The Future of AM

DavidEduardo · Apr 9, 2017

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?

It's not "entrenched interests" but the interests of current licensees of good facilities in each market not liking the idea that with DAB, the little AM daytimer and the grandfathered superpower FM will both suddenly have equal coverage. The folks who paid millions more for the good signals will see their assets wiped out, and have more full signal competitors as well. This is not going to be liked by any successful broadcaster.

Only where the government operates the majority of radio stations can something like this be done. And in the US, it is too late as "everyone" already has a digital radio as part of their cellphone and will not spend to get a new box that only does one thing.

DavidEduardo · Apr 9, 2017

RadioPatrol said:
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.

Very few markets have a median age beyond the spread of 35 to 40 years old. And in many cases, the cities that skew younger have a lower median age because of large ethnic and immigrant communities. The only exceptions are a few heavily senior communities such as the East and West coast of Florida outside of the Jacksonville and Miami MSAs... or smallish markets like Prescott / Flagstaff.

Y2kTheNewOldies · Apr 10, 2017

DavidEduardo said:
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.

Also in the United States we have Satellite Radio from SiriusXM that covers the nation and cars made in the past few years such as the 2015 Honda Accord has a SiriusXM receiver in the dashboard with a subscription to activate the service. That's another reason why DAB's cannot exist in the USA and also some newer cars have internet access on dashboard.

http://www.apple.com/ios/carplay/

https://www.android.com/auto/

Yes Apple has Ios dashboard on some cars. Here in the United States AM radio will get killed but not by DAB but via Ios Dashboard edition, Sirius XM and Android Auto requiring either Satellites or Cell Phone towers depending on who your providers are and who activates your dashboard service.

TheBigA · Apr 10, 2017

RadioPatrol said:
That's another reason why DAB's cannot exist in the USA and also some newer cars have internet access on dashboard.

There's nothing I remember in the authorization of satellite radio that prohibits DAB.

Y2kTheNewOldies · Apr 10, 2017

TheBigA said:
There's nothing I remember in the authorization of satellite radio that prohibits DAB.

I meant market demand for DAB's would not be as big in the USA as it would be in other places.
It could happen but the demand won't be as big here as it it in countries cited in earlier parts of this thread to kill AM radio.

TheBigA · Apr 10, 2017

RadioPatrol said:
It could happen but the demand won't be as big here as it it in countries cited in earlier parts of this thread to kill AM radio.

Truthfully, there's no "demand" for it in other countries. They have government-owned radio, and it's being forced on them by their government. Not the case here.

The reason there are satellite receivers in US cars isn't because of demand, but because Sirius PAYS the car companies for that space on the dashboard. Very big difference. The majority of those satellite radios are not in use.

CTListener · Apr 10, 2017

TheBigA said:
Truthfully, there's no "demand" for it in other countries. They have government-owned radio, and it's being forced on them by their government. Not the case here.

The reason there are satellite receivers in US cars isn't because of demand, but because Sirius PAYS the car companies for that space on the dashboard. Very big difference. The majority of those satellite radios are not in use.

I've read that one of the major differences between Sirius and XM when they were separate entities was that Sirius would claim activated but unused radios in unsold cars on dealer lots as "subscribers" in its SEC filings while XM did not. Are the unused radios still being represented as subscribers to stockholders and regulators?

semoochie · Apr 11, 2017

TheBigA said:
There's nothing I remember in the authorization of satellite radio that prohibits DAB.

While trying to come up with a digital solution for broadcasters a satellite system was proposed but rejected because in order for it to work smoothly, it would have to use L-Band, which the government wouldn't release because it was tied up by the military. Instead, they offered S-Band(I believe that's the name.). Unfortunately, S-Band requires too many repeaters for broadcast use so they searched for an in-band solution and offered S-Band to what eventually became Serius/XM. Since there's nowhere else to go, that in effect, prohibits DAB.

DavidEduardo · Apr 11, 2017

semoochie said:
While trying to come up with a digital solution for broadcasters a satellite system was proposed but rejected because in order for it to work smoothly, it would have to use L-Band, which the government wouldn't release because it was tied up by the military. Instead, they offered S-Band(I believe that's the name.). Unfortunately, S-Band requires too many repeaters for broadcast use so they searched for an in-band solution and offered S-Band to what eventually became Serius/XM. Since there's nowhere else to go, that in effect, prohibits DAB.

Satellite was never proposed as a "digital solution for broadcasters" as it was obvious that this would be a national medium and be a separate type of service from local, commercial radio. The FCC's policy at the time, as witnessed by Docket 80-90, was to cram as many local stations into the AM and FM bands as possible under the banner of "local service".

The original idea for satellite radio came from the private sector that wanted to have a limited-competition national service that double dipped, getting subscriber revenue as well as ad revenue. The government wanted to have three separate companies, but only two could come up with the financing and present viable offers. In the end, neither could make money and they were burning $1 billion a year in capital. Nor could they run most channels with commercials, as subscribers found this to be a negative to renewal.

So, in the end the government created a monopoly.

The NAB opposed the attempt by satellite to do local services using the satellite company's terrestrial repeaters. And they halted this. The NAB opposed DAB as disruptive to station valuations, job security in the whole industry and the increasing of viable "channels" beyond the ability of local revenue to sustain so many new voices.

DAB and satellite were very separate subjects.

DavidEduardo · Apr 11, 2017

CTListener said:
I've read that one of the major differences between Sirius and XM when they were separate entities was that Sirius would claim activated but unused radios in unsold cars on dealer lots as "subscribers" in its SEC filings while XM did not. Are the unused radios still being represented as subscribers to stockholders and regulators?

Even if unsold new cars are counted, they are real as long as the car is sold with a "free" subscription period. The key to investors is revenue and cash flow. But trending in the active radios does indicate how many subscribers there may be as the conversion from free to paid is a known ratio.

landtuna · Apr 11, 2017

DavidEduardo said:
Even if unsold new cars are counted, they are real as long as the car is sold with a "free" subscription period. The key to investors is revenue and cash flow. But trending in the active radios does indicate how many subscribers there may be as the conversion from free to paid is a known ratio.

My cousin and I bought cars from the same manufacturer at the same time back in late 2012. Both had Sirius/XM features. Mine lasted 90 days then went away. His lasted almost 4 years (without a subscription). Go figure.

secondchoice · Apr 11, 2017

IMHO the FCC should take these steps:

#1 The third adjacent protection should go away for any class of FM station. The second adjacent protection should be severely limited or even go away too.

#2 The FCC to limit FM signal protection to a station’s CSA* or CMSA ** if they have usable*** coverage in one. I would give them the chance to change their COL’s and to that first name of that area, and or make changes to improve coverage in that CSA or CMSA if they wanted to. The required coverage requirements would be waived for any station that takes the CSA or CMSA COL. There should be a 2 to 3 year window for filling and accepting the CP and a 3 year time limit on the CPs. One wrinkle only translators tied to AM stations are protected unless both partied agree to changes. If a station is not in a CSA or CMSA there would be no change.

#3 The existing AM’s that have translators in the area be allowed to upgrade their translators to class A power limits still accepting interference and protecting existing stations and their CPs, even if outside of the AM contours, or keep the FM signal they currently have and turn swap their AM and translator license for a new class A1 which would be protected and become an FM allocation.

#4 Then the AM’s (class D and C after 2 years class B) in the CSA or CMSA would be given an opportunity “shoehorn” in a 250 watt or less FM signal still protecting current stations, (accepting interference) with a transmitter site within 5 miles of their existing transmitter site, existing AM contours will have not effect on this signal. No allocation required if they convert their AM license to a new FM class A2. BTW there would be no HAAT limit.

#5 Any AM not in a CSA or CMSA with an existing translator be allowed to upgrade up to class A power (assuming no interference to existing stations but accepting interference). Turn in the translator and AM license for a class A.

#6 Any AM without an existing translator, be allowed to “shoehorn” in a FM class A2 then turn in their AM license.

#7 The remaining AM stations be reallocated on a regular AM channel with at least 9 KHz audio and half (5 KHz) of next adjacent channel used for a digital signal. This would allow existing AM receivers to work while the digital / analog hybrid comes to market. The digital part should be free or under a dollar per receiver.

Class A1 and A2’s on established would become allocations that protect what signal they have.

*combined statistical area is defined by the US government as consisting of various combinations of adjacent metropolitan and community areas with economic ties measured by commuting patterns.

**Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area U.S. government classification term for an area consisting of two or more overlapping or interlocking urban communities (known as primary metropolitan statistical areas) with a total population of at least one million.

***50 of 40 DB

TheBigA · Apr 11, 2017

secondchoice said:
IMHO the FCC should take these steps:

Why would you want to cannibalize FM more than it already is?

DavidEduardo · Apr 11, 2017

secondchoice said:
IMHO the FCC should take these steps:

#1 The third adjacent protection should go away for any class of FM station. The second adjacent protection should be severely limited or even go away too.

Yes, let's make tuning FM on all but good car radios so difficult that we lose all portable (including cellphones with the radio chip), in home and at work listening nearly impossible. We might reduce the contour overlap protection slightly, but not eliminate the protections. I have seen cities with a full power FM every 2 channels, and it ain't pretty.

#2 The FCC to limit FM signal protection to a station’s CSA* or CMSA ** if they have usable*** coverage in one.

How do we determine that and how do we fence in signals? And remember, radio is not reviewed by Metropolitan Statistical areas or CMSA's by the FCC. It is reviewed usiing Nielsen's Metro Survey Areas, determined by use of a market's signals vs. use of another market's signals, commute patterns, etc.

How would you deal with very important and successful stations like WKXW in Trenton? It is rated in 8 different radio markets and is the principal spoken word station of all of Jersey that is not part of the Philly or NYC metros.

The idea is unworkable: for example, the very flat Houston market is so big that you need 100 kw at 2000 feet to cover it for indoor reception, but those big signals cover a lot of out of metro real estate for car reception. Or LA, where covering the coastal metro requires mountaintop sites and grandfathered facilities. But they also cover at least parts of 3 other MSA's (IE, Victorville, Ventura).

I would give them the chance to change their COL’s and to that first name of that area, and or make changes to improve coverage in that CSA or CMSA if they wanted to. The required coverage requirements would be waived for any station that takes the CSA or CMSA COL. There should be a 2 to 3 year window for filling and accepting the CP and a 3 year time limit on the CPs.

The CSA and CMSA are devices created by the OMB. They do not fit radio signals. The Nielsen MSA areas do. That is why the FCC chose to use Nielsen market definitions.

#3 The existing AM’s that have translators in the area be allowed to upgrade their translators to class A power limits still accepting interference and protecting existing stations and their CPs, even if outside of the AM contours, or keep the FM signal they currently have and turn swap their AM and translator license for a new class A1 which would be protected and become an FM allocation.

Non-starter. This can not be done without severely limiting second and third adjacent protections and causing "inability to tune" local stations, particularly when transmitters are in different locations with consequent blanketing zones.

#4 Then the AM’s (class D and C after 2 years class B) in the CSA or CMSA would be given an opportunity “shoehorn” in a 250 watt or less FM signal still protecting current stations, (accepting interference) with a transmitter site within 5 miles of their existing transmitter site, existing AM contours will have not effect on this signal. No allocation required if they convert their AM license to a new FM class A2. BTW there would be no HAAT limit.

Many AMs have sites based on where they could get land or where a directional system would work. That is not necessarily where the population is. Bad idea.

#5 Any AM not in a CSA or CMSA with an existing translator be allowed to upgrade up to class A power (assuming no interference to existing stations but accepting interference). Turn in the translator and AM license for a class A.

Same issues with second adjacent protections and making the dial untunable.

#6 Any AM without an existing translator, be allowed to “shoehorn” in a FM class A2 then turn in their AM license.

Just let existing translators get protected status and let the AM go silent. The clearing of the band in such a case would allow other stations to upgrade.

#7 The remaining AM stations be reallocated on a regular AM channel with at least 9 KHz audio and half (5 KHz) of next adjacent channel used for a digital signal. This would allow existing AM receivers to work while the digital / analog hybrid comes to market. The digital part should be free or under a dollar per receiver.

When over 80% of the market has a digital receiver, called a cellphone, why do you think anyone would be interested in a new single purpose radio? Nobody buys stand-alone radios anymore (OK, a few do. Statistically, it is "nobody"). AM already has 10 kHz bandwidth in analog. Putting more lipstick on the pig will just make it look slutty.

Class A1 and A2’s on established would become allocations that protect what signal they have.

*combined statistical area is defined by the US government as consisting of various combinations of adjacent metropolitan and community areas with economic ties measured by commuting patterns.

That is not the way radio is measured, bought or considered for ownership by the FCC. Any change would be highly disruptive, and does not take into account terrain. Example: Contra Costa County, CA which is divided so half is in the SF MSA and the rest falls to Sacramento due to mountains.

**Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area U.S. government classification term for an area consisting of two or more overlapping or interlocking urban communities (known as primary metropolitan statistical areas) with a total population of at least one million.

Not the FCC criteria because MSAs from Nielsen are based on station usage, not government statistics that have a lot to do with things that don't affect radio.

DavidEduardo · Apr 11, 2017

TheBigA said:
Why would you want to cannibalize FM more than it already is?

Cannibalize? The question is what the cannibals eat when there are only two persons left alive!

DavidEduardo · Apr 11, 2017

landtuna said:
My cousin and I bought cars from the same manufacturer at the same time back in late 2012. Both had Sirius/XM features. Mine lasted 90 days then went away. His lasted almost 4 years (without a subscription). Go figure.

Many low end cars have short trials. The other case is strange.

In any event, the manufacturer and dealer get revenue from satellite. They love it.

secondchoice · Apr 11, 2017

DavidEduardo said:
Yes, let's make tuning FM on all but good car radios so difficult that we lose all portable (including cellphones with the radio chip), in home and at work listening nearly impossible. We might reduce the contour overlap protection slightly, but not eliminate the protections. I have seen cities with a full power FM every 2 channels, and it ain't pretty.

How do we determine that and how do we fence in signals? And remember, radio is not reviewed by Metropolitan Statistical areas or CMSA's by the FCC. It is reviewed usiing Nielsen's Metro Survey Areas, determined by use of a market's signals vs. use of another market's signals, commute patterns, etc.

How would you deal with very important and successful stations like WKXW in Trenton? It is rated in 8 different radio markets and is the principal spoken word station of all of Jersey that is not part of the Philly or NYC metros.

The idea is unworkable: for example, the very flat Houston market is so big that you need 100 kw at 2000 feet to cover it for indoor reception, but those big signals cover a lot of out of metro real estate for car reception. Or LA, where covering the coastal metro requires mountaintop sites and grandfathered facilities. But they also cover at least parts of 3 other MSA's (IE, Victorville, Ventura).

The CSA and CMSA are devices created by the OMB. They do not fit radio signals. The Nielsen MSA areas do. That is why the FCC chose to use Nielsen market definitions.

Non-starter. This can not be done without severely limiting second and third adjacent protections and causing "inability to tune" local stations, particularly when transmitters are in different locations with consequent blanketing zones.

Many AMs have sites based on where they could get land or where a directional system would work. That is not necessarily where the population is. Bad idea.

Same issues with second adjacent protections and making the dial untunable.

Just let existing translators get protected status and let the AM go silent. The clearing of the band in such a case would allow other stations to upgrade.

When over 80% of the market has a digital receiver, called a cellphone, why do you think anyone would be interested in a new single purpose radio? Nobody buys stand-alone radios anymore (OK, a few do. Statistically, it is "nobody"). AM already has 10 kHz bandwidth in analog. Putting more lipstick on the pig will just make it look slutty.

Class A1 and A2’s on established would become allocations that protect what signal they have.

That is not the way radio is measured, bought or considered for ownership by the FCC. Any change would be highly disruptive, and does not take into account terrain. Example: Contra Costa County, CA which is divided so half is in the SF MSA and the rest falls to Sacramento due to mountains.

Not the FCC criteria because MSAs from Nielsen are based on station usage, not government statistics that have a lot to do with things that don't affect radio.

I agree the Nielsen would be better. This would not force anybody to change facilities unless they wanted to. Every existing station could keep what they have; just your signal is not protected outside the market. Example 100.5 in Atlanta is limited by WSSL. A well done directional antenna on the Fish Stick would improve things in Atlanta and not mess with Greenville.
IIRC wasn’t there a “stonewall” audio filter the FCC make AM stations use back in 1980s or 1990’s that limited the audio on AM?

DavidEduardo · Apr 11, 2017

secondchoice said:
I agree the Nielsen would be better. This would not force anybody to change facilities unless they wanted to. Every existing station could keep what they have; just your signal is not protected outside the market. Example 100.5 in Atlanta is limited by WSSL. A well done directional antenna on the Fish Stick would improve things in Atlanta and not mess with Greenville.
IIRC wasn’t there a “stonewall” audio filter the FCC make AM stations use back in 1980s or 1990’s that limited the audio on AM?

NRSC brickwalled AM at 10 kHz at the top. AM HD required 5 kHz limits, but many stations figured out how to do 6 kHz or even 7 kHz. It's a moot point, as AM HD is nearly dead.

semoochie · Apr 12, 2017

DavidEduardo said:
Satellite was never proposed as a "digital solution for broadcasters" as it was obvious that this would be a national medium and be a separate type of service from local, commercial radio. The FCC's policy at the time, as witnessed by Docket 80-90, was to cram as many local stations into the AM and FM bands as possible under the banner of "local service".

The original idea for satellite radio came from the private sector that wanted to have a limited-competition national service that double dipped, getting subscriber revenue as well as ad revenue. The government wanted to have three separate companies, but only two could come up with the financing and present viable offers. In the end, neither could make money and they were burning $1 billion a year in capital. Nor could they run most channels with commercials, as subscribers found this to be a negative to renewal.

So, in the end the government created a monopoly.

The NAB opposed the attempt by satellite to do local services using the satellite company's terrestrial repeaters. And they halted this. The NAB opposed DAB as disruptive to station valuations, job security in the whole industry and the increasing of viable "channels" beyond the ability of local revenue to sustain so many new voices.

DAB and satellite were very separate subjects.

In 1990, long before XM and Serius came into the picture, broadcasters were trying to figure a way to make their programming digital. The plan was to go with Eureka 147 and beam a satellite signal with a footprint resembling each station's analog coverage area. Unfortunately, this idea was not workable for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. It was referred to in the trades at the time as a "digital solution". The general public didn't know anything about it. I'm surprised you don't remember this.

DavidEduardo · Apr 12, 2017

semoochie said:
In 1990, long before XM and Serius came into the picture, broadcasters were trying to figure a way to make their programming digital. The plan was to go with Eureka 147 and beam a satellite signal with a footprint resembling each station's analog coverage area. Unfortunately, this idea was not workable for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. It was referred to in the trades at the time as a "digital solution". The general public didn't know anything about it. I'm surprised you don't remember this.

I never paid much attention to this idea as it was not backed by the NAB and it quickly became obvious that it would require new radios, and a huge investment to put those satellites in orbit. Digital FM was under development at Lucent at the same time, but technology had not achieved the point where there could be a singe chip solution; that was the same reason that the PPM, invented in the early 90's, did not become practical for about a decade.

The Future of AM

Moderator/Administrator

Moderator/Administrator

Walk of Fame Participant

Walk of Fame Participant

Walk of Fame Participant

Walk of Fame Participant

Walk of Fame Participant

Star Participant

Moderator/Administrator

Moderator/Administrator

Walk of Fame Participant

Star Participant

Walk of Fame Participant

Moderator/Administrator

Moderator/Administrator

Moderator/Administrator

Star Participant

Moderator/Administrator

Star Participant

Moderator/Administrator