WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE FCC DECIDED TO CLOSE DOWN THE AM BAND?

[Tom Wells]

Whether anything is "declared" to be decommissioned makes no difference to the laws of physics and the behavior of
specific wavelengths.


If we the declare that all communications shall be short range due to fear of lack of "control" of skywave signals,
we should be so honest as to admit that that is what we're calling for.

Radio that cannot skywave or tropo is merely a big megaphone, and of "lesser" interest to me.

I'd like to see a thinning that reflects, in an updated way, the old local, regional and clear designations, along with
a repacking of clears to the low end of MW BC, the regionals to the middle band, and the locals on the shortest wavelengths.

Of course, I'd also like the FCC to enforce meaningful part 15 rules upon manufacturers of all electronics sold in the US.
Not just some fuzzy wuzzy spectral broadband measurements, but some measurements that equate in a meaningful way with the sensitivity of normal ( not the new dumbed-down one chip autodyne type) AM radios.

 

[TheBigA]

Physics is one thing, but history is another. The first law of history is the future won't be like the past. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. And the regulators today have different life experiences from those who drew up regulations 40 years ago.

 

[Tom Wells]

Physics is one thing, but history is another. The first law of history is the future won't be like the past. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. And the regulators today have different life experiences from those who drew up regulations 40 years ago.

None of this will make any difference to the physical laws which bind the universe we seem to experience.

Any useful frequency or range of frequencies can be polluted beyond use, but the actual useful nature will exist as long as this physical reality.

 

[PhoenixPark]

What we in North America know as the "AM band" goes under the sobriquet of "mediumwave" elsewhere in the world. Anywhere in the world, it is vulnerable to all manner of electrical/electronic disturbances - whether generated by mother nature or human-created interference. So many theories have been advanced about improved and more effective mediumwave radio, including trimming back the number of stations to a select few running "superpower" (500,000 watts or better) as well as true enforcement of Part 15 regulations especially regarding power transmission and a growing number of household and business-related appliances radiating hash up and down the band. If either or both of these proposals were brought to the fore and enforced, the ultimate issue would become programme content - entertainment, pure information or emergency communications. After all, it was programme content and technology that finally rendered Major Armstrong's invention economically viable 40 years after he came up with FM. Finally in the '60s, the boomers embraced FM and what they found there. Technology finally caught up with the demand with vastly-improved solid state receivers for home, vehicle and portable use. It represented the coalescing of technology(ies) and a powerful social dynamic including the listeners, music and its presentation. If "AM" is to survive, it will require a series of events and innovations as well as the perception that there is something there worth listening time.

 

[TheBigA]

If "AM" is to survive, it will require a series of events and innovations as well as the perception that there is something there worth listening time.

There's nothing of a programming nature that is so exclusive and in such demand that will cause large numbers of people to rediscover AM. The real challenge now is keeping them listening to FM, because content has become so individualized.

The other problem is that electronics manufacturers are no longer innovating new or exciting devices that include AM & FM. They don't even want to activate FM clips in phones. For them it's all about new phones, mp3 players, and making internet reception more like OTA radio. When you don't have the support of manufacturers, as FM did in the 70s, there's not much programmers can do.

 

[Tom Wells]

Well, we could make fun of how bad music sounds on a cell phone, and that's not hard at all.

It's a such an easy cheap shot.

On-Air personalities just need throw a few comments to get people to realize how bad streaming audio sounds on cell phones.

No one will ever spend enough money to make cell-phone internet reception equivalent to OTA.
The very idea is laughable. It could be done, but the phone companies will not spend the money.
IF we had a "less competetive" system, there would be much better coverage, but here in the US, we decided
it was better to let corporations rape us over the presumed benefits of competition.

In some OTHER countires ANY phone can access ANY cell site, and coverage hands over from one cell to another,
EVEN while you are in the middle of a phone call.

I remember when analog systems were in use in the US, and I spent a lot less time asking people to repeat themselves
because you could clearly distinguish what the were saying instead of being digitally garbled beyond intelligibility.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Well, we could make fun of how bad music sounds on a cell phone, and that's not hard at all.

It's a such an easy cheap shot.

On-Air personalities just need throw a few comments to get people to realize how bad streaming audio sounds on cell phones.

First: When the music medium most used by young people today is bit-rate-compressed MP3 files listened to with ear buds, the poor quality argument is irrelevant.

Second: When radio stations are transmitting both OTA and on the Internet, telling them how bad it sounds on the 'net just isn't going to happen.

We are way beyond the era where audio quality mattered.

 

[CTListener]

Well, we could make fun of how bad music sounds on a cell phone, and that's not hard at all.

It's a such an easy cheap shot.

On-Air personalities just need throw a few comments to get people to realize how bad streaming audio sounds on cell phones.

First: When the music medium most used by young people today is bit-rate-compressed MP3 files listened to with ear buds, the poor quality argument is irrelevant.

Second: When radio stations are transmitting both OTA and on the Internet, telling them how bad it sounds on the 'net just isn't going to happen.

We are way beyond the era where audio quality mattered.

Sirius XM declared audio quality a non-starter years ago. Every time they introduce new celebrity-branded channels or sign a new sports play-by-play deal, the audio quality of the music channels is lowered. Yet the company continues to add subscribers and churn remains acceptable. Audiophiles matter about as much as oldies geeks complaining about the tight decades playlists -- not one bit.

 

[MickeyD]

Medium wave spectrum isn't valuable to the FCC for broadband, 4G, 5G, 18G or anything else. Not valuable because it's a very small slice of spectrum, very low on "the dial" and prone to electrical noise and skywave.

Ha, imagine that. Getting broadband over skywave...

Old-timers will tell you about getting police calls over skywave, back when the police band was just below the 160-meter ham band, in the 1700-1800 kHz range.

Yes indeed. A screw driver and a tweak of the trimmer cap and you could hear all of them.

 

[spt87]

Well, we could make fun of how bad music sounds on a cell phone, and that's not hard at all.

It's a such an easy cheap shot.

On-Air personalities just need throw a few comments to get people to realize how bad streaming audio sounds on cell phones.

And this highlights that a big part of the problem isn't audio quality on the AM band - it is programming content, perceived "coolness" factor, and other intangibles. I see/hear people listening to music on cell phones using the built in speaker frequently while commuting and it reminds me of listening to AM on a small, 9-volt transistor radio when I was a kid - pretty comparable audio quality but listening on the phone is cool, on the AM radio is not.

How many AMs ditched successful formats to flip to news/talk because that was the thing to do; I heard one PD in the early 1990's on air trash AM audio quality during a call in show in which listeners complained about the switch - told them to get music on FM. How many imploded because they were purchased from long time, stable owners for WAY too much money and were cost cut to death (literally) in an attempt to make the loan payments and still turn a profit.

I've proposed this before, but its worth repeating. Make the radios have a unified tuner that scans from 530Khz to 108Mhz with a gap/skip between the bands. Then no one would have to push a button to flip bands - they would just find stuff by accident and may stay around - so long as there is something worthwhile to find.

 

[TheBigA]

How many AMs ditched successful formats to flip to news/talk because that was the thing to do;

In his book Rockin' America, Rick Sklar noted the decline of WABC-AM's ratings in the 70s that ultimately led to them dropping music for talk. WNBC continued with a music format for a few more years, with Imus and Howard Stern as DJs, but even they couldn't come close to the ratings of WKTU and 99X. These stations didn't flip to news/talk because it was "the thing to do." They did it because the audience had left and gone to FM. Had it not been for the rise of news/talk in the early 90s, the death of AM would have been accelerated.

 

[cefgw]

...For an example during Critical Hours in late fall/winter, WWKB and semi-local WCHE get buried by skywave from a 500 kW station in China, and a 2000 kW monster in NW Saudi Arabia on 1521 kHz.

Thanks for that info. ;D I didn't know where the 1521 kHz signal (or two) was coming from. This is why I appreciate these info boards.