Time For An AM Radio Revival

[TheBigA]

I'm curious, BigA - what are the "possible solutions" for AM you think have been attacked?

It seems to me that far from being attacked, the practical solutions which have been advanced for the band have been ignored instead. With the exception of HD Radio, that is.

Well, the key part of your question is "practical." The whole AM stereo thing was totally mishandled by everyone. HD radio is not a practical solution, for one simple reason: It requires everyone to buy new radios, which won't happen. I've said that here many many times before.

There really ARE no other solutions, so your question is a good one.

The other possible solutions require government action, and we all know how that's going. And those solutions requires everyone to (once again) buy new radios, which (as I said) won't happen. So they are not practical either. Returning AM to where it was before the FCC wrecked it isn't practical either.

The general view seems to be that there is no AM problem. That's the topic of this thread. AM is great, and it will someday reinvent itself. My view is it won't. You have made the best move possible by getting an FM translater. That, dear boy, is the ONLY practical solution.

 

[Savage]

I don't think anybody here - least of all me - is arguing "there is no AM problem." I believe the general consensus is that HD Radio is not a solution for any problems AM faces. It creates more problems instead of solving the ones there are. (That's why more and more broadcasters are turning off their AM IBOC exciters.)

Freebird summed them up: HD doesn't fix daytime-only operation, doesn't equalize crazy disparities between night and day power and coverage, doesn't eliminate most objectionable interference or...and I know some disagree....really create a superior audio product. I know I'm not alone in saying HD's screechy, low-bitrate codec algorithm doesn't represent much of a real-world improvement over 10 kHz NRSC AM. It defaults to mono most of the time and the slightest interference causes it to simply crap out. All of the mode-hopping and coverage deficits produce a worse listening experience than analog AM.

I would add: there have been real-world practical solutions to aid AM's ills repeatedly posted here, including a proposal from yours truly for just one. But nobody in any position of leadership or authority is interested in them because the HD Radio dogma has obstructed their fair and objective consideration.

And THAT, Snooky-Lumps, is another in the endless parade of tragedies which HD Radio has visited upon this industry to the general detriment of everyone.

 

[TheBigA]

I would add: there have been real-world practical solutions to aid AM's ills repeatedly posted here, including a proposal from yours truly for just one. But nobody in any position of leadership or authority is interested in them because the HD Radio dogma has obstructed their fair and objective consideration.

If any suggestions have been made that require the general public to replace their AM radios, they are not practical. That includes any relocation proposals that have been made, and obviously also includes HD Radio.

I've read all the proposals, and the fact remains that the general public will not be replacing their radios. It will not happen. So ANY practical solutions have to begin with that fact. Otherwise, they are by definition not practical.

 

[Savage]

My proposed fix for AM would not require anyone to purchase new radios. Nor would it require expensive replacement of transmitters or antenna systems.

 

[TheBigA]

My proposed fix for AM would not require anyone to purchase new radios. Nor would it require expensive replacement of transmitters or antenna systems.

Would it require government action?

 

[Carmine5]

I would add: there have been real-world practical solutions to aid AM's ills repeatedly posted here, including a proposal from yours truly for just one. But nobody in any position of leadership or authority is interested in them because the HD Radio dogma has obstructed their fair and objective consideration.

If any suggestions have been made that require the general public to replace their AM radios, they are not practical. That includes any relocation proposals that have been made, and obviously also includes HD Radio.

I've read all the proposals, and the fact remains that the general public will not be replacing their radios. It will not happen. So ANY practical solutions have to begin with that fact. Otherwise, they are by definition not practical.

I don't think you're taking into consideration that people will be replacing their iPods and smartphones with new ones. Reportedly the new Google phone on Android will have FM and apparently the iPhone 3G just needs an OS upgrade to unlock its FM capabilities. And as we know, iPods are beginning to come with FM. So, yes, consumers will be getting new radios, if only in a roundabout way. If the iPod Nano is any indication then these software-based radios will tune much lower than 88.1. Of course, HD Radio and AM is not in the picture here.

To me a solution to AM's problem is not difficult to imagine--open up the FM band to 87.1 and move low watt AM stations to that extended band (and off of AM). Giving AM stations FM translators is a start and it may also be that more AM stations can be awarded translators on the 87 portion of the band while retaining their AM channel. Most existing radios will tune to 87.5 or 87.1.

Now that Capitol Hill is clearing the way for more LPFM stations by removing 3rd adjacent protection it might also be time to consider repacking the FM band. Of course for this to work stations using IBOC would have to stay within the FM mask which would mean no power increase.

The most important step right now is for the FCC to dismiss applications for new Ch. 6 stations and move incumbent stations elsewhere. I noticed that during the rural LDTV window there were many applications for stations on Ch. 6. CPs for these must not be awarded. The MMTC has already petitioned the FCC to this effect.

So, like I said, to me the solution isn't hard to imagine but probably harder to employ--although not impossible.

c5

 

[TheBigA]

Reportedly the new Google phone on Android will have FM and apparently the iPhone 3G just needs an OS upgrade to unlock its FM capabilities. And as we know, iPods are beginning to come with FM. So, yes, consumers will be getting new radios, if only in a roundabout way.

But the topic here is AM revival. That's what we're talking about. Not FM. But that's for the information.

To me a solution to AM's problem is not difficult to imagine--open up the FM band to 87.1 and move low watt AM stations to that extended band (and off of AM).

That requires government action, and the government isn't interested in giving away spectrum space for free.

The MMTC petition is mainly about minority ownership. Unless most AM owners change their race, I don't see them benefiting from the petition in any way.

 

[davideduardo]

I know I'm not alone in saying HD's screechy, low-bitrate codec algorithm doesn't represent much of a real-world improvement over 10 kHz NRSC AM. It defaults to mono most of the time and the slightest interference causes it to simply crap out. All of the mode-hopping and coverage deficits produce a worse listening experience than analog AM.

Void in Nebraska. Your mileage may vary.

I have a factory HD, and can begin to get KFI's HD between Banning and Beaumont on Interstate 10 far east of LA (I picked those as ones easy to google) and KNX is pretty solid by Rancho Cucamonga in the Reiveside / San Bernardino market... considering KNX's more distant site and higher frequency, not at all bad.

The problems with AM HD have to do with it just not being a solution for less than viable signals. It just should not be on most stations.

But when it is on a decent signal, it sounds a lot better than the analog and if the station has made sure they don't have dueling codecs, it is not rachety, ringing or unpleasant.

Of course, as nice as it sounds, nobody is buying the radios and they won't in this economy. And nobody buys a radio based on the AM section except for those folks purchasing the overpriced stuff p'romoted between visits to Area 51 on a certain overnight show.

Again, my real point is that, to quote a Spanish saying, "a monkey dressed in silk is still a monkey." AM is losing share, and the under-55 listening is sparse. As more and more big AM stations move or simulcast on an FM to build salable demos, AM will lose the cume circulation it gets from those one or two big AMs most markets have. For an example of this, look at total AM band cume and TSL in Indianapolis following the move of WIBC from 1070 to FM... Indy AM should qualify for a depletion tax credit just like the oil producers do!

 

[Carmine5]

Reportedly the new Google phone on Android will have FM and apparently the iPhone 3G just needs an OS upgrade to unlock its FM capabilities. And as we know, iPods are beginning to come with FM. So, yes, consumers will be getting new radios, if only in a roundabout way.

But the topic here is AM revival. That's what we're talking about. Not FM. But that's for the information.

To me a solution to AM's problem is not difficult to imagine--open up the FM band to 87.1 and move low watt AM stations to that extended band (and off of AM).

That requires government action, and the government isn't interested in giving away spectrum space for free.

The MMTC petition is mainly about minority ownership. Unless most AM owners change their race, I don't see them benefiting from the petition in any way.

Of course I know what this topic is about. But given that fewer and fewer radios, primarily portables, are including AM, a strategy to save, if not the band so much as the stations, would be to move them to FM either exclusively or as a simulcast. By allowing AM stations that are impacted in some way (daytimers, nighttime coverage problems) to use FM translators now, the FCC obviously views this as a solution as well. My idea is to expand on it by expanding the FM band for AM station use.

The motivations behind the MMTC petition may be about minority ownership but it is result of moving and keeping TV off Ch. 6 that I'm highlighting (much like the UCC's efforts to expand LPFM has been primarily for the benefit of religious broadcasters but it has also helped other organizations that are not religious).

Undoubtedly, this trend of excluding AM from portables is troubling. Better content might help drive up AM listening in the car or home but I highly doubt it can staunch the trend for portables. In a different era, I can see Congress getting involved and mandating AM inclusion in all radios, much as they forced TV manufacturers to build sets that would make tuning UHF as easy as VHF. But that era is probably gone (of course, they are concerned about loud TV commercials so who knows maybe they can be made to care about AM).

And, BTW, I'm not suggesting that the FCC give this spectrum away. What I am suggesting is that the government give the FM band some open space so that AM stations can take advantage of it and hopefully capture those who listen on portable devices.

c5

 

[TheBigA]

My idea is to expand on it by expanding the FM band for AM station use.

However, that requires (1) FCC action, and (2) consumers to replace their radios. Neither is practical. The government agenda is about ownership diversity and minority ownership. They are not going to be making changes that will include major companies like CBS, Entercom, Bonneville, or Clear Channel. And consumers will not be buying new radios to receive this expanded band. They will simply wait for other devices that have radios (such as cars, iPods, phones) include the expanded band. That means about a ten year transition process.

I don't expect TV returning to channel 6. I see the FCC looking for ways to auction that channel off. Turning it over to commercial broadcasters is the equivalent of giving it away, and the government will not do that. They need revenue and this is a logical source. Either that or more non-commercial radio. But they will not be relocating profit-making radio stations to valuable spectrum space. There is nothing in their agenda that includes that.

 

[almaniac27]

In a perfect world, creative types would see the vast wasteland that is much of AM radio and create interesting and compelling content much the same way as the freeform DJs did on FM forty years ago. But with the Internet, I don't see that happening. It's so much easier and cheaper to start a web station or podcast out of your basement than buy an AM facility, and you have a larger potential audience. True, most of these people won't make much, if any, money from this, but that might be where all this is going. "Broadcasting" as we know it could very well morph into "narrowcasting" in the next few decades. One doesn't need to capture as big of an audience on the internet as a typical radio station needs to keep operating. I think things have been slowly going this way since the demise of the powerhouse Top 40 stations. WABC used to have gigantic shares in the 50s and 60s compared to what top stations do now. Audiences keep fragmenting, it happened with cable TV as well.

The OP's article mentioned how people don't care about sound quality as much anymore. I find this to be true, I hang out in my college dorm lounge and people will listen to music on little laptop speakers for hours. My ears get tired of that after a while, but my friends don't seem to mind. Just because they don't care about SQ doesn't mean that AM is viable again, my theory is that with my generation, on-demand trumps SQ every time. Just look at Youtube, music videos with pretty bad SQ get millions of hits, because people want to hear the song when they want to, sound quality is secondary.

Most of my friends just listen to the radio when they're in the car and they have no other options. I had a conversation about this with one of them, and his opinion of radio was that it's the place to go if you're in the mood for crappy pop music, NPR news, or screaming right-wingers. Outside of that, he didn't feel radio served much of a purpose anymore.

 

[davideduardo]

In a perfect world, creative types would see the vast wasteland that is much of AM radio and create interesting and compelling content

Any creative type under about 60 sees AM and sees that nearly no AMs cover their entire metros, and even thse that do are subject to noise from computers, CFLs, dimmers and all manner of other electrical and electronic gear. They realize that nearly nobody outside of the geezer demos has any interest in AM. So they go and do odcasts and web streams or maybe something for FM radio.

much the same way as the freeform DJs did on FM forty years ago.

Freeform is much overstated insofar as its success is concerned; as soon as programmers like Lee Abrams came and cleaned up the format, all the freeform statins died, most quite miserably. Freeform was like the kid who farts in church... the first time, it gets some laughs. The second time it is just our of place.

WABC used to have gigantic shares in the 50s and 60s compared to what top stations do now. Audiences keep fragmenting, it happened with cable TV as well.

WABC was an old line network station in the 50's. And in the 60's, competiton consisted of the handful fo full coverage AMs in NYC... fragmentation came when FM became viable, mostly due to the 1967 simulcast rule.

just listen to the radio when they're in the car and they have no other options. I had a conversation about this with one of them, and his opinion of radio was that it's the place to go if you're in the mood for crappy pop music, NPR news, or screaming right-wingers. Outside of that, he didn't feel radio served much of a purpose anymore.

That reminds me of people who say they listen to NPR when they don't... they say it because it makes them feel good. The fact is that 95% of the population, including people under 25, listen to radio each week... and when radio figures out that it can provide better content on the web than some guy with a WinAmp list, we'll see stations providing all kinds of variants on their base format.. My favorite station, Chérie FM in France, has 6 different web variants, ranging from a love song version to an all french pop oldies version... so there is a Chérie for each mood, all based on AC & Pop music. I have them all on my Squeezebox and switch between them.

 

[almaniac27]

In a perfect world, creative types would see the vast wasteland that is much of AM radio and create interesting and compelling content

Any creative type under about 60 sees AM and sees that nearly no AMs cover their entire metros, and even thse that do are subject to noise from computers, CFLs, dimmers and all manner of other electrical and electronic gear. They realize that nearly nobody outside of the geezer demos has any interest in AM. So they go and do odcasts and web streams or maybe something for FM radio.

much the same way as the freeform DJs did on FM forty years ago.

Freeform is much overstated insofar as its success is concerned; as soon as programmers like Lee Abrams came and cleaned up the format, all the freeform statins died, most quite miserably. Freeform was like the kid who farts in church... the first time, it gets some laughs. The second time it is just our of place.

WABC used to have gigantic shares in the 50s and 60s compared to what top stations do now. Audiences keep fragmenting, it happened with cable TV as well.

WABC was an old line network station in the 50's. And in the 60's, competiton consisted of the handful fo full coverage AMs in NYC... fragmentation came when FM became viable, mostly due to the 1967 simulcast rule.

just listen to the radio when they're in the car and they have no other options. I had a conversation about this with one of them, and his opinion of radio was that it's the place to go if you're in the mood for crappy pop music, NPR news, or screaming right-wingers. Outside of that, he didn't feel radio served much of a purpose anymore.

That reminds me of people who say they listen to NPR when they don't... they say it because it makes them feel good. The fact is that 95% of the population, including people under 25, listen to radio each week... and when radio figures out that it can provide better content on the web than some guy with a WinAmp list, we'll see stations providing all kinds of variants on their base format.. My favorite station, Chérie FM in France, has 6 different web variants, ranging from a love song version to an all french pop oldies version... so there is a Chérie for each mood, all based on AC & Pop music. I have them all on my Squeezebox and switch between them.

I understand that you've been in the business for a long time and I respect that a lot. It just seems that radio can't find a happy middle ground between stale cookie-cutter formats and kids farting in church.

I remember in one of my mass media classes this past semester, the professor asked people to raise their hands if they watched a Youtube/Hulu/whatever video recently. Pretty much everybody raised their hands. Next he asked for people who had watched TV, which got fewer hands. Then radio, which got barely any hands. I'm not saying people my age don't listen to the radio at all, it's just not one of their first choices when it comes to music and it's becoming kind of an afterthought. And I will be the first to admit I'm not the typical 20-year-old. I've found my niche in college and it's nice, but I realize that most of my peers will happily watch the dreck on MTV and listen to the latest fake-ish annoying pop sensation while I watch Mystery Science Theater 3000 on DVD and download The Velvet Underground's back catalog. I know that sounds elitist, but I don't really care. I'm resigned to the fact that FM radio will rarely if ever cater to me, but even the "unwashed masses" are starting to forget about it.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

If any suggestions have been made that require the general public to replace their AM radios, they are not practical. That includes any relocation proposals that have been made, and obviously also includes HD Radio.

I've read all the proposals, and the fact remains that the general public will not be replacing their radios. It will not happen. So ANY practical solutions have to begin with that fact. Otherwise, they are by definition not practical.

My suggestion doesn't require anybody to buy a new radio. I have suggested moving present stations to more effectively use the existing spectrum. Leave 540 through 1200 and 1500 through 1700 for analog only, long distance, high power clears. Everything from 1210 through 1490 would become local only, 30 kHz channel spacing for hybrid digital / analog HD or 10 kHz for full digital. No power limit, whatever it takes to make HD work. No protection, just large powers for local markets. With that many channels re-alloted for local only.

 

[TheBigA]

My suggestion doesn't require anybody to buy a new radio. I have suggested moving present stations to more effectively use the existing spectrum.

It requires government action. The government isn't interested in such a move. Too much work, and doesn't help the two main agendas: ownership diversity and minority ownership.

And the NAB would oppose it. It takes years to establish channel location. This would throw the entire band into tummult, and require users to learn new locations. Until they do, it kills the band.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm resigned to the fact that FM radio will rarely if ever cater to me, but even the "unwashed masses" are starting to forget about it.

I felt the same way when I was in college. The only radio that catered to me was student-run college radio. Then I graduated and turned 25. Somehow, radio started appealing to me.

What changed? First of all, I became part of the target demo. Second of all, all the older farts who had been in radio for 40 years died off or got fired and a new generation got into it. That included me.

For radio to grow and change, there needs to be a change in the people who run it. I understand that effectively kills off the only people who listen to radio now. But at some point, those people are beyond the sellable demo. It's a basic generational change that historically has happened to radio every 20-25 years, but radio missed it when it should have happened at the start of this decade. I believe the economy will force radio to change.

 

[Carmine5]

Most of my friends just listen to the radio when they're in the car and they have no other options. I had a conversation about this with one of them, and his opinion of radio was that it's the place to go if you're in the mood for crappy pop music, NPR news, or screaming right-wingers. Outside of that, he didn't feel radio served much of a purpose anymore.

Many years ago, I filmed an interview with Art Clokey, the creator of the "Gumby" series, and he said that the people in the best position to create children's programming are children. "As adults, we can only guess what children will like," he said.

The same argument can be applied to radio. So much of pop radio is programmed by middle-aged guys, pouring over statistics and data and trying to second guess what would appeal to a generation much younger than they are. Maybe a better approach is to get out of the way and let those of the generation they're trying to reach program and host shows.

A couple of weeks ago we read about a Canadian kid who was running a pirate station. His peers from all over the area were tuning in. Do you think he programmed his little station using statistics or do you think he instinctively knew what his generation wanted to listen to?

And although the kid was broadcasting on FM, I highly doubt his peers would have cared what band he was using.

c5

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe a better approach is to get out of the way and let those of the generation they're trying to reach program and host shows.

The problem with that is the current generation won't get out of the way, and get pretty offended when the suggestion is made. They bring up things like "age discrimination" and similar charges. I know of a situation now of a morning show where the average staff age was 60, aiming at a target demo of 40. They just let go one of the staffers, who is 70, and were attacked for doing it. All they want to do is bring someone in who can relate to the target demo. That's not too much to ask.

 

[audioguy]

I've said this before, but I think what the industry needs to do most is to provide compelling programming. People will listen to AM, FM, or even Short Wave if it's something they want to hear. However, there is a window of opportunity that must be captured before people tune out permanently. My neighbors tell me they don't listen to the radio at all any more except for the Cubs and an occasional traffic report while out driving.

There is enough spectrum to air programs that appeal to kids and old folks. But our system of so-called "free over-the-air broadcasting" does not encourage this. Instead, it leads to multiple broadcasts of the same or similar fare targeting the most desirable demographics. I on the other hand am one of those people who would pay to hear quality programs-- and in fact, I do by supporting the classical stations that I listen to.

 

[TheBigA]

I've said this before, but I think what the industry needs to do most is to provide compelling programming.

There is no unified "industry," at least in terms of programming. There are lots of stations, companies, and individuals. Some provide compelling programming, and some don't. Some places have access to more compelling choices than others. But to expect all 14,000 stations to provide "compelling programming" when the definition of what that is shifts from person to person is simply impossible.

Nice to hear you support the programming you like. You are one of a very very small minority. Most people are freeloaders, and that's a big reason why radio is the way it is.