• 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

Radio is Dead (and not just AM)

FredLeonard said:
C. Crane used to offer a car radio antenna designed to pick up weaker AM signals - no more. I guess people weren't buying them. They now have one indoor AM antenna and a couple of signal boosters. AM is dying.
Click to expand...

THe C Crane AM antenna I recall was a little device that you put on the tip or your car's whip antenna which was, supposedly, like top loading. It's purpose was to make the antenna behave like it was longer.

Few cars have whip antennas, which is why C Crane likely dropped the item.
 
The C Crane antenna I got was a replacement whip antenna. It had a coil at the base and could be extended to a longer length/height than regular antennas. It really did get good reception on otherwise weak or fringe AM stations. There was a high-band class D AM about 60 miles from me that played (old, original) Westwood One's "AM Only" format that was very listenable (not perfect but not bad) with the antenna. New York stations 90 miles away came in as well as they did when I was kid in cars with tube radios. But then somebody put IBOC on a station on an adjacent frequency and I lost AM Only. After several years (over two different cars), I couldn't extend the antenna without it sliding back down. I wanted to get another one but C Crane didn't sell them any more. Now, they've got a bunch of WiFi antennas, which may say something about how the world is changing.
 
One guy couldn't find anything he wanted to listen to during a drive through one of the most desolate places on the continent. BURN ALL RADIO STATIONS TO THE GROUND!!!! THEY'RE USELESS!!! INTERNET RADIO IS NOW!!!

Does that about sum it up?

PS. You wouldn't have been able to stream out there either.
 
Ravens said:
One guy couldn't find anything he wanted to listen to during a drive through one of the most desolate places on the continent. BURN ALL RADIO STATIONS TO THE GROUND!!!! THEY'RE USELESS!!! INTERNET RADIO IS NOW!!!

Does that about sum it up?

PS. You wouldn't have been able to stream out there either.
Click to expand...

No, does not "sum it up" at all.

First, I-10 between Phoenix and Palm Springs is not "desolate". There is a portion of the trip (about 50 miles) during which you don't see much from the freeway but there are small communities located off the freeway (not large enough to host radio stations though). One you hit Quartzite heading west there are a solid stream of small communities all the way into the L.A. basin - however, there are also some big hills which can and do affect radio signals - a problem even in metro L.A. itself.

While I didn't attempt to make any cell calls while traveling I did take a look at the signal indicator every now and then and I usually had at least two bars if not more. There are several rest areas along the way and those seemed to have cell connectivity as well as something called "safe phone".

And, my OP said nothing about dash wifi or mobile Internet connectivity. That was a topic raised by subsequent posters. I am personally not a big proponent of mobile Internet as I see it as yet another distraction that drivers cannot handle safely. If I were a vehicle safety dictator I would mandate navigation systems could not be updated unless the vehicle was stopped and in 'park'.

I have been driving that route since the 60's and it used to be that you could tune in (mostly AM) stations almost continuously from the outskirts of Phoenix all the way to the ocean. Not any longer. That was my point.
 
Last edited:
Lots of people in big cities can't find anything to listen to, either. So, they stop listening to terrestrial radio. That sums it up.
 
landtuna said:
First, I-10 between Phoenix and Palm Springs is not "desolate".
Click to expand...

Once you leave Buckeye and till you get to Quartzite you are in the ever-fringier signal area of the Phoenix stations.

There is a portion of the trip (about 50 miles) during which you don't see much from the freeway but there are small communities located off the freeway (not large enough to host radio stations though). One you hit Quartzite heading west there are a solid stream of small communities all the way into the L.A. basin
Click to expand...

Those little communities between the PHX uban area are truly tiny, often a collection of mobile homes and RV units.

Then there is tiny Quartzite and very small Blythe (where the local AM could not make money and turned in its license) and then there are 140 miles of nothing except a state prison and the nearing-zero population Desert Center. Then you get to the Palm Springs / Coachella Valley metro, with nearly a half million people which is hardly a "stream of small communities". And it has 40 AM, FM, higher power translators and LPFMs.

After that, you are in the Riverside / San Bernardino market, a metro of 2.5 million and the 26th largest metro in the US.

So the only small communities between the outskirts of Phoenix and the large Palm Springs metro are Quartzite and Blythe with Brenda, population about 500, the next largest. That's a pretty good description of "desolate". What I don't see is any "solid stream" of communities save an occasional gas station with a couple of mobile homes.

however, there are also some big hills which can and do affect radio signals - a problem even in metro L.A. itself.
Click to expand...

Not really. Except for the part of the LA market behind the mountains (Lancaster / Palmdale) and deepest part of Orange County (San Clemente and south) the Mt Wilson Class B stations cover the whole market quite well.

Just like Phoenix, there are some FMs that are rimshots or low power Class A facilities that don't cover the market well, but the hills, save for the Santa Monica Mountains, don't cause significant issues inside the LA Metro. Sa,e scenario for AM. Just as in Phoenix, there are only a couple of full signal stations in the market.

After reading your comments, I really have to think that you had either a broken antenna connection or a really horrible radio as signal issues are not a problem for the significant stations in LA, either AM or FM.

I have been driving that route since the 60's and it used to be that you could tune in (mostly AM) stations almost continuously from the outskirts of Phoenix all the way to the ocean. Not any longer. That was my point.
Click to expand...

I have been driving it since the early 70's when I lived in Phoenix and worked at KWKW in LA; I notice no difference in the AM station coverage while FM coverage has improved as nearly all stations along the way have upgraded facilities as FM grew in importance. Again, I think you had a stinky radio.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
Last edited:
It stands to reason that those who are looking to prove the point that radio is dead or dying, will site any poor experience they may have with listening, including a defective or poor quality radio and antenna.
 
No, it really doesn't. All one has to do is point to the explosive growth of digital and the complete and total collapse of the radio industry in the past eighteen years, not to mention the fact that radio tried to kill off digital before, only in the past couple of years, realizing that it was the only thing that could have saved them from themselves. Now it's too late, and all The Big Boys™ are less than one debt restructuring away from bankruptcy, bringing everyone else down in value with them. Even CBS, once a halfway decent company, is self-destructing right now. Keep your head buried in the sand if you want, but it'll only be your own peril you're hiding from. Those of us who know better got out while we still could.
 
KEE-rist! All I was doing was posting my experience driving a common route which used to be loaded with radio signals and isn't any longer (at least in my car).
 
JoshTheRadioDude said:
No, it really doesn't. All one has to do is point to the explosive growth of digital and the complete and total collapse of the radio industry in the past eighteen years, not to mention the fact that radio tried to kill off digital before, only in the past couple of years, realizing that it was the only thing that could have saved them from themselves.
Click to expand...

Wow, a total collapse? Interesting choice of words. I must have missed the total collapse. Do you have statistics from a known source that illustrate the total collapse? And how has radio tried to "kill off digital"? Not sure what you mean by that statement.
 
If you've missed the collapse, you either haven't been paying attention or haven't been around the industry for very long. It's been happening for at least ten years if you only go so far back as when the aggressive layoffs and syndication of entire dayparts began. Almost twenty now if you go all the way back to the root cause of Telecom '96. Have you seen the financial status of the biggest companies? It's not a pretty sight. And they're taking all the little guys down with them.

And as for radio attempting to kill off digital, I mean exactly what I said. You know those royalties that the RIAA wants to force radio to pay to stream music? Those exist only because the RIAA and the NAB teamed up to kill off Internet radio in the late 90's up until about 2007 or so. That's when radio finally realized that the Internet was actually a thing, not some fad that wouldn't last. They had done everything they could to kill off streaming, and now they're fighting to keep it alive for themselves against the very people they conspired with to get rid of it.

This business is barely hanging on by a thread right now. History plainly shows why: stupidity and greed. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Ah okay, well thanks for the education then! I guess that you must know something I clearly don't.

From statistics I've seen as a rookie to all of this apparently, radio still seems to be the number one consumer choice for listening to music and news by a long shot. Something like 96% (over 10 million listeners daily) for traditional radio, where Sirius XM is 1.1% and less than 1% Internet streaming (I assume that's what you mean when you say "digital). Pandora, Slacker and alike were listed as <1%. So where is the collapse again?
 
JoshTheRadioDude said:
This business is barely hanging on by a thread right now. History plainly shows why: stupidity and greed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing that has happened in radio that hasn't happened in just about every other industry, including growth industries like telecom. In the last few years, AT&T has been laying off thousands of employees at a time that it's been showing record profits and stock price. Same with lots of technology companies. And it has nothing to do with the Telecom Act of 96. Most of that law was about telecom, not broadcasting. Radio is a $20 billion dollar industry that is better positioned for delivering content to new technologies like mobile and internet. Their content is far better and they invest more money in their content than Pandora, Spotify, or even Sirius. Radio has absolutely NO interest in "killing off digital." In fact radio companies have been investors in digital technology for 25 years. Companies like CBS and Clear Channel were the first believers in XM and HD Radio. You really have a lot to learn about the role of radio and digital media.


JoshTheRadioDude said:
You know those royalties that the RIAA wants to force radio to pay to stream music? Those exist only because the RIAA and the NAB teamed up to kill off Internet radio in the late 90's up until about 2007 or so.
Click to expand...

Where in the world did you come up with that idea? Show me evidence of that. There RIAA and the NAB have been adversaries with regards to royalties for 70 years.
 
Last edited:
Kelly A said:
From statistics I've seen as a rookie to all of this apparently, radio still seems to be the number one consumer choice for listening to music and news by a long shot. Something like 96% (over 10 million listeners daily) for traditional radio, where Sirius XM is 1.1% and less than 1% Internet streaming (I assume that's what you mean when you say "digital). Pandora, Slacker and alike were listed as <1%. So where is the collapse again?
Click to expand...

Haha! Yeah, those statistics? I know where they're coming from, and it's a biased source that's paid to come to that conclusion. Reality says otherwise.
 
TheBigA said:
There's absolutely nothing that has happened in radio that hasn't happened in just about every other industry, including growth industries like telecom. In the last few years, AT&T has been laying off thousands of employees at a time that it's been showing record profits and stock price. Same with lots of technology companies. And it has nothing to do with the Telecom Act of 96. Most of that law was about telecom, not broadcasting. Radio is a $20 billion dollar industry that is better positioned for delivering content to new technologies like mobile and internet. Their content is far better and they invest more money in their content than Pandora, Spotify, or even Sirius. Radio has absolutely NO interest in "killing off digital." In fact radio companies have been investors in digital technology for 25 years. Companies like CBS and Clear Channel were the first believers in XM and HD Radio. You really have a lot to learn about the role of radio and digital media.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm well aware you drink the industry Kool-Aid. None of those things are true, and I've already explained that to you before. That claim that CBS and Clear Channel were "the first believers in XM"? HAHAHAHAHA!!! Dude, you have got to be high as a kite to believe that load of crap! The industry fought XM every step of the way, and XM only partnered with Clear Channel because Clear Channel was demanding that the FCC force it on them, and XM caved before it came to that! They didn't "believe in XM," they wanted to force their will on another company because they saw it as a threat! The entire industry did! The NAB even lobbied for it! Look it up, it was all covered fairly well in the press back then.

TheBigA said:
Where in the world did you come up with that idea? Show me evidence of that. There RIAA and the NAB have been adversaries with regards to royalties for 70 years.
Click to expand...
Again, it's all right there in the press; you can look it up. The RIAA and the NAB lobbied the copyright royalty board heavily to set the royalty rates for streamers exceedingly high, and in exchange, the NAB got an exemption from double-charging for performance royalties on broadcast stations' streams. Now the RIAA wants to eliminate that exemption, and radio -- having now figured out that they need streaming to survive -- is having to fight their one-time ally because that partnership is coming back to bite them in the ass. This is all well-documented history.
 
JoshTheRadioDude said:
The industry fought XM every step of the way, and XM only partnered with Clear Channel because Clear Channel was demanding that the FCC force it on them, and XM caved before it came to that!
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I personally attended the Congressional hearings that led to satellite radio. XM wanted Clear Channel's partnership for two reasons: They needed the investment money, and they needed the content. CBS was a co-founder of iBiquity, the copyright owner of HD Radio. That history is very clear and available on the HD Radio website.
JoshTheRadioDude said:
The RIAA and the NAB lobbied the copyright royalty board heavily to set the royalty rates for streamers exceedingly high, and in exchange, the NAB got an exemption from double-charging for performance royalties on broadcast stations' streams.
Click to expand...

You can't "lobby" the CRB. It's against the law. The members of the CRB are judges. And broadcast stations must pay performance royalties on their streams. The only way get a discount is to negotiate directly with record labels, which is what Clear Channel has been doing lately. Once again, you have a lot to learn.
 
TheBigA said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I personally attended the Congressional hearings that led to satellite radio. XM wanted Clear Channel's partnership for two reasons: They needed the investment money, and they needed the content.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this all started long before those hearings. Those hearings came about well after the threats were made. XM simply came up with the excuse for their bowing to Clear Channel's wishes because they didn't want to spend all the money it would take to fight them off.

TheBigA said:
CBS was a co-founder of iBiquity, the copyright owner of HD Radio. That history is very clear and available on the HD Radio website.
Click to expand...
I never disputed that, but IB(A)C does not count as "digital." It's a new method used on the same old platform, programmed by the same people and intended to spur purchases of new devices that nobody wants. It's DOA.

TheBigA said:
You can't "lobby" the CRB. It's against the law. The members of the CRB are judges. And broadcast stations must pay performance royalties on their streams. The only way get a discount is to negotiate directly with record labels, which is what Clear Channel has been doing lately. Once again, you have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...
Yes, because lobbyists never break the law. But what I mean by "lobby" is "pleading their case." Which they did with extreme effort. And no, broadcast radio stations do not pay performance royalties on their streams. That's been one of the key points of contention for YEARS.

Telling me that I have a lot to learn is laughable.
 
JoshTheRadioDude said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this all started long before those hearings.
Click to expand...

Show me.

JoshTheRadioDude said:
But what I mean by "lobby" is "pleading their case." Which they did with extreme effort.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're claiming the RIAA and NAB conspired to keep royalties unfairly high. Show me evidence. I don't care what Wikipedia says. Radio stations pay performance royalties on their streams. They always have. However they don't pay an artist or label royalty for on-air broadcasts.
 
As I've said before, and as my parents used to tell me when I needed to learn the facts: look it up. I haven't made ridiculous claims that have no basis in reality; you have. The burden of proof is on you.
 
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