Transmitter Count - "planned" radio (BBC et al.) vs. "haphazard" radio (USA)

[kfbkfb]

AFAIK, USA radio is - If you've got the money (and subject to regional ownership rules) and there's a frequency available, you can put a radio station on the air.

Elsewhere in the World, for example, the BBC and commercial radio there - their goal is to provide a strong signal throughout their assigned area (the whole country, in some cases) with the minimum number of transmitters (for lowest cost maintenance).

The result for the USA is a large number of radio stations in a given market with similar formats, which ultimately means profit limits (or losses) due to the "pie" sliced in too many pieces.

Maybe operate USA radio like a public utility - only so many transmitters for a given radio market and sell time on the transmitter network, if someone/company wants to broadcast oldies, they can buy 24 hours every day, if someone wants to broadcast live national talk radio, they can buy 3 hour blocks on weekdays.

Careful planning with regard to the transmitter frequencies and power levels would ensure that (nearly) everyone in the radio market would get a strong signal.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Kelly A]

Elsewhere in the World, for example, the BBC and commercial radio there - their goal is to provide a strong signal throughout their assigned area (the whole country, in some cases) with the minimum number of transmitters (for lowest cost maintenance).

That's because the BBC is owned by their government.

The result for the USA is a large number of radio stations in a given market with similar formats, which ultimately means profit limits (or losses) due to the "pie" sliced in too many pieces.

'Free enterprise' vs. government owned.

Maybe operate USA radio like a public utility - only so many transmitters for a given radio market and sell time on the transmitter network, if someone/company wants to broadcast oldies, they can buy 24 hours every day, if someone wants to broadcast live national talk radio, they can buy 3 hour blocks on weekdays.

Back when the amount of news and public affairs programming was required by some stations who made that commitment, you could have maybe made the case. But only if the station had been subsidized by the government. That wasn't going to happen, because the purpose of running a radio station domestically, is to make money or advertise products of the parent company.

Careful planning with regard to the transmitter frequencies and power levels would ensure that (nearly) everyone in the radio market would get a strong signal.

That's what they do in Europe, and to an extent, Canada. Don't expect that to ever happen in the U.S.

 

[davideduardo]

AFAIK, USA radio is - If you've got the money (and subject to regional ownership rules) and there's a frequency available, you can put a radio station on the air.

And the same is true in Thailand or Burkina Faso or Mexico or Italy.

Elsewhere in the World, for example, the BBC and commercial radio there - their goal is to provide a strong signal throughout their assigned area (the whole country, in some cases) with the minimum number of transmitters (for lowest cost maintenance).

"Elsewhere in the World" is just wrong.

In the UK, while the BBC does have multiple "programs" that cover the entire country, there are now many AM and FM commercial services, both national and local.

Generally, until the 70's or so, European broadcasting was government controlled. But since then, it has become decidedly privatized with state owned stations competing and most often winning audience over the government stations.

In this Hemisphere, from Mexico to Argentina, in no significant nation, from Jamaica to Brazil, from Suriname to Mexico, is government radio the dominant entity. Commercial radio in systems very similar to the US, dominates with audience.

Although more recent, in sub-Saharan Africa commercial radio is also dominant in nearly every country.

The same is true in free-economy nations in Eastern and Southeaster Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Whether it be the Philippines where FCC licensed commercial stations began in the 30's, or India where commercial radio is only about 25 years old, there is vigorous completion by private radio companies and stations.

And everywhere I have named FM is the primary radio band, and coverage, just like the US, is limited to line of sight from the transmitter. In fact, in many nations AM is totally gone and in most, FM is the dominant radio band.

So, even in England the commercial FM stations have coverage similar to stations in the US and multiple transmitters all around England, Wales, Scotland and NI to cover each market. Same in France or Spain or Portugal or Hungary... or Australia or Paraguay or Nigeria.

 

[Miss Tuned]

In countries that have a lot of national or near-national commercial radio networks, like Britain and France, a lot of those networks were built fairly haphazardly out of clusters of purchased local stations. It makes for an uneven listener experience, with an FM network available in one city but not in another, and rural areas receiving a seemingly random selection depending on who bought their local station in 1998.

It's becoming less and less relevant, though - partly because DAB is near-ubiquitous (all new cars for nearly a decade have had it) and those commercial national DAB networks are planned nationally in the same way as the public/government radio networks always have been; and partly because 5G mobiles and streaming are rendering the whole idea of broadcast radio a bit passé.

 

[davideduardo]

In countries that have a lot of national or near-national commercial radio networks, like Britain and France, a lot of those networks were built fairly haphazardly out of clusters of purchased local stations. It makes for an uneven listener experience, with an FM network available in one city but not in another, and rural areas receiving a seemingly random selection depending on who bought their local station in 1998.

In England and France, the national services have frequencies in all the areas and largest cities of the country. The higher power relays are in the larger markets, and all the population centers are well served with overlapping signals.

This type of operation was pioneered in Europe in Spain in the 60's, with national stations like Los 40 having dozens of main transmitters and many fill in smaller ones where terrain an population dictate.

In England, several of the national commercial stations (they are not networks as they are one station with many transmitters) have groups of frequencies all close together on the band as they were allocated in a batch.

In France, the frequencies are not as well "packeted" but they use the frequency search function of RDS to keep listeners tuned in as they travel around the country. This is used in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and others, too.

 

[kfbkfb]

Turning this concept around to the POV of potential advertisers - a public utility type radio market signal coverage system could be "sold" to potential advertisers as providing a strong, clear signal at all times to (most) listeners in the radio market.

AFAIK, commercial radio is about having content people (of certain demographics) are likely to listen to (and be influenced to buy certain products/services), having a public utility would take the signal quality issue off the table.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Miss Tuned]

In England, several of the national commercial stations (they are not networks as they are one station with many transmitters) have groups of frequencies all close together on the band as they were allocated in a batch.

There's only one national commercial FM station in England - Classic FM, whose output is uniform throughout the country. That transmits on a group of frequencies between (I think) 100 and 102 MHz.

All the others are networks of local stations purchased piecemeal over time, and they still have various license requirements to carry some regional news and programming. I think, from memory, that each station has to do three hours output from within its region per day. Heart, for instance, has a number of regional stations (London, Yorkshire, North West England, Scotland etc) all with their own afternoon drive show. The frequencies are scattered all over the dial - the FM signals for Heart are listed here, at the bottom of the page. They go all the way from the bottom of the dial (88) to the top (107-something) because they are former local radio stations which are all licensed separately...

 

[davideduardo]

There's only one national commercial FM station in England - Classic FM, whose output is uniform throughout the country. That transmits on a group of frequencies between (I think) 100 and 102 MHz.

All the others are networks of local stations purchased piecemeal over time, and they still have various license requirements to carry some regional news and programming. I think, from memory, that each station has to do three hours output from within its region per day. Heart, for instance, has a number of regional stations (London, Yorkshire, North West England, Scotland etc) all with their own afternoon drive show. The frequencies are scattered all over the dial - the FM signals for Heart are listed here, at the bottom of the page. They go all the way from the bottom of the dial (88) to the top (107-something) because they are former local radio stations which are all licensed separately...

Even Classic has regional/local programming certain hours in several areas.

My point is that the national services, whether assembled in bits and pieces or set up that way, are the principal audience "magnets" in commercial radio.

In Spain, the Los 40 stations are all over the dial. Yet the Madrid station was one of the world's first FM Top 40 stations dating back to the mid-60's. I used it as the model for my Teleonda FM in Ecuador, using whatever frequencies the government gave me... quite arbitrarily.

The main difference on FM between the Western Hemisphere and Europe is the more minimal amount of government broadcasting, ranging from the significant buy not dominant position of the CBC in Canada to the almost insignificant participation of official stations in places like Mexico and Argentina. In Europe, government stations like the BBC can have significant participation in audience ratings, but in many nations state run radio is declining in use and importance.

 

[Miss Tuned]

Classic FM doesn't have any regional programming or news at all. It has some very limited split commercial breaks (so, for instance, government messaging applying only to England doesn't play out in Scotland) but absolutely everything else on the station is national.

You are right, though - for the Heart and Capital-type networks, the audience draw is the national programming. The local and regional programming is solely there to satisfy a regulatory requirement (due to the stations previously acting as local/regional services) and will disappear as soon as the regulations change to allow it.

The whole principle of FM networks is starting to become old-school, though - DAB offers these stations the chance to operate a wholly national service with no legacy programming requirements, and they have taken full advantage. Only 36% of listening hours are now via FM/AM while the rest are DAB, streaming and (to a much lesser extent) radio-via-TV. Recent government proposals suggest the removal of the legacy regional programming requirements on FM for that reason.

 

[Deleted User]

Has anyone else noted that England is not that much bigger than the state of Florida?

Since the USA is almost 4000 times bigger than England, what works on one place will not work in another

 

[Kelly A]

Turning this concept around to the POV of potential advertisers - a public utility type radio market signal coverage system could be "sold" to potential advertisers as providing a strong, clear signal at all times to (most) listeners in the radio market.

Many governments are not permitted to accept sponsorships or advertising. One reason is it requires staff to sell to prospective sponsors. Governments don't understand that game. The other reason, is the potential for corruption when money from advertisers is involved. Advertisers may be tempted to support the government broadcasts with the assumption of favor.

AFAIK, commercial radio is about having content people (of certain demographics) are likely to listen to (and be influenced to buy certain products/services), having a public utility would take the signal quality issue off the table.

U.S. broadcasters are interested in covering the area(s) where they sell ads. That brings in revenue. Government broadcasters are taxpayer supported, and are looking to reach either their citizens, or an outside population that the broadcasting government wants to influence. Foreign government broadcasters control the spectrum which they broadcast, so they make the rules of what transmissions are geographically located-where.

 

[kfbkfb]

Radio as a "public utility" - maybe the USA freeway system provides a good example - Federal requirements - States built it/maintain it with private contractors - provided drivers follow the rules, they can drive on it.

Gov standards would be used to build the radio market radio "utility", built to the standards with private contractors, the radio "utility" users would be free to buy blocks of time for their programs (if a certain music format has few listeners after 7PM, just don't buy time after 7PM).

Maybe some requirement for a variety of formats broadcast using the radio "utility", not all CHR or Country or Oldies or Urban...


Kirk Bayne

 

[Kelly A]

Radio as a "public utility" - maybe the USA freeway system provides a good example - Federal requirements - States built it/maintain it with private contractors - provided drivers follow the rules, they can drive on it.

Are you talking about Traveler's Information Services? Those are already peanut-powered AM stations in place used to announce highway traffic related information, not entertainment.

Gov standards would be used to build the radio market radio "utility", built to the standards with private contractors, the radio "utility" users would be free to buy blocks of time for their programs (if a certain music format has few listeners after 7PM, just don't buy time after 7PM).

Utilities aren't a form of entertainment. Utilities provide basic services for a modern society like: Sewer, Electric, Water, Landlines, and in some locations; steam heat. Radio is not a utility.

Maybe some requirement for a variety of formats broadcast using the radio "utility", not all CHR or Country or Oldies or Urban...

Again, public utilities don't include government-funded entertainment. Services like cable TV might carry that entertainment, but that's a contract with the cable provider, not the government. Here in the U.S. you might use the electricity to provide your individual form of entertainment, but that's up to the individual, not the city, state, or government.

 

[kfbkfb]

Probably a better analogy is that of a DAB multiplex - a Gov approved frequency must be used for the main signal and any off channel repeaters.

A private construction co could build the DAB transmitters (and repeaters) per gov spec + the "studio" and handle allocation and billing for the content providers that want to use the DAB system for their broadcasts.

The only gov involvement would be compliance with the DAB frequency spectrum requirement, transmitter(s) power level(s) and audio (and maybe video) codecs, the gov might choose to buy a segment of the DAB multiplex for gov info broadcasts, but it would be allocated and payed for the same as any commercial interest which wanted to broadcast w/DAB.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Miss Tuned]

DAB doesn't have "off-channel repeaters", Kirk. It's designed as a single frequency network - if you are listening to a national DAB multiplex, you can listen to the same frequency from border to border, or coast to coast, with no retuning.

Most countries with DAB already have a system like you describe - the government or regulator issues a license to a private company which then builds out a DAB multiplex across a country or region and rents out space to broadcasters, like a commercial landlord. The higher the bitrate, the more real estate they're taking up, the higher the rent.

There's a lot of misapprehension here as to the level of government involvement in broadcasting in Europe. Most European countries now have a strong and vibrant commercial radio scene and commercial operators are free to launch radio stations should they wish to. There is no heavy-handed regulator with an iron fist as some here seem to envision.

 

[davideduardo]

There's a lot of misapprehension here as to the level of government involvement in broadcasting in Europe. Most European countries now have a strong and vibrant commercial radio scene and commercial operators are free to launch radio stations should they wish to. There is no heavy-handed regulator with an iron fist as some here seem to envision.

However, in many of the European nations there is a state radio network or networks that employs public funding and / or a radio tax to provide service. The result is a government operation that competes with the private sector using public funds.

Unlike PBS, which tends to position itself as the "thinking person's" broadcast web, state operations like the BBC and RAI (Italy: three main networks and multiple regional ones) or Radio France (7 state-owned networks) to name three compete at the popular program level with newer commercial broadcasters.

Of course, each nation's state radio is unique, with some getting significant listening and others being to varying degrees less dominant.

 

[davideduardo]

DAB doesn't have "off-channel repeaters", Kirk. It's designed as a single frequency network - if you are listening to a national DAB multiplex, you can listen to the same frequency from border to border, or coast to coast, with no retuning.

However, based on reports from various friends in urban, suburban and more rural areas of the UK, the DAB is vastly less effective than FM. In areas with rugged terrain or in cities with ground floor apartments in urban settings, reception can be deficient or non-existent.

One of my friends, about 50 km NE of Liverpool and in a smaller city urban environment says that he can understand that as long as the government folks in London get a good signal, they think everyone else is happy. To listen to "local radio" in his flat, he has to stream the stations.

A friend in Sweden says about the same thing. He has a retreat in the northern part of the country where he used to have marvelous AM reception and acceptable FM signals; now he has no DAB reception at all and he gets a "we are working on a three year plan to fill in null areas" response.

 

[Kelly A]

However, based on reports from various friends in urban, suburban and more rural areas of the UK, the DAB is vastly less effective than FM. In areas with rugged terrain or in cities with ground floor apartments in urban settings, reception can be deficient or non-existent.

Agreed. DAB's relative failure in Europe, is a big reason it hasn't been considered for the U.S. Besides the coverage issues you mentioned, there is this little matter of who owns and maintains the technical infrastructure? Governments who funded the original DAB installations have lived to regret it. Not only was there a sizable loss of listeners when the switch-over happened, but the concern in the U.S. would be whether commercial broadcasters would be willing to help front the construction and maintenance costs to carry their formats. After several rounds of surveying major groups of the day, the answer was a resounding: no thanks. The last thing U.S. commercial or public broadcasters would want, is the federal or local governments to become more competition, effectively slicing a thinner pie into even smaller audience-pieces.
As mentioned before; Kirk seems to have neglected these new electronic devices which have become an extra appendage for most people. It's called a smartphone. Government funded radio featuring government funded entertainment programming, isn't going to replace the smartphone.

 

[Miss Tuned]

However, based on reports from various friends in urban, suburban and more rural areas of the UK, the DAB is vastly less effective than FM. In areas with rugged terrain or in cities with ground floor apartments in urban settings, reception can be deficient or non-existent.

One of my friends, about 50 km NE of Liverpool and in a smaller city urban environment says that he can understand that as long as the government folks in London get a good signal, they think everyone else is happy. To listen to "local radio" in his flat, he has to stream the stations.

A friend in Sweden says about the same thing. He has a retreat in the northern part of the country where he used to have marvelous AM reception and acceptable FM signals; now he has no DAB reception at all and he gets a "we are working on a three year plan to fill in null areas" response.

I think people have a tendency to look back at AM with rose-tinted glasses. It was always horrible - the audio was horrible, the reception would cut out if you drove under a small bridge or if you turned the fluorescent light on in the kitchen or if your neighbor turned on her TV. It's become worse in recent years, but it was never marvelous!

I'm not aware of any kind of switchoff of FM radio in either England or Sweden, so presumably both of your friends can still receive the FM signals they could previously receive. AM is pretty much a goner in both countries, but DAB has so far been an addition to FM in all but a very small number of European countries (Norway and Switzerland being the two with the furthest advanced switchoffs, and Germany having switched off a very small number of FM transmitters of the federal radio service Deutschlandfunk).

Some areas report improved reception on DAB compared to FM - I have a friend in rural northern Scotland who says that the DAB SFN works much better than FM in mountainous areas, which were plagued with multipath distortion and black spots. Part of the problem in urban areas is that in some places, existing FM sites have been used to transmit DAB which operates at a much higher frequency and struggles to penetrate buildings from a distance. You need more, smaller transmitters within towns rather than one big transmitter on a mountaintop as with FM.

 

[Kelly A]

I think people have a tendency to look back at AM with rose-tinted glasses. It was always horrible - the audio was horrible, the reception would cut out if you drove under a small bridge or if you turned the fluorescent light on in the kitchen or if your neighbor turned on her TV. It's become worse in recent years, but it was never marvelous!

Amen brother, amen.

Some areas report improved reception on DAB compared to FM - I have a friend in rural northern Scotland who says that the DAB SFN works much better than FM in mountainous areas, which were plagued with multipath distortion and black spots. Part of the problem in urban areas is that in some places, existing FM sites have been used to transmit DAB which operates at a much higher frequency and struggles to penetrate buildings from a distance. You need more, smaller transmitters within towns rather than one big transmitter on a mountaintop as with FM.

You're correct, many of the complaints and loss of listeners have been in urban environments. But that's also where the population density is highest.