Why did FM succeed?

[TheBigA]

As long as you do no harm to anyone but yourself.

At the end of the day, the buck stops in one place: The FCC. They screwed the pooch here.

 

[Ai4i]

The simple truth is that Eureka 147 is universally recognized as the correct way to have terrestrial digital radio but was kept out of the United States to protect stick value. Watch as Hanover Fiste describes what fate should befall both the NAB and the FCC.

 

[tomservo]

Wasn't Eureka-147 trialed in Canada and shut down due to lack of interest and poor coverage?

 

[davideduardo]

Wasn't Eureka-147 trialed in Canada and shut down due to lack of interest and poor coverage?

Correct. But I think the "trials" included quite a few stations... we could likely find more info from Yeziknoradio or from Scott Fybush, who follows Canadian broadcasting.

 

[semoochie]

Eureka 147 was kept out of the United States because the federal government refused to relinquish the frequencies that would have made it possible, forcing radio to look for an in-band solution. Let's not make more out of this than it is.

 

[davideduardo]

Eureka 147 was kept out of the United States because the federal government refused to relinquish the frequencies that would have made it possible, forcing radio to look for an in-band solution. Let's not make more out of this than it is.

That still does not explain why it failed in Canada, and has not been implemented anywhere significant in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Savage]

This is somewhat hearsay, but I did get it from a couple of secondary sources so I tend to believe it. The problem Industry Canada found with Eureka-147 was that while it worked okay in a densely-populated area like Europe, it just wasn't practical in Canada because the average population density is exceeded by corresponding numbers of moose. (Not literally... )

There are really only two densely populated areas of Canada - eastern Ontario and Quebec, within 70 miles of the US border, where about 80% of the people live, and a pocket around the Pacific Northwest. Eureka-147 would require just too many pods to cover the mostly-remote populace to be practicable.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Digital Audio Broadcasting, (DAB, as we called it in Canada) failed miserably because people weren't willing to rush out and buy new radios.

Plus, those DAB radios were available to Canadians roughly 3 or 4 years too late.

The business(es) that were selling those radios would have made a killing because of the regulations in the early to mid 90's.

In Canada, it was illegal to do top 40 on FM due to a 49% non hit rule for FM. (Canadian hits were excused for the first year, but only the first year)

If not impossible, it was very difficult to do top 40 on FM.

My favorite example would be AM 640, Toronto's last ever AM top 40 station.
Heck they could have even handed DAB radios out for free if they wanted to keep people listening to AM on a new device!
Can you imagine if you were one of the lucky ones to win a DAB radio from AM 640? Then 3 other friends were to suddenly WANT one?

Unfortunantly, by 1995, AM 640 decided to pull the plug on top 40 and go all talk.

DAB came to be around 1998 (or so).

AM by that time was all about the mono sound (oldies and classic country) and talk radio.

There were several radio ads for DAB claiming "radio's future is DAB", but by that time people just weren't into the whole "it sounds like a cd" concept, and the 49% non hit rule was long gone.

Making AM sound like FM (if not cd quality) would have been far more effective in 1995.

Most importantly, when people do talk radio, who cares if it's Mono or Stereo anyway?

 

[JimmyJames]

That wouldn't solve the population density problem though.

 

[tomservo]

Most importantly, when people do talk radio, who cares if it's Mono or Stereo anyway?

It really doesn't matter, but having stereo imaging and commercials can make them "pop" out compared to the speech programming.

Some (but not all, apparently) public radio stations have access to the stereo feed of speech programs like All Things Considered and Marketplace, and it sounds really good when they segue from one segment to another with music.

I only know of one FM talker offhand that's stereo and makes a point to do their own spots and stuff in stereo and that's WYDE-FM out of Birmingham. Trouble for them is their stick is a good 40 miles north of the city, so radios that don't blend to mono effectively pass through a ton of static, which makes listening more difficult.

 

[audioguy]

Zach,

WLS-AM is talk, with commercials in stereo. They are running C-QUAM, and you can hear them over a large part of the country (at least the central part) at night.

 

[davideduardo]

That wouldn't solve the population density problem though.

A third of Canada's population lives in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. Per the '06 census, about 55% of the population lives in the top 10 metro areas.

DAB could have covered nearly 75% of the population with just 25 cities active.

 

[Savage]

True, but that's contrary to governmental policy as dictated by Industry Canada. There is a lot of official concern about telecommunications and broadcast service to the interior of the country. That's why all the big AM signals clustered around the border metropolitan centers are directional northward, to provide as much service as possible to remote population.

 

[davideduardo]

True, but that's contrary to governmental policy as dictated by Industry Canada. There is a lot of official concern about telecommunications and broadcast service to the interior of the country. That's why all the big AM signals clustered around the border metropolitan centers are directional northward, to provide as much service as possible to remote population.

I think you will find that with very few exceptions that directional Canadian AMs of 10 kw or more operate that way to protect older operations on the same channel in the US, or to protect US and Mexican clear channels.

Canada allowed 10 kw on local channels (Then called Class IV) when the US only permitted 250 watts at night; they allowed up to 50 kw on regional channels about 30 years before the Us started allowinng powers above 5 kw. The result is a lot of highly directional stations that did or still do put huge signals over the metro.

On the other hand, many of the biggest CBC stations (Before the CBC began closing them) were non-directional... 540, 740, 860, 690, 940, 1070, 730.

Were rural coverage so precious, Canada would not have allowed half of its AM stations to move to FM. In any case, most remote coverage by the CBC in the past was achieved by low power relay transmitters on AM at, mostly, CN railway stations.

 

[Montreal radio listener]

On the other hand, many of the biggest CBC stations (Before the CBC began closing them) were non-directional... 540, 740, 860, 690, 940, 1070, 730.

The CBC never operated any big signal on 730 and I don't even think they ever used that frequency for one of their small (40 watts) repeaters at any point. However they have used, and still use 990 for CBW in Winnipeg (50 kW-D / 46 kW-N, ND).

I have been told that CKAC 730 in Montreal (50 kW-U, DA-1) is not forced by international treaties to use a directional antenna, and that they chose to use a directional antenna only because they were forced by the federal government to use a transmitter site that was, in their opinion, too far away from downtown Montreal. Not sure if this is true or not. I do know that they wanted to use 50 kW fulltime as early as 1930, but were only able to do so in 1957 or 1958.

 

[Montreal radio listener]

True, but that's contrary to governmental policy as dictated by Industry Canada. There is a lot of official concern about telecommunications and broadcast service to the interior of the country. That's why all the big AM signals clustered around the border metropolitan centers are directional northward, to provide as much service as possible to remote population.

Were rural coverage so precious, Canada would not have allowed half of its AM stations to move to FM. In any case, most remote coverage by the CBC in the past was achieved by low power relay transmitters on AM at, mostly, CN railway stations.

When the CBC moved their stations from AM to FM in Central and Eastern Canada, in almost every case this did not result in any loss of useful coverage as they have so many repeaters. One exception was the Montreal stations, and the problems were largely fixed thanks to power increases and additional repeaters.

Most AM-to-FM moves by private stations until the early 2000s actually resulted in improved coverage, especially at night. In many cases those moves were requested precisely for coverage reasons (and also to decrease transmitter costs).

More recent AM-to-FM moves did often result in decreased or even downright bad coverage. In many cases it was thought that having a decreased coverage on FM was preferable to being the only remaining AM station in the market. Many of these stations would have been better advised to apply for an FM repeater (which is now allowed by the CRTC) instead of an AM-to-FM flip, unfortunately some people seem to be blinded by an anti-AM mentality and fail to realize that if people can't get a good signal they won't listen to the station even though it is on FM.

 

[Montreal radio listener]

Most importantly, when people do talk radio, who cares if it's Mono or Stereo anyway?

It really doesn't matter, but having stereo imaging and commercials can make them "pop" out compared to the speech programming.

Is it really advisable to have commercials that "pop out compared to the speech programming"? I know this may sound crazy, and I understand how private stations make their money, but at the same time it seems to me that if commercials stand out too much, it will encourage some listeners to change stations, and obviously decreased ratings can't be a good thing.

 

[arnoldevns]

Lots of people have listed many good reasons for why FM succeeded. How to make digital or "HD" succeed is a completely different issue.

My two cents:

1. FM was a better technology than AM for music and was affordable to most people.
2. Technologicial improvements for AM were late in coming and the FCC did not help much. Stereo could have slowed the demise of music AM stations if a standard had been adopted early and stuck to by the FCC along with some other technological improvements like AMAX and decluttering the band.
3. Regardless of what YOU think of it, the public does not see HD radio as so much better than regular FM that they just "have to have it!" It's also far more expensive than standard FM or AM radios. It is a failed technology that is dying off rather quickly.
4. At this point all broadcast radio stations are fighting a losing battle for listeners with other mediums like ipods and the internet. News, sports, music and entertainment of all kinds can be found on the internet and are easy for many to access with their smart phones and other internet enabled portable devices.
5. Stations need to be programmed locally, heavily promote themselves and run programming the local audience will not get anywhere else. Stations that do that will survive. The others will not. It really is that simple.

 

[TheBigA]

4. At this point all broadcast radio stations are fighting a losing battle for listeners with other mediums like ipods and the internet. News, sports, music and entertainment of all kinds can be found on the internet and are easy for many to access with their smart phones and other internet enabled portable devices.
5. Stations need to be programmed locally, heavily promote themselves and run programming the local audience will not get anywhere else. Stations that do that will survive. The others will not. It really is that simple.

Points 4 and 5 contradict. On the one hand, you say ipods and internet are growing. On the other hand you say radio needs to be local. Neither ipods not internet are local. Public radio, which depends on its national programming, is also growing. Clearly, this idea that stations need to be programmed localled is wrong. If localism was so popular, listeners wouldn't be turning to internet, satellite, and NPR.

 

[arnoldevns]

4. At this point all broadcast radio stations are fighting a losing battle for listeners with other mediums like ipods and the internet. News, sports, music and entertainment of all kinds can be found on the internet and are easy for many to access with their smart phones and other internet enabled portable devices.
5. Stations need to be programmed locally, heavily promote themselves and run programming the local audience will not get anywhere else. Stations that do that will survive. The others will not. It really is that simple.

Points 4 and 5 contradict. On the one hand, you say ipods and internet are growing. On the other hand you say radio needs to be local. Neither ipods not internet are local. Public radio, which depends on its national programming, is also growing. Clearly, this idea that stations need to be programmed localled is wrong. If localism was so popular, listeners wouldn't be turning to internet, satellite, and NPR.

They don't contradict at all. Most stations are not programmed locally anymore. That is the problem. Localism works, it is just not being tried in many places anymore.