been the No 1 ruination of the AM band, No 2 would be the
FCC permitting so many AMs to have night operation.

Th first one is something we can all do something about, the second is possibility of AMs migrating to new spectrum.
Market interests make the coverage of 76-108 mhz far more desirable to urban and dense population areas,
while .54-1710 mhz is of utmost importance in rural and sparsely poulated areas.

I have no problem in a city neighborhood with RF interference, but do occaisionally have noise from a neighbors's dimmer.
If I park my car in back, I can hear leakage from their satellite dish down-converter making some intermod noise on weak AMs.

If the AMs migrate, I would like to see them do a reverse-order restoration. Last in, first out.
If your city needed to add an AM or add night op in 1991, you should be first to go to 76-88 mhz.

In other words, the 50kw big guns should be LAST at a chance for migration. They already have a FAR MORE valuable
chunk of spectrum, with the advantage to listeners that is of no advantage to the station, market-wise.

If AM is wholesale abandoned in the future, I would expect it to become a home for community and LPAM broadcast.
It is too useful a chunk of spectrum to not use somehow.

Like a specific section of color spectrum, radio spectrum is what it is.
A certain shade of green may be out of style, but it is still that shade of green, waiting to be utilized.
And it's not ever going to go away.

 

[crainbebo]

That means that FM is limited to about 90 miles. So, how will you get KSL from Seattle on FM?

 

[Tom Wells]

That means that FM is limited to about 90 miles. So, how will you get KSL from Seattle on FM?

KSL needs to stay on AM 1160, where they can (and did) do the most good.
The "others" that did not have night ops on 1160 need to go back to daytimer status so KSL can serve in the manner that
makes the best use of MW's skywave coverage. 1160 could be used again, in say...Miami, but no closer.

 

[klutch00]

The future of the AM band is assured. Can't say what form radio will take here, but the slice of spectrum is not going anywhere.

Given that, we can return to a semblence of the plan devised by the Fedral Radio Commission in ..1927, which respected
the peculiar advantages of skywave propogation. The stations who had to go daytime were the losers that time, but the listeners
were all winners. In the same way we now pick satellite and cable channels, they could go up and down the dial and hear
stations from at least half the continent, at least at night.

Our careless manner of adopting noise-creating technolgies has been the No 1 ruination of the AM band, No 2 would be the
FCC permitting so many AMs to have night operation.

I think that one of the things electrical providers and devices should be able to do is offer technology that won't interfere with radio propogation.

The first one is something we can all do something about, the second is possibility of AMs migrating to new spectrum.
Market interests make the coverage of 76-108 mhz far more desirable to urban and dense population areas,
while .54-1710 mhz is of utmost importance in rural and sparsely populated areas.

What about tightening up the FM band and have 100khz intervals rather than 200khz intervals like the rest of the world?

I have no problem in a city neighborhood with RF interference, but do occassionally have noise from a neighbor's dimmer.
If I park my car in back, I can hear leakage from their satellite dish down-converter making some intermod noise on weak AMs.

If the AMs migrate, I would like to see them do a reverse-order restoration. Last in, first out.
If your city needed to add an AM or add night op in 1991, you should be first to go to 76-88 mhz.

In other words, the 50kw big guns should be LAST at a chance for migration. They already have a FAR MORE valuable
chunk of spectrum, with the advantage to listeners that is of no advantage to the station, market-wise.

I agree to an extent. For what were designated as Class I stations - both 'A' AND 'B', definitely. The same perhaps for the class II-As in the western states and perhaps a few in the eastern states like what is now WHKW. However, I feel that many class II 50KWers on the east coast need to be reevaluated. Stations on frequencies such as 680, 850, 990, 1010, 1050, 1070, 1190, 1540, 1550, 1570 and 1580 should decide on who will move and who will stay.

If AM is wholesale abandoned in the future, I would expect it to become a home for community and LPAM broadcast.
It is too useful a chunk of spectrum to not use somehow.

This could happen so long as the FCC doesn't reallocate the spectrum for different usage. Personally I like the idea of community broadcasting and think schools could benefit immensely for providing such a service, especially at the upper end of the band. Being that it is easier (as I understand it) to build a station at the upper end of the band, maybe it would be possible to put a station on the air without alot of start-up costs.

 

[crainbebo]

''KSL needs to stay on AM 1160, where they can (and did) do the most good.
The "others" that did not have night ops on 1160 need to go back to daytimer status so KSL can serve in the manner that
makes the best use of MW's skywave coverage. 1160 could be used again, in say...Miami, but no closer.''

What about stations like KXL in Portland, OR or KIT in Yakima? I w3ould never pick those up on FM or even the daytime!

-crainbebo

 

[TheBigA]

I like the idea of community broadcasting and think schools could benefit immensely for providing such a service, especially at the upper end of the band.

Been there, done that. I personally launched a bunch of low power FM stations based at high schools, and all have died due to budget cuts. Communities have to choose between radio and books, and have opted for books.

It all comes down to money, folks. If you don't have any, you can't get anything done.

 

[klutch00]

First of all, the Federal Gummint isn't allowed to broadcast to US citizens directly. This is why the VOA only beams its broadcasts to other parts of the world.

Second, 2010 is too soon. If AM as we know it were to die, 2020 is a more realistic date. The WW2/Korean War generation will be pretty much gone by then - they are the last generation to get most of their radio listening from AM.

Third, there have been several proposals to move most or all AM stations to an expanded FM band, but it would require the FCC to eliminate TV channels 2-6. They may or may not do that. Nothing will happen as long as TV is allowed to use 54-72 & 76-88 MHz.

This is a pretty radical plan! How could this happen?

My idea of a way to clean up the AM band is to use 530-1190 and 1500-1700 kHz for clear channel, 50-100 kW stations ONLY. In most cases, only one station would be allowed per frequency, the only exceptions being stations in Alaska, Hawaii, and stations separated by more than 2000 miles (such as, for example, WFAN New York and KTNN Window Rock AZ on 660). There would still be only one non-directional station per frequency (in this case, WFAN), the other(s) being directional only to protect that dominant station. Canadian and Mexican clear-channel frequencies (540, 740, 800, etc.) would be protected and would not have any US stations within 2000 miles.

I somewhat like this idea. I think 'no US stations within 2000 miles' is too radical, but those stations that do exist must be limited to daytime or limited time broadcast only. I would question allowing clear channels above 1600 and feel that the spectrum from 1610 -1700 should be for community broadcasting with power going as low as fifty or even ten watts. How about altering the AM band from 10 kilohertz intervals to 9 khz? I think more clear channel stations should be directional at night, particularly if they're on the coasts. On FM how about going from 200 khz intervals to 100 khz intervals?

All current Class A stations would get to remain on AM, but some might have to change frequencies. Only certain Class Bs, based on ratings, revenue, and heritage, would get a crack at remaining on AM, but most would have to move to the expanded FM band (which would be required in order to make this plan work). Every state in the Union would be allowed at least two clear-channel frequencies, although the biggest markets would get the lion's share.

I could see allowing no fewer than one clear channel per state, but feel that small states such as Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Vermont should be allowed ONLY one. The same holds true for states with small populations such as some western plains states and a few Rocky Mountain states (i.e.the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and perhaps Nebraska)

Then, put the low-powered locals on 1200-1490 with 1 kW maximum power non-directional. Since there are currently blowtorches on 1200-1220 (San Antonio, Philly, & Cleveland), they would be allowed to move to other frequencies. Each station's protected coverage would be 150 miles.

This might be good for much of the country, but I think it'd be better to allow Rocky Mountain and Western Plain States on said frequencies to broadcast up to five kilowatts. For the rest of the country, I think 80-100 miles of protected coverage would be enough. Definitely keep what are the current class 'C' (or class IV) channels as they are.

Community stations (50 watts or less) would be allowed on any frequency but only daytimers would be allowed on clear-channel frequencies, and then they would have to be located at least 1000 miles from a clear-channel station.

I wouldn't think it to be a problem for low wattage community stations to operate on the local channels, but as I stated before, maybe the 1610-1700 could be a better spectrum for such broadcasters. Be sure to check out http://www.sstran.com/

As far as day-timers, 1000 miles separation is too much. Depending on the power, maybe 300 or 350 miles should be the absolute minimum. Moreover, I would favor bringing back the 'limited time' stations, particularly for the east coast and eastern plains states. Chicago's old WJJD with its 50,000 watt directional signal was the prefect example of this.

All in all, interesting ideas.

 

[TheBigA]

This is all interesting stuff.

My prediction is that the band itself will not die, but it might as well be dead, in terms of popular appeal.

I mean, there are lots of radio bands that I may have enjoyed at one time (SW, WX, etc), but don't touch any more.

The major companies, those who create mass appeal content, seem to be moving their most marketable AM content to FM. Bonneville is the most active one. They transfered WTOP from AM to FM, and did the same thing in Seattle.

I agree with the poster who said it may take longer than 2 years, but popular programming will continue to leave AM, and that band will be left with rich adventurists with an agenda, religious broadcasters, and ethnic broadcasters. That's the short term growth on AM.

I have no reason for any popular music to move to AM. In fact, as talk, news and sports move to FM, I expect less music to find a home on FM too. The reason being it's so much easier to narrow cast on other platforms.

Having said all that, it's possible that someone will feel this growing decay of AM might benefit from some sort of government action. That's partly what the 96 Act was meant to correct. Maybe it's time to revisit rule changes that might provide benefits to owners who takes risks with AM. Remove some of the regulations that constrain AM radio. Some inventor might come up with a better way to improve audio quality than the ones currently available. Some future generation might find the concept of AM "quaint" and create a whole new culture built around AM radio, cigarettes, vinyl, and chrome.

It COULD happen.