• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Petition to the FCC: Create an LPAM radio service in the expanded band!

F

fjockey

New Participating Member
Please take a few minutes out of your busy day to read and sign my petition to the FCC at change.org. It urges them to finally create a Low Power AM Radio Service in the Expanded AM Band (1610 - 1700 kHz).

My proposal would enable individual citizens of low and moderate income (not just organizations) to get on the air, program whatever they wish, and have a fighting chance to earn a sustainable, full time income for their efforts. The start up costs for these stations should be less than ten thousand dollars.

A lot of us are angry over the FCC's recent actions concerning net neutrality. But I say, why stop at one issue? Attack them with two. They have had a great LPAM proposal sitting in their hoppers for TEN YEARS now, and all they've done is sit on their collective butts and ignore it. Let's make it so they can't ignore it anymore! Here's the link and thanks for your time:

https://www.change.org/petitions/wi...service-in-the-expanded-am-band-1610-1700-khz
 
So you think a petition is going to wake them up? Really? Have you ever dealt with the FCC?

The reality is that if community broadcasters really want an AM frequency, there are hundreds of them available right now in the main part of the band. It might be a daytimer, but isn't that better than LPAM in the expanded band that no radio can pick up?
 
TheBigA said:
The reality is that if community broadcasters really want an AM frequency, there are hundreds of them available right now in the main part of the band. It might be a daytimer, but isn't that better than LPAM in the expanded band that no radio can pick up?
Click to expand...

First of all, there are none available right now in my region (central New England) and if one or two were to become available, they would still be way out of the price range that people like me could buy or leverage. This is especially true in core urban areas like Boston. If reasonably priced AM's were available that covered the target areas of an unlicensed station such as Touch 106.1 FM, they would not have risked operating as a pirate for eight years before finally getting shut down. (Even the governor wanted to save them but couldn't.) As far as "no radios" picking up the expanded band, are you living in the same universe? All AM radios manufactured since 1988 have it, as well as most radios manufactured between 1933 and 1941 (the old police band). Also, many shortwave radios of any era can tune it. And don't underestimate those 1933-41 sets. The antique radio restoration hobby/industry recirculates thousands of them back into regular use each year. I, myself, have restored almost two dozen of these sets over the past 20 years, and even though their sound is not technically hi-fi, it is VERY pleasing to the human ear and far preferable to most post-modern, ultra narrow band AM junk.

As far as dealing with the FCC, you have to start somewhere. There are individuals who have who are sympathetic and willing to help.
 
fjockey said:
If reasonably priced AM's were available that covered the target areas of an unlicensed station such as Touch 106.1 FM, they would not have risked operating as a pirate for eight years before finally getting shut down.
Click to expand...

Groups similar to the people running Touch have been offered AM stations in other areas free of charge, and they've turned them down. They want to be on FM. They ain't fools. And most of the pirates I've seen in major areas are also on FM, not AM.
 
The other problem is, Who is going to pay for all of this?
It takes money to run a station 24/7.

There is likely to be an open FM channel here in Salt Lake City starting on Friday, as another community station goes under (KCPW-FM).
There are several AM's in the market that are silent. Why do a low-power, especially on the noise-plagued AM MW band, when there are more powerful facilities available for next to nothing?
 
fjockey said:
Please take a few minutes out of your busy day to read and sign my petition to the FCC at change.org. It urges them to finally create a Low Power AM Radio Service in the Expanded AM Band (1610 - 1700 kHz).
Click to expand...

Your idea fails the technical reality test.

10 watts in urban areas with very short antennas will produce a usable signal that covers, at best, a neighborhood or a portion of a suburb. Ground conductivity above 1600 in much of the country is such that coverage is very limited, and the noise levels common to cities is such that it takes about a 10 mV/m signal to be at all listenable.

100 watts in rural areas will not work unless limited to daytime use only. 1610 to 1700 are nearly short wave-like in night propagation, and a bunch of 100 watters would destroy the existing extended band operations with night interference. While 100 watts will serve a small town adequately, the absence of night operation makes such station very limited... plus the FCC has stated its intentions not to license new daytimers.

When the FCC mapped out the X-Band, they allocated as many new non-directional 10 kw day and 1 kw night facilities as would fit. So your idea that the band is underutilized is wrong.

Your facts on AM usage are also incorrect. AM has about a 17% share, nationally, of all listening. But when you look at cume (the equivalent of circulation) about 40% of all persons use AM at least once a week.

As much as 50% of AM listening is now in the car... partly due to programming and partly due to the noise in modern homes and workplaces making AM hard to hear... yet you propose a class of service that drivers would "drive out of" within minutes of tuning in. Not.

The real issue with AM is that in nearly every market, there are vastly more full coverage FMs than there are AMs. Most AMs in large metros are either not able to cover the whole market, day and night, or are daytimers. Your proposal makes this even worse.

Of course, as stated already by others, nobody wants an AM today.
 
Last edited:
Technical issues aside, the biggest problem with AM today (and even FM to some extent) is the programming. That's why Part 15 AM radio stations gather a great deal of interest wherever they may be - they're just not the same old same old, and actually use creativity in what they put over the air.

A Part 15 AM station, with todays rules, can expect to see around 1 mile of coverage with a car radio at the receiving end, significantly less for home radios. I would rather see the rules relaxed for Part 15 stations, to actually allow them to cover entire neighborhoods (as they can't now, at least legally).
 
geets said:
Technical issues aside, the biggest problem with AM today (and even FM to some extent) is the programming. That's why Part 15 AM radio stations gather a great deal of interest wherever they may be - they're just not the same old same old, and actually use creativity in what they put over the air.
Click to expand...

Oh come on...the only people who love Part 15s are the people who run them...mainly frustrated former radio people who want to play their own record collections on the air, and a few of their close friends. Most of them are computerized jukeboxes. And the ones I've heard are subject to a lot of the same interference issues as other AMs, except to a higher degree.

And if it wasn't for all the money in running religious LP stations, you'd see more of these personal jukeboxes as LPFMs.
 
; said:
Please take a few minutes out of your busy day to read and sign my petition to the FCC at change.org. It urges them to finally create a Low Power AM Radio Service in the Expanded AM Band (1610 - 1700 kHz).
Click to expand...

Good luck, we are still trying to get a C4 class for FM approved, and it is just going to public comment after three years. (RM-11727).
 
Groove1670 said:
Good luck, we are still trying to get a C4 class for FM approved, and it is just going to public comment after three years. (RM-11727).
Click to expand...

another C Class?....just to clutter the band more....a 6KW Class A going to 12KW as a C4 will not see much range increase...The BEST thing the FCC could do would be roll back ownership rules...but we KNOW that wont happen....when the FCC went beyond the 7/7/7 rule in the 80s, that was the start of the downhill slide....people out of work and less (not MORE) competition..
 
ContinuousWave said:
another C Class?....just to clutter the band more....a 6KW Class A going to 12KW as a C4 will not see much range increase...The BEST thing the FCC could do would be roll back ownership rules...but we KNOW that wont happen....when the FCC went beyond the 7/7/7 rule in the 80s, that was the start of the downhill slide....people out of work and less (not MORE) competition..
Click to expand...

Actually a few DB more will help many stations that currently serve towns with a better signal (in our case from 3.4 to 12KW). That few DB will allow us to city grade many towns that listen to existing stations now (just with a better signal). It will not create any additional interference. In most cases, we are protecting full class C station that are over 200 miles away.

There is a lot of competition out there. People choose to believe that only two companies own all the radio stations. Which is false.
 
Here is a copy of the Don Schellhardt petition. His proposal called for an LPAM service that closely mirrored TIS stations.

http://www.recnet.com/fcc/RM-11287_petition.pdf

And a revision:

http://recnet.com/fcc/RM-11287_revised.pdf

2005 may have been the wrong time to introduce the idea of an LPAM service. But now that the FCC through Commissioner Pai has shown renewed interest in AM, perhaps the timing is right to re-propose such a service. We know the FCC has been talking about opening a window for AM stations to file for FM translators. When that is done, the FM band will be finished. No more room.

It would have been nice if 1700 kHz could have been reserved for LPAM. This channel is generally prized among Part 15 broadcasters for its good propagation characteristics and low noise. As it is, there are only a handful of full power stations (seven I think) on 1700 and a few dozen TIS stations.
 
Carmine5 said:
Here is a copy of the Don Schellhardt petition. His proposal called for an LPAM service that closely mirrored TIS stations.

http://www.recnet.com/fcc/RM-11287_petition.pdf

And a revision:

http://recnet.com/fcc/RM-11287_revised.pdf


It would have been nice if 1700 kHz could have been reserved for LPAM. This channel is generally prized among Part 15 broadcasters for its good propagation characteristics and low noise. As it is, there are only a handful of full power stations (seven I think) on 1700 and a few dozen TIS stations.
Click to expand...

Actually, 1700 kHz recently went away in the NYC metro area. WRCR is firing up on 1700 kHz shortly. They have been testing sporadically.
 
TheBigA said:
Oh come on...the only people who love Part 15s are the people who run them...mainly frustrated former radio people who want to play their own record collections on the air, and a few of their close friends. Most of them are computerized jukeboxes. And the ones I've heard are subject to a lot of the same interference issues as other AMs, except to a higher degree.
Click to expand...

Careful, BigA, your cynicism is showing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom