WiMax the best way for broadcasters to get their (HD) programming into cars?

[Savage]

"We are letting technology cloud the basic issue." Excellently put, Chuck. It gets dismissed out-of-hand often here - but the problem with radio these days is: programming, Programming, PROGRAMMING!!

Drawing an analogy to Detroit: let's assume the state of the automotive art is as is is today: with the norm being 6-speed manu-matic transmissions, DOHC high-rev fuel-efficient engines, airbags, antilock braking and sat-nav systems, heated leather seating surfaces, auto-dimming headlights and heads-up displays.

The current radio industry is cranking out the equivalent of 4-door 1971 Chevys and explode-o-matic Pintos, with hard plastic seats and drum brakes. And the HD debate is such a diversion from the really important issues! It's as if we're arguing endlessly about which paint colors would sell more Chevys and Pintos.

We all need to think in terms of what the listeners want. You know, "listen to our listeners," instead of galloping ahead with completely unwarranted assumptions?

As in: "we need DIGITAL to win listeners back."

No we don't.

 

[R.F. Burns]

"As in: "we need DIGITAL to win listeners back."

No we don't."



Maybe you should rephrase that and say no 'I' don't. That may be true but if you look at the gross earnings of major market AM facilities it becomes obvious that the agencies really aren't buying those stations when compaired with FM sales and the reason is that AM demographics are age 45 to death. The number of younger listeners, those who equal agency buys on AM, is minimal and shrinking.

 

[Savage]

I agree with you, RF, that radio in general and AM specifically are experiencing a "relevancy crisis."

But I would argue that's mostly due to programming which doesn't fit the lifestyle needs of the typical consumer any more. If there was a way to survey listeners and potential listeners and pose the question, would you listen to the radio (AM or FM) MORE with IDENTICAL PROGRAMMING if that was delivered digitally instead of via analog, would you listen more?"

I would opine that the response would be, no. "I think the programming is too repetitive, boring, unadventuresome and content-free" would be the gist of what you would learn (of course as posited the question is far too obtuse for anyone to get a meaningful response.)

The ongoing HD debate is not only "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," it's rearranging those deck chairs on the WRECK of the Titanic sitting on the bottom of the North Atlantic. Pardon the pun but this ship sailed long ago. The longer the IBOC debate is prolonged the longer the radio industry avoids addressing the issues that are really stalling growth. AM is merely on the leading edge of the trend. The same problems exist in varying degrees for ALL radio.

 

[LinoNYC]

"We are letting technology cloud the basic issue." Excellently put, Chuck. It gets dismissed out-of-hand often here - but the problem with radio these days is: programming, Programming, PROGRAMMING!! ............................................................................................................
We all need to think in terms of what the listeners want. You know, "listen to our listeners," instead of galloping ahead with completely unwarranted assumptions?

As in: "we need DIGITAL to win listeners back."

No we don't.

This one again?

Ok, to keep this non-personal we'll speak in hypothetical scenarios: A broadcaster has a twenty year old AM facility with recently upgraded day power. Like most AM operators, to survive in the 21st century he's had to cut expenses to a bare miniimum. Additionally, he now features little, or no local programming and takes-in a large amount ot paid access.

Now suppose that same broadcaster woke up today and found himself with an FM facility, would his options not be far greater and his future alot brighter?

Ofcourse they would. Audio quality is the reason now and it was the reason AM lost the Top-40 generation 35 years ago.

Along comes something that, to the average listener puts AM on a degree of sonic parity with FM and this same hapless broadcaster says " we don't need it".

It's a good thing that this broadcaster friend of ours does not have to answer to stockholders.

Lino

 

[Savage]

Haw! Nice "non-personal" way to frame your argument, Lee-Know!

Nice "hypothetical!"

Thanks for proving conclusively that you are utterly incapable of engaging in the HD board discussions without attacking those with whom you disagree. With, I will add, a remarkable lack of class or decorum.

 

[LinoNYC]

Haw! Nice "non-personal" way to frame your argument, Lee-Know!

Nice "hypothetical!"

Thanks for proving conclusively that you are utterly incapable of engaging in the HD board discussions without attacking those with whom you disagree. With, I will add, a remarkable lack of class or decorum.

Speaking od "classless" thanks for making fun of my name although it's not as good as your "Captain Spanglish) etc. See I can play victim too....

Was anything in my post untrue? You know it's wasn't.

Bad audio has crippled AM with the listeners and your remarks are just denial.

Lino

 

[clouseau]

I agree with you, RF, that radio in general and AM specifically are experiencing a "relevancy crisis."

But I would argue that's mostly due to programming which doesn't fit the lifestyle needs of the typical consumer any more.

I think you're right on here, Savage. The general increasing irrelavancy of AM radio is caused by the "Older Demo" programming which comprises alost ALL AM programming anywhere. The programming IS the issue. But perhaps we should ask...

WHY IS THERE NO YOUNGER PROGRAMMING ON AM?

With the notable exception of Radio Disney, this is basically the case. Maybe we should ask, "Why can't AM radio get "over the Hump" with younger demos". And the answer is... It WAS. AM radio never failed to GET traction with younger demos. It actually got it's butt kicked off the dial because it could not even RETAIN younger demos. FM killed AM in the music formats. Everywhere in the country. (I'd like to say with a few notable exceptions, but I really can't even think of one.) You can attach any reason to WHY this happened. I would suggest inferior sound quality. You can say reception or the like, but I challenge almost anyone on this board to answer the foloowing questions.

Do you have an AM radio station with good reception where you are now?

There will be some who don't, but I will gues the answer for most is YES.

Does it play music? Overwhelmingly (with a very few exceptions) the answer will be NO. Why? Because AM can not compete with FM sound quality. It probably USED to. Now THAT format's evolution is on FM.

It's a two step procedure here. AM plays spoken word instead of music because of sound quality. Spoken word tends to skew older and be higher cost to produce. Answer? Run syndicated talk. This isn't rocket science, It's what happens.

Improved sound quiality = "Ability to play music". Playing music = "Ability to attract younger demos". Attact Younger demos = "Relevance".

You're right, Savage. The problem is not inferior sound quality alone. The problem is inabilty to program to younger demos. And that is CAUSED by inferior sound quality.

Clouseau

 

[Savage]

Ummm...good points, Clouseau, although I can't say I completely agree with some of them.

Talk (of all types) comprise the dominant formats because that's the path-of-least-resistance which has evolved on AM over the past 25 years; there were the usual runaway success stories using syndicated Rush-based N/T formats circa 1988 and a lot of other stations stampeded along, which has been the case with our industry since the demise of network long-form programming in the 1950s. Hit on a successful formula and watch 50 more stations imitate you. WYSL was one of the first four Rush Limbaugh affiliates in 1988. Once Rush took off I must have gotten three inquiries a day from other station operators asking about how they could get on board.

Of course after the passage of decades the market becomes saturated. And the percentage of stations following the lazy, "throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks" operational model increases too.

I was programming music formats on AM in the 1970s and 1980s against FMs when FM was enjoying its most rapid growth. Back in those pre-NRSC days audio quality may have been a contributing factor but the "quality" argument had far less to do with the intrinsic bandwidth and noise characteristics of AM, than it did an unfortunate "loudness war" processing culture brought on by multiband processing and limiting. The late 1970s saw BL-40 Modulimiters with 40% IMD and overdriven DAP 310's asymmetrically modulating 1950s plate-mod tube rigs into aging directional arrays. Results: listener fatigue. You so often heard the proud PD proclaiming: we're SOOO MUCH LOUDER than competitor KXXX! We're blowing them off the dial! My response: yeah, and you can do that with a diesel air horn too, but that won't make people actually want to listen.

Having been there, I can say: it was the same problem plaguing AM then, that bedevils it today: it was programming that was poorly adapted to the medium and failed to offer sufficient reasons to listen. If Disney can get subteens to listen to Hannah Montana on AM signals, if people are content to listen to the latest hits on itty bitty cellphones and 3.5 kHz bandpass mp3 downloads, I guess "quality" can't be the determining factor in lower-demo listening.

The ultimate fallacy pounded over and over and over is, IBOC is "the only answer." There is NEVER only "one answer" to any problem. And usually the "only answer" presented in such debates is the LEAST likely to produce a real solution.

 

[davideduardo]

Having been there, I can say: it was the same problem plaguing AM then, that bedevils it today: it was programming that was poorly adapted to the medium and failed to offer sufficient reasons to listen. If Disney can get subteens to listen to Hannah Montana on AM signals, if people are content to listen to the latest hits on itty bitty cellphones and 3.5 kHz bandpass mp3 downloads, I guess "quality" can't be the determining factor in lower-demo listening.

In the PPM in Houston, Disney shows no numbers. When under-55 starved stations like WTOP, KTAR and KSL move or simulcast on FM, the 35-54 listenership explodes.

What does that all say? That AM sounds crappy. Subteens, measured in PPM, do not listen to Disney even enough to meet the minimums for reporting in Houston. And the same programming that got no under-55 listening on AM suddenly gets impressive under-55 numbers when it is put on FM. About the only thing in commercial radio that will get any AM listening under 35 is sports, and then for short intervals.

Interestingly, FM radio has not lost much audience 18+... but the losses by AM are significant enough that they drag down the totals.

The latest news is that KSL, which IDed as KSL 1160 and KSL FM 102.7 now IDs as KSL FM 102.7 and 1160 AM. They have put the FM frequency ahead of the AM one, showing you what this venerable 1 A clear channel thinks its future looks like.

 

[Savage]

So a Salt Lake AM-FM has flipped the order in which it does its legal TOH breaks from AM-FM to FM-AM and that's supposed to make the case, that the only thing which will "save" AM is IBOC? Pardon me, but B-F-D. Neither this anecdote nor all the pedantic Arbitron and BIA number-spinning anyone can concoct will obscure the obvious truth: that if anything "is on life support" with no prospects but "certain death the instant the ventilator is switched off," it's IBOC, not AM radio.

Hello? The entire AM IBOC universe consists of 241 US AM stations, all of which are owned by iBiquity investors with the exception of about two dozen, and only a third of which are operating HD at night - that's less than TWO PERCENT of AM stations on the air. The implementation trend is gradually downward. There is NO growth in HD-AM on the broadcasting side. Accounts of unacceptable adjacent channel skywave interference continue to accumulate. iBiquity has thrown up its hands about the Citadel, Cox and CCU problems, saying there will be no further development of HD-AM beyond the current "state" of the "art." When it comes to HD-AM, it is what it is, and that's the unsatisfying end of the story. NOBODY is buying HD radios which continue to dwindle in availability. Receiver sales are an embarassing fraction of the most guarded projections and reportedly most of those units have been returned as defective. iBiquity had to bribe most receiver manufacturers to display ANY HD products at the most recent CES. To this day I have never had a single listener or advertiser comment or question about HD Radio. I do not know anyone who owns or listens to an HD Radio, nor does anyone in my wide circle of friends, relatives, associates or clients own an HD Radio - even the CE of a local major group with several HD-operating outlets doesn't own an HD Radio! In fact, I have met nobody outside the industry who even knows (or cares) what HD Radio is. And this is the business I've been in for almost 41 years!

If indeed, AM's only hope is to lure people to buy $200 cheesy HD boxes and camp out on the ground screens of 50kw stations to listen to the same progamming as the analog channel, in sparklingly artifact-cobbled fake AM stereo, the future of the band appears bleak. It would be depressing if I didn't know better, as do many others.

My station is having another record year - and in analog, go figure. Two good friends of mine, former Entercom executives, have bought and resuscitated two small market AMs and are having a ball and making money, doing what all of us have done throughout happier days in our careers - serving an audience and advertisers with local radio service.

I am struck by the contemptuous gloom with which IBOC supporters view not only AM radio, but radio in general. They continually preach Kahoutek-style imminent demise and strain mightily to force the defective IBOC-AM concept on a marketplace which couldn't care less. All the stubborn pro-IBOC blogging in the world will not get the HD-AM cadaver to respond to "just one more" application of the AED paddles.

Given the choices for music consumers and the incredible failure of corporate radio to respond meaningfully to current trends, I think that - far from being the near-term casualty - AM radio may well be the "last man standing" in broadcasting as music distribution choices continue their proliferation.

 

[davideduardo]

So a Salt Lake AM-FM has flipped the order in which it does its legal TOH breaks from AM-FM to FM-AM and that's supposed to make the case, that the only thing which will "save" AM is IBOC? Pardon me, but B-F-D. Neither this anecdote nor all the pedantic Arbitron and BIA number-spinning anyone can concoct will obscure the obvious truth: that if anything "is on life support" with no prospects but "certain death the instant the ventilator is switched off," it's IBOC, not AM radio.

I made no reference to HD. You have such an obsession with HD that you are reading it into discussions that don't even mention it.

My point is that, time and again, when traditional news talkers are moved to FM or simulcast with FM, the 25-54 numbers shoot up considerably. This, to me, is proof that AM is not viable no matter how good the programming if listeners under 40 or 45 are desired. FM reaches two generations who think that AM sounds bad or who do not even know AM exists.

Again, this has nothing to do with HD. As I have said, HD may help AM, but the band may well be beyond salvation.

Hello? The entire AM IBOC universe consists of 241 US AM stations, all of which are owned by iBiquity investors with the exception of about two dozen,

There are less than 250 viable AMs in the top 100 markets. Almost all of them are HD. That's all that are needed.

Given the choices for music consumers and the incredible failure of corporate radio to respond meaningfully to current trends, I think that - far from being the near-term casualty - AM radio may well be the "last man standing" in broadcasting as music distribution choices continue their proliferation.

The slow ratings and PUR declines of the last 20 years is mostly due to the ageing of AM and that band's inability to replace ageing listeners with ones under 55. FM is much more stable; AM is sure not someplace I would invest my money.

 

[Savage]

Well, let's see now. Is this an HD radio board or an audiophile's techie board? Seems like it's the former.

The subject under debate was whether HD provides "hope for AM" because it allegedly provides "better audio quality." HD proponents have endlessly chanted that digital is the "only" answer because of some supposed massive rejection of AM over "sound quality." You have echoed this sentiment numerous times in the past.

So are you abandoning this argument now?

Oh, wait. I see it now in your third 'graph, where you again declare you were not talking about HD, but then assert the point you claim you weren't making: "Again, this has nothing to do with HD. As I have said, HD may help AM, but the band may well be beyond salvation."

The other points I made about the state of HD-AM are unchallenged. Just for the record....

 

[Savage]

I forgot: yes, you are correct that the major AM signals in major markets represent the biggest chunk of listening to the band on an industry-wide basis. And it is true that most of those signals, being owned by the big groups who comprise iBiquity investment, are transmitting HD-AM, at least during the day.

And their audience size would be totally unaffected if every single one of them permanently turned off their HD exciters tomorrow. NOBODY is listening to HD-AM Radio. NOBODY cares about HD-AM or is even aware of it.

So the argument that IBOC offers "the only hope" for AM is totally unsupportable.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I forgot: yes, you are correct that the major AM signals in major markets represent the biggest chunk of listening to the band on an industry-wide basis. And it is true that most of those signals, being owned by the big groups who comprise iBiquity investment, are transmitting HD-AM, at least during the day.

And their audience size would be totally unaffected if every single one of them permanently turned off their HD exciters tomorrow. NOBODY is listening to HD-AM Radio. NOBODY cares about HD-AM or is even aware of it.

So the argument that IBOC offers "the only hope" for AM is totally unsupportable.

Agreed. AM or FM HD radio is doing nothing but cluttering the broadcast bands with powerful, totally unnecessary, nasty duel adjacent channel hiss.

Here is a thought, Savage. Since there are now very strong new HD radio signals deliberately co-located at HD stations, doesn't that set a new, much higher adjacent channel interference limit?
HD radio de facto supercedes all former adjacent channel protections for stations broadcasting the strong adjacent channel HD hiss.
Perhaps you could apply for a power increase based on the fact that former adjacent channel protections no longer exist.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

Bob:

My interpretation of the PRO-side's 'only hope' argument is that it's just a variation of the 'it's what we have' argument. Somehow, when one of these 'bobsey twin' arguments pops up...the other is usually not far behind.

In fairness though, they ARE right in that the infastructure / receiver availability for HD AM is further along than competing digital audio delivery technologies.

I happen to like FMeXtra. How many receivers available?...Only one that I know of, and even that's on a limited availability basis. How many stations running it?...Just a handful that I'm aware of......and US development seems to have stalled.

CAM-D?...No stations running it that I'm aware of, and no infastructure and no receivers, except perhaps for a handful of prototypes that might exist.

DRM?...Well, the Europeans seem to be facing some of the same implementation / adoption issues that the Alliance here is experiencing with IBOC. When the Europeans get their act together, perhaps the North American invasion can start......but not today.

WiMax?......Now THERE's something with the potential to have REAL LEGS. I happen to think it has the potential to leap-frog over the air HD. This, of course depends on how quickly the infastructure can be built out, and how affordable it can be offered to consumers. To me, the marketplace has proven time without number that the public WILL pay for services they deem to have value and utility in thier lives......but it's not ready TODAY.

Until one of the alternatives takes off, we may have to suffer along with the PRO-side's 'bobsey twin' arguments...

 

[LinoNYC]

I forgot: yes, you are correct that the major AM signals in major markets represent the biggest chunk of listening to the band on an industry-wide basis. And it is true that most of those signals, being owned by the big groups who comprise iBiquity investment, are transmitting HD-AM, at least during the day.

And their audience size would be totally unaffected if every single one of them permanently turned off their HD exciters tomorrow. NOBODY is listening to HD-AM Radio. NOBODY cares about HD-AM or is even aware of it.

So the argument that IBOC offers "the only hope" for AM is totally unsupportable.

Nationwide, AM radio's medians are all above 50, most well above.

The reason AM lost younger listeners 30+ years ago was sound quality.

AM radio today has the same (albeit smaller) audience as it had 40 years ago.

Once again, here in market #1 all but one of the sub-50K AM's are now religion, ethnic or leased.

Three of the 50K's are now vanity. These include the once legendary WNEW and WHN as well as WQXR.

None of the above ever get above a point-0 something in ratings, most get nothing at all.


Enough self-serving fantasy. The fact that you and many other operators have found a way to short-circuit the process of actually serving an audience by simply selling chunks of your airtime to whomever does not change the facts.

AM is dying, it's sound quality that's killing it, at this point iboc is the only/best hope to turn things around.

Quoting from your #60 reply: We all need to think in terms of what the listeners want. You know, "listen to our listeners," instead of galloping ahead with completely unwarranted assumptions?

In the context of your station, that is an ironic statement.

Lino

 

[Savage]

And once again you publicly prove that you are totally incapable of defending the "merits," such as they are, of HD-AM without levelling personal attacks at those with whom you disagree. You have never, occasionally or even once, made anything resembling a plausible case that HD will cure the problems you allege for AM radio.

In fact, over five years of experimental operation of HD-AM - including now about 6 months of 24-hour operation - prove that IBOC will NOT provide a solution. All it's doing is junking up the band with intolerable levels of noise and driving listeners away FASTER. Nobody is installing the thing, nobody's listening, and nobody's buying the radios. NOBODY CARES. If they did, the WOR you denigrate so arrogantly would have been magically lifted from the alleged slough of "vanity" programming thanks to the magic of HD-AM which the station has programmed - and promoted - since the inception of IBOC. If HD-AM is the wonderful solution you insist it is, where are the HD ratings success stories? (Name ONE attributable to IBOC.)

Go ahead and repetitively spew your iBiquity talking points. HD-AM continues to massively stiff in the marketplace. Nobody wants it except for a self-interested few. Looks like just about all of them post here.

 

[LinoNYC]

And once again you publicly prove that you are totally incapable of defending the "merits," such as they are, of HD-AM without levelling personal attacks at those with whom you disagree. You have never, occasionally or even once, made anything resembling a plausible case that HD will cure the problems you allege for AM radio.

On the contrary, that's all I, and others here have been doing.

Instead of discussing the technical issues and implementation we've been derailed by stupid or self-serving diatribes.

As for " levelling personal attacks at those with whom you disagree" please, that's been you stock-and-trade here.

I guess you don't see the irony in the quote I mentioned in my previous post. Coming here lecturing people on programming is really bizarre.

In fact, over five years of experimental operation of HD-AM - including now about 6 months of 24-hour operation - prove that IBOC will NOT provide a solution

As allways you purposely ignore the fact that up untill now, only a few specialty radios have been available.

You can wish and hope all you like, but untill we have iboc embedded in the common radios that consumers actually buy, we won't have a verdict on AM iboc. That process will begin this year with the next generation of decoder chips, and it will take atleast 6 years for adequate market penetration.

All it's doing is junking up the band with intolerable levels of noise and driving listeners away FASTER.

Another assertion that you and the others make routinely. Got any hard, authoritative numbers on that? So far it appears that AM iboc has neither hurt nor helped AM.

Given that we are "almost six months" into 24hr AM iboc, where is all that public outrage?

NOBODY CARES. If they did, the WOR you denigrate so arrogantly would have been magically lifted from the alleged slough of "vanity" programming thanks to the magic of HD-AM which the station has programmed - and promoted - since the inception of IBOC.

All that snow up there must be getting to you, nobody mentioned WOR in any context. To refresh your memory, the 50K vanities are: WEPN(WHN) WBBR (WNEW) and WQEW -radio Disney.

Go ahead and repetitively spew your iBiquity talking points. HD-AM continues to massively stiff in the marketplace. Nobody wants it except for a self-interested few. Looks like just about all of them post here.

My "talking points" are my own experiences, I don't give a damn about ibiquity.
I've used the system daily since Nov 2006, it works well for FM reasonably well for AM (1 of the seven stations is not reliable, WCBS).

Here comes more "doom and gloom" if you add together the advancing age of AM listeners, their declining numbers and near zero listenership under 45, along with the slow migration of AM's only viable formats to FM, it becomes plain that the band will be a very different and grim place in ten years if nothing is done.

AM iboc works. It will truncate coverage but it will provide the tools to prevent it's complete elimination or abandonment to whoring.

Lino

 

[vsa]

I forgot: yes, you are correct that the major AM signals in major markets represent the biggest chunk of listening to the band on an industry-wide basis.  And it is true that most of those signals, being owned by the big groups who comprise iBiquity investment, are transmitting HD-AM, at least during the day.

And their audience size would be totally unaffected if every single one of them permanently turned off their HD exciters tomorrow.  NOBODY is listening to HD-AM Radio.  NOBODY cares about HD-AM or is even aware of it.

So the argument that IBOC offers "the only hope" for AM is totally unsupportable.

...The reason AM lost younger listeners 30+ years ago was sound quality...



Lino

Sound quality was only part of the reason for AM's fall from favor among the young. Heavy spotloads contributed greatly.

In Los Angeles, as a teenager in the 1960's, I discovered the likes of Judy Collins and Joan Baez weeknight's at 9 during the folk music hour on KRHM (now KIIS-FM). Tom Donohue's KPPC-FM (now KROQ) then came along with an awesome progressive rock format. Most of the crew moved over to KMET and the rest is history. Meanwhile, AM radio rolled on with extremely heavy spotloads while being completely oblivious to an emerging revolution in music and radio. I would have listened to it on shortwave if it had been neccessary. By the time some AMers caught on it was too late. Perceptions had changed and became permanent.

For older adults, there were better choices with much lighter spotloads. The AM dial had one beatutiful music format during the 60's and 70's while the FM dial had three, four or more at times - almost all with better full-market signals than the AM which had been number one rated in L-A until around 1970.

The big AM signals gravitated to news, talk and full-service formats which could better support the already heavy spotloads.

FM eventually won the music audiences thanks lighter spotloads, better choice of music availability, more strong full market signals and better audio quality with less interference.

HD AM Radio only partially solves an audio quality problem over short distances only. All of the other problems remain - the chief one being perceptions of what's NOT on the AM dial. In other words, not much worth listening to, unless you love spots, infomercials, Korean radio, weak signals, etc.

 

[Chuck]

Sound quality was only part of the reason for AM's fall from favor among the young. Heavy spot-loads contributed greatly.

I've always appreciated good quality audio, but that is not why I started listening to FM. In fact my first FM car radio was just a converter that played through the factory AM radio in my '66 Mustang. If anything, it sounded worst than reception on AM.

The reason I wanted FM (and was willing to pay the equivalent of about $300 of today’s dollars for it) was there were FM stations that played the music I wanted to hear without a ten minute break for commercials after every two or three songs. Some FM stations only had a couple of stop sets per hour. Four was more normal, but those only lasted a minute or two, unless they were doing news or weather. They didn't get in the way of what I wanted to hear. Today it is possible to listen to a major market station for 10-15 minutes and not be really sure what its music format is. It is all spots and liners. I don't have the patience for that, so more of the than not, I choose to push the XM button, play a CD or listen to some mp3's. I suspect that I’m not alone. I think there is a lesson to be learned from radio’s past failures.

I know someone will chime in and say, "...but radios is a business." Fair enough. I'm all for making a profit, but there is a point where the profit making ability diminishes the worth of the over-all product. Somewhere there is a happy balance. With some notable exceptions, I think radio has tipped the scale in the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, AM radio rolled on with extremely heavy spotloads while being completely oblivious to an emerging revolution in music and radio. I would have listened to it on shortwave if it had been neccessary.

Actually, in the 1960's, I remember listening to "British Rock" on short-wave. It was the only place you could hear it. Sound quality was fairly abysmal, but the content wasn't. I know most of the kids in my high school did not have a short-wave radio or a tape recorder, but several did. Those of us who had them listened, swapped tapes and found out that we were able to "predict" what was going to be a hot hit here the USA. It wasn't as easy as file sharing mp3's, but the concept was the same.

HD AM Radio only partially solves an audio quality problem over short distances only. All of the other problems remain - the chief one being perceptions of what's NOT on the AM dial. In other words, not much worth listening to, unless you love spots, infomercials, Korean radio, weak signals, etc.

I find it very hard to believe that someone with a little creativity can’t come up with a format that would work on AM that would attract the under 35 market. Sports programming comes to mind as an easy solution. Most males from high school to well beyond are interested. So are some women. I believe "The Ticket" in Dallas does reasonably well with their sports-talk format on AM. Sure, it is not “Number 1” but I think they are making money while providing something people actually want to listen to.

Since one of AM's strong points is the ability to sound good on human voice, how about comedy inspired radio? Most morning shows are mostly talk using locker room humor. They occasionally play music. Maybe someone could build on that idea. It is also important to note that you do not have to be the number one station in a market to make a decent living. It is OK to be someone's second choice radio station. Most car radios have lots of push-buttons. You want to be one of them.

As long as radio continues to be run by someone whose middle name is "Venture Capital," the only thing that will matter is making a profit. Making money is their entire purpose in life and their name says it all. Maybe after they all give up and go away, some stations will be available for people with a passion for broadcasting. I hope there is something left to be passionate over.

As it stands, it is hard to understand why anyone, regardless of the age group, would seriously listen to what is on most of AM. Putting the "Colon Blow" program on the air in glorious HD is not going to fix the problem. On the other hand, I know of some AM operators who seem to be making a good living by running this kind of stuff. Perhaps you have to first define what you want out of life. Maybe the rest will follow.