• 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

The Future of AM

PTBoardOp94 said:
Nashville has numerous viable AM signals. Indy & Atlanta, not so much.

WSM, WLAC are class A stations with good coverage of the entire metro day and night. There's 3 or 4 other AM stations with good coverage in the daytime, and poor coverage at night. (1160, 1200, 1300, which are all currently broadcasting religion, and an NPR talker on 1430).
Click to expand...

Here is the problem: the Nashville market is 8 counties. WSM covers all of it with a 5 mV/m signal day and night, but does not cover it all with a 10 mV/m signal... and in Nielsen, indoor listening at home and at work just does not occur outside the 10 mV/m contour. WLAC by day reaches 55% of the market with a 5 mV/m signal, and only about 30% at night... less for the needed 10 mV/m signal.

No other station comes even close to covering the whole market day and night. And that is the problem all across America. The "better" signals were licensed to serve cities before the post-WW II urban sprawl, and most markets have outgrown all or nearly all of their AM signals. And man made noise has reduced the effective coverage considerably, as well.
 
DavidEduardo said:
The "better" signals were licensed to serve cities before the post-WW II urban sprawl, and most markets have outgrown all or nearly all of their AM signals. And man made noise has reduced the effective coverage considerably, as well.
Click to expand...

As I've said many times, any kind of serious AM revitalization needs to address those two things if they are to succeed. The fact that the FCC hasn't even discussed them says to me that they're not really serious about AM revitalization. They need to find a way to make AM signals practical for the way markets have changed, and for the way people use radio. It's not easy. It may even cost some money. But it's the only solution.
 
TheBigA said:
As I've said many times, any kind of serious AM revitalization needs to address those two things if they are to succeed. The fact that the FCC hasn't even discussed them says to me that they're not really serious about AM revitalization. They need to find a way to make AM signals practical for the way markets have changed, and for the way people use radio. It's not easy. It may even cost some money. But it's the only solution.
Click to expand...

Any AM revitalization should be based on a major reallocation of the whole band, such as was done in 1937-1928.

A computer study might show how AMs that are in small unrated markets could be changed to translator-like operations that would give signals no better nor no worse than the current status. Larger market small signal and daytime stations could do the same. The AM license would be traded for the new FM.

Any AM with an existing translator that covers about as much as the AM would have the AM cancelled.

Then highly directional in medium markets AMs could be offered translators that offer better total population coverage with FM only. The AM would be cancelled. Daytimers would be offered translator equivalent FMs that could run fulltime, maybe with less coverage, and allowed changes in community of license so the translator could serve a viable market.

Once these moves are made, then all the remaining stations would be reallocated with, perhaps, new night interference standards and acceptance of minimum skywave antenna systems such as the Kintronics system being used to reduce land use as well.

This could depopulate the AM band by 50% to 60% and the allowance of low-skywave antennas universally might improve night coverage of many remaining AMs.
 
I certainly have to agree. What were once major stations are not 'inner city' stations where the signal does not reach the suburbs. Houston is terrible because of it's mere size. Driving across Houston is about like Richmond, Virginia on one end and Washington DC on the other end. Then add all the noise and you've put salt in the wound.
 
b-turner said:
I certainly have to agree. What were once major stations are not 'inner city' stations where the signal does not reach the suburbs. Houston is terrible because of it's mere size. Driving across Houston is about like Richmond, Virginia on one end and Washington DC on the other end. Then add all the noise and you've put salt in the wound.
Click to expand...

There are also cases where the signal serves a shrinking inner city. Recent news on the population decline in Baltimore and the consequent social problems and issues is a case in point.

I am most familiar with Cleveland, OH. In the 50's, the population extended, at most, to Lyndhurst to the East, Parma to the South and Lakewood to the West. And still, the 30-year old directional signals of stations like WHK, WERE, WDOK and even WGAR were "iffy" at night due to interference.

Since then, the city has moved out another 10 to 15 miles in all directions, and none of the signals except 1100 WTAM cover it fully at night. Of course, noise has increased considerably. But the real issue is that the city of Cleveland itself has declined in population and the "good signal" areas of the AM stations actually have less people living in them than they did 4 to 5 decades ago.
 
TheBigA said:
They need to find a way to make AM signals practical for the way markets have changed, and for the way people use radio.
Click to expand...

Why should the American taxpayer have to pony up to support private businesses which, by popular opinion, are marginal services to begin with and non-essential?
 
landtuna said:
Why should the American taxpayer have to pony up to support private businesses which, by popular opinion, are marginal services to begin with and non-essential?
Click to expand...

The airwaves are owned by the public. Private businesses are merely licensees. If broadcasters were allowed to own their frequencies, I'd agree with you.

Reallocation of the AM band is the proper role of government, and they've done it many times before. It can't be done without them.
 
landtuna said:
Why should the American taxpayer have to pony up to support private businesses which, by popular opinion, are marginal services to begin with and non-essential?
Click to expand...

Adding verbosity to BigA's concise response, a change in the AM band is no different from the ongoing spectrum auction in the range used by certain TV channels and the repacking of the existing and remaining channels. The greater good of the public is the core issue.

Under my suggestion, there is no significant cost to existing small and substandard AM stations other than building a 250 watt FM and putting it on, most likely, a leased tower or building near the population center. The sale of AM transmitter land will give some more than enough, and the ability to do music formats and be where listening is more than justifies a small investment.

All the government would do is regulate the change. The actual "changing" would be each station's obligation. In a sense, like the use of eminent domain where you have to get off AM and the government will compensate you with a comparable FM in cases where this is technically feasible.

In the late 20's, the Federal Radio Commission actually forced about half the stations in the US off the air, and mandated frequency changes for almost all the rest. Then in 1941, about 90% of all US radio stations (AM of course) had their frequency changed so the US and its neighbors could deploy the NARBA treaty, which benefited all stations by limiting interference and better regulating frequency use.

So the idea of migrating many AMs to FM is in the public's interest. It also preserves jobs and guarantees forms of local radio service. It clears much of the AM band, which is becoming obsolete due to lack of enhanced rules. In fact, they could start by allowing AMs with translators to close the AM forever and operate the translator as the only licensed facility and grant is protected status.
 
Last edited:
joebtsflk1 said:
I don't think the above proposals would have the government pay for the transmitters/equipment needed to move these stations around. The FCC would be acting as a facilitator in reallocating marginal AMs to FM, or AM to more powerful AM, if I'm restating things right. It would up to the licensee to decide if they want to build out the new facility.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just as the 1941 NARBA frequency changes were not subsidized by the government.
 
DavidEduardo said:


So the idea of migrating many AMs to FM is in the public's interest. It also preserves jobs and guarantees forms of local radio service. It clears much of the AM band, which is becoming obsolete due to lack of enhanced rules. In fact, they could start by allowing AMs with translators to close the AM forever and operate the translator as the only licensed facility and grant is protected status.
Click to expand...

With protected class A 250 watt FM stations begs the next question: does the US ditch the mileage protection system for the commercial FM band in favor of contour protection?
 
joebtsflk1 said:
With protected class A 250 watt FM stations begs the next question: does the US ditch the mileage protection system for the commercial FM band in favor of contour protection?
Click to expand...

That is a possibility, although some protection for existing stations forced into a transmitter site move has to be made. Perhaps protection to a finite radius around the existing site.
 
CTListener said:
In some markets -- like mine -- a lot of popular sports talk and play-by-play remains on AM . It's the only programming on that band that could conceivably attract under-55 listeners. Should CBS ever decide to move WTIC's sports to FM, it would be game over for AM here. But with no format duplication on FM and all of CBS's music FMs being safe, advertiser-friendly-format money makers, that's not likely to happen soon.

How long is the AM-FM simulcast of WFAN New York going to continue? The FM is already being mentioned first in the IDs.
Click to expand...

Same is happening in San Francisco where 106.9 FM is mentioned first before AM 740 for KCBS all news. Also in Sacramento Iheart mentioned KFBK-FM first at 93.1 fm before 1530 am. Yes its true in some cities that News/talk on FM is getting larger audiences than AM. But then again that's due to the median demographics in a certain radio market.
 
Well some countries got rid of AM to make way for DAB radio. I know Denmark, Norway and others have been mentioned for the DAB frequencies though.
 
CTListener said:
Too many entrenched corporate interests fighting the idea or is the nation just too big to be turned around on something like this -- like the failed attempts to get it to go metric?
Click to expand...


The corporate interests are, one by one, selling off their traditional radio assets and focusing their interest on digital distribution. So what does that tell you?
 
CTListener said:
Too many entrenched corporate interests fighting the idea or is the nation just too big to be turned around on something like this -- like the failed attempts to get it to go metric?
Click to expand...


But wait the interests here in the USA are selling off radio stations such as Disney selling their former O&O's to Citadel now known as Cumulus or CBS Radio selling off stations to Entercom (Pending as of 2017). Disney is putting their podcasts under digital distribution to Slacker Radio apps for now with ABC News and ESPN Radio.

So far in the United States there are no plans for DAB spectrum for now. The most foreseeable way that AM could be killed off is if more cell phone towers/transmitters to use the UHF spectrum and satellites to share UHF spectrum to improve internet service and its users can use internet connected radios/podcasts instead. Or more HD Radio on the FM band Transmitters for similar reasons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_broadcasting
 
RadioPatrol said:
Well some countries got rid of AM to make way for DAB radio. I know Denmark, Norway and others have been mentioned for the DAB frequencies though.
Click to expand...

The places where DAB has made some inroads are where the government has significant control of all broadcasting.

In England, the BBC, despite competition on radio and TV, is a dominant factor in setting standards and the government regulates very much with the BBC in mind... and cognizant of the "radio tax". In Norway, most radio is government administered... and so on.

The idea of having single transmitter sites and identical signals is very attractive to governments. Not so much to private interests.

And DAB was not intended to replace AM anywhere; in Norway it is going to replace FM. AM was already mostly dead or dying.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom