I'm in favor of expanding the FM band down to 76 MHz, but I realize that by the time the receivers get on the market and stations get on the air, people won't care anymore. But the FCC should at least open up 87.7 and 87.9 MHz and give AM stations first dibs on those frequencies. They could even open up 87.5 MHz, although not all digital-tuning radios go that low on FM.
-
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
The state of AM Radio
- Thread starter JaneChristo
- Start date
How do you think holders of FM licenses will feel about that?
Probably mixed. A lot would be opposed, but some FM station owners also own AM stations too. Some existing FM stations might benefit by migrating to a 76-88 freq if this expansion ever becomes reality - unlikely, but...you never know.
I'm just of the mind that many of the struggling AM stations are doomed anyway and a natural culling of the herd will occur eventually.
I could see offering FM translators to current 'Class D' operations with minimal or no nighttime service. In some of those cases, I could see shutting off nighttime operations on the AM entirely if the AM's service area is entirely covered by the translators AND the AM is on a clear channel and compromising the service of the dominant station.
In Boston, do you think Clear channel wants an extended band where the migrating stations would be able to offer more competition to their music formats? Do you think Greater Media, owner of 5 FM's in Boston wants to see more stations on the FM band?
The more you create of something, the less it's value. The FCC follows the NAB. The NAB follows the big group owners...most of which do not want to see an expanded FM band.
I realize it would take awhile, but I support a 'use or lose' policy with frequencies and stations. If a country is allotted use of a clear channel and they choose or relinquish that allocation, they lose that allocation to a neighboring country within, say, two or three years.
WJIB Cambridge does quite nicely with its 5000 milliwatts.
I have read that someone has devised a way to eliminate skywave with filters installed at the transmitter. If so that could be the solution.
Look skywave reception no longer has a valid reason to exist ( and skywave listeners have not contributed to a stations bottom line in decades ) - If it could be done stations would no longer need massive transmitter sites for directional signals, and could deliver a signal to all parts of the local area.
AS Bob Bittner does with WJIB and WJTO, I think many smaller AM operations should strongly consider surviving either solely on donations, or a hybrid method where they survive on both advertisement and donations.
Bob also sold airtime to ethnic broadcasters, including Radio France Internationale from 7 to 9 AM weekdays. That's what originally paid the bills enough to keep WJIB running the rest of the day with no commercials (and indeed, no sales staff). But a combination of Radio France pulling out of the station and an increase in music licensing fees led Bob to ask for listener contributions to keep the station running commercial-free. Being in an affluent city, that has worked out well for WJIB. I don't think you could pull off the same thing in Detroit!
There have been a number of religious stations that have operated on listener contributions.... some of them on AM with a fully commercial license. Considering that long standing traditions and practices in broadcasting are being turned up-side-down in recent years, the industry may have been overlooking a possible valid way to operate some non-mainstream stations... particularly in the AM band.
Can you name a few commercial licensed religious stations that have operated on listener contributions?
My experience and my memory on specific instances is a bit old. I will have to think about it. It was 50 years ago that I managed a commercially licensed AM religious station in a state capitol and would talk shop at seminars and conventions with my peers including those from smaller communities and rural areas.
My owners were not in the ownership out of a love for religion, but as a commercial venture. Being in a larger market, we took an open policy of advising listeners who attempted to give us donations that they should pick out their favorite "preacher" and send the donation to his ministry. We did not want our programmers thinking we were in competition with them for the available dollars.
I suspect with minimum effort we could locate stations down through Appalachia and the Ozarks that used to thrive on direct listener support, and maybe still do for all I know.
After that experience, I decided I did not want to combine my broadcasting energies and my religious energies in a combined engagement.
My owners were not in the ownership out of a love for religion, but as a commercial venture. Being in a larger market, we took an open policy of advising listeners who attempted to give us donations that they should pick out their favorite "preacher" and send the donation to his ministry. We did not want our programmers thinking we were in competition with them for the available dollars.
I suspect with minimum effort we could locate stations down through Appalachia and the Ozarks that used to thrive on direct listener support, and maybe still do for all I know.
After that experience, I decided I did not want to combine my broadcasting energies and my religious energies in a combined engagement.
M
MickeyD
Guest
Why not open 87.7 and 87.9 (Channel 200)? No new equipment required. 87.9 has two stations on it nationwide. One is silent in CA and the other is a translator in TX. Most could run 250 watts depending upon what was around them.
Last edited:
Interference with TV-6, which still has stations transmitting on that channel.
Open them up for who? Who gets them....and why?
There are only a certain number of frequencies and the dial is already crowded. Electronics have made AM a mess. Pirates show up on both AM and FM. Hey, let's put EVERYONE on the air--and jam up the dial even more. Let's put some on frequencies below 88 MHz
and people will have to buy new radios to hear them, while the zillions of existing radios won't be able to pick them up but that's OK.
Everyone, everyone should be on the air even though the clutter will make radio unlistenable. Why not! Heck, make it so that each town gets a station. As you drive on the North Shore you'll pick up one station on 91.3 in Beverly, then another in Salem, then yet another in Peabody, then Lynn--sure they only reach a couple miles but we gotta put on these folks! So what if each station only gets a dozen listeners.
Well here's why not, again, there are only so many frequencies and the FCC is there to regulate it. Sure, squeeze more stations in
and suddenly that college station you love can only push a few miles because we just HAD to put another translator in for that
church from Idaho. Every single community group should have a station, right, and pirates that clog the airwaves, hey ignore them,
right? Nope.
There are many ways you can get on the air--like on the Net. Podcasts and streaming, but the dial is limited and while I feel bad
for the AM owners, there simply isn't room for them to be jammed on an already crowded FM dial. Some have already found
an FM simulcast but how many more can be squeezed in? An FM for every AM? Sure, do it, and make the dial even more cluttered.
Maybe it won't be so bad in the boonies in Vermont but here there is no room! (And for those who want to hear XM radio or an mp3 player in their car good luck finding an open frequency...)
And maybe AM should still exist, for some of these smaller community stations--though admittedly the economics work against them (most people are listening on FM). The AM dial is overcrowded too, though...
and people will have to buy new radios to hear them, while the zillions of existing radios won't be able to pick them up but that's OK.
Everyone, everyone should be on the air even though the clutter will make radio unlistenable. Why not! Heck, make it so that each town gets a station. As you drive on the North Shore you'll pick up one station on 91.3 in Beverly, then another in Salem, then yet another in Peabody, then Lynn--sure they only reach a couple miles but we gotta put on these folks! So what if each station only gets a dozen listeners.
Well here's why not, again, there are only so many frequencies and the FCC is there to regulate it. Sure, squeeze more stations in
and suddenly that college station you love can only push a few miles because we just HAD to put another translator in for that
church from Idaho. Every single community group should have a station, right, and pirates that clog the airwaves, hey ignore them,
right? Nope.
There are many ways you can get on the air--like on the Net. Podcasts and streaming, but the dial is limited and while I feel bad
for the AM owners, there simply isn't room for them to be jammed on an already crowded FM dial. Some have already found
an FM simulcast but how many more can be squeezed in? An FM for every AM? Sure, do it, and make the dial even more cluttered.
Maybe it won't be so bad in the boonies in Vermont but here there is no room! (And for those who want to hear XM radio or an mp3 player in their car good luck finding an open frequency...)
And maybe AM should still exist, for some of these smaller community stations--though admittedly the economics work against them (most people are listening on FM). The AM dial is overcrowded too, though...
Last edited:
They survived and adapted to HD Radio, then HD on translator, and AM on translator, all of which added signals on the FM band.
I don't see an expansion of the FM band to 82/76/54 Mhz. That's a dead issue for now. The time for that was during the 1990s during the earliest stages of the DTV transition, whereby the receivers would now be in wide circulation 15-20 years later.
Maybe 87.7 and 87.9 only as overflow channels for displaced non-comm and LPFM stations only where there is no TV6. For which a precedent has already been set.
HD radio was their creation...and promoted by them....and they control the new streams.
In reality, there are no HD's on translators, nor AM's on Translators in Boston or in any large market of any substance. There is nothing for them to 'adapt' to.
It will never happen! Most of the AM stations on the air(mostly the daytime only stations) will be off the air in 2-5 years. The radio stations that offer ethnic programming and brokered time will continue to thrive. And I'm sure that Bob Bittner's radio station will be among the survivors here in the Boston area.
M
MickeyD
Guest
AM stations that need FM translators. I would take 87.9 in a moment there is very little interference on the frequency and it is already and FM allocated channel.
They all would say they need translators.
The question is do they need them...or simply want them.
You and a million other people.
So, who gets 87.9 in Boston?
WEZE, WJIB, WROL, Radio Disney? WVNJ? WUNR? 1510AM?, WILD?, WQOM?
- Status