Why yes, I have done that and it can be quite entertaining. The FCC has graced our humble presence and apparently cracked down hard on one of those pie-rite types:
The New York Office received information that an unlicensed broadcast radio station on 87.9 MHz was allegedly operating in Poughkeepsie, New York. On January 14, 2016, agents from this office confirmed by direction finding techniques that radio signals on frequency 87.9 MHz were emanating from the basement of El Patron Restaurant, located at 411 Main Street, Poughkeepsie, New York. The Commission’s records show that no license was issued for operation of a broadcast station on 87.9 MHz at this location in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Hot Snot! One down and several to go? What is also interesting is the frequency; 87.9 MHz. That falls outside of the frequency range of the NY State anti-pirate law passed in 2011. That well crafted bit of useless legislation only covers 88-108 MHz.
If you are wondering about the title, it is from the movie “The French Connection:”
This is how I imagine those rough enforcement bureau types interrogating a busted pirate. Well, at least back in the days of Alexander Zimny and Judah Mansbach anyway.
In an interesting development, the FCC has taken notice of some pattern distortion from the side mounted FM antenna of KFWR, Jacksboro, Texas. For those, like myself, not familiar with Texas Radio, that is in the Dallas/Fort Worth market. The crux of the issue is co-channel interference to KCKL in Malakoff, Texas. These two locations meet the spacing requirements in 73.207 (215 km). The issue is with the side mounted ERI antenna and what appears to be intentional pattern optimization.
From the FCC order to show cause:
ERI’s president, Mr. Thomas Silliman, acknowledging that KFWR’s antenna “was mounted in a favorable direction, but… has not been directionalized and therefore is legal.” Mr. Silliman adds that the custom lambda tower at the top of the new KFWR tower was specifically designed for operation at KFWR’s frequency of 95.9 MHz, and that the tower’s lattice structure is “repetitive at the half wave of the specified FM frequency.” Thus, “if one picks a favorable mounting position on the tower, every element in the array sees the same favorable mounting result. Mr. Silliman also states that vertical parasitic elements are used to make the vertical radiation pattern “more circular” and reduce the vertically polarized gain to the east. In a subsequent pleading, ERI elaborates that its computed values “are relative to an RMS measured field of 1.0.” Mr. Silliman concedes that the mounting of the antenna on a certain tower face constitutes “pattern optimization,”arguing later that this is a common practice used by all antenna manufacturers, but states that it is the ERI’s policy “not [to] increase the directivity of the antenna pattern.”
The FCC concludes that the directionality of the side mounted antenna, in this case, is clearly intentional. The radiated power towards co-channel KCKL was calculated to be 274.5 KW, which is in excess of the 100 KW limit and orders KFWR to reduced TPO from 25 KW to 9.1 KW.
We have lots of these out in the field:
Side-mounted Shively 6810 antenna. WSPK, Mount Beacon, NY
In fact, I believe the majority of our FM stations use side mounted antennas. Some of them are mounted to a leg and some are mounted to a face. Usually, I try to place the antenna on the tower so that the bays are facing the desired audience. This information is given to the manufacture when ordering the antenna so that proper mounts can be furnished and the mounting distance between the tower and antenna properly calculated. That is about the extent of any “optimization” that is allowed.
As the FM band gets jam packed with FM signals, this may become more of an issue in the future, particularly around dense signal areas around major metropolitan areas.
Alternate title: Less is more (and other non-sense)!
The NAB has come out with their latest interesting opinion on radio station ownership in comments to the FCC regarding the 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review. They state that “Retaining the local radio ownership rule unchanged would be arbitrary and capricious” because the audio market place has changed radically over the last ten years. The introduction of online listening via Pandora seems to have created competition that can only be adequately dealt with by further consolidation, it seems. Also, the Commission cannot demonstrate that the current rules promote localism or viewpoint diversity. That last sentence is a fair statement. What the NAB does not say is that there is no evidence that further consolidation will promote localism or viewpoint diversity either.
The comment then goes into a lot of information and statistics on smart phone usage; who has them, what they are using them for et cetera. It is very interesting to note that there is no reason given for the sudden and alarming upswing in mobile online listening. But, let us examine a few interesting data points first:
Mobile data is not free. There are very few unlimited mobile data plans out there anymore, most everyone now has some sort of data cap. Extra data can be purchased, but it is expensive
On line listening uses data at a fast rate. According to Pandora, they stream at 64 kbps, or 0.480 megabytes per minute or 29 mega bytes per hour. Spotify uses quite a bit more, 54 megabytes per hour.
Let us assume that the average commute to work these days is one hour. That would mean two hours per day of driving and mobile listening. That adds up to 1.16 GB of data per month just in on line listening. Assuming that the smart phone functions as more than just a radio and will be used for email, maps, news, web browsing and other downloads, a fairly hefty data plan would be required of the smart phone user to accommodate all this data. Why would somebody pay considerably extra per month just to listen to online radio?
Do you get where I am going with this? Good, compelling programming is what people are searching for. If they cannot find it on the radio, they will go elsewhere. Nature abhors a vacuum. Want to compete against Pandora, Spotify, XM or whoever? Offer up something good to listen to. These days, competition seems to be a dirty word. Yes, competition requires work, but it, in and of itself, is not bad.
The NAB seems to be saying that relaxing ownership rules and thus, presumably, allowing more consolidation will promote diversity. In my twenty five years of broadcasting, I can say that I have never seen this to be the case. Some of the most diverse radio stations to be heard are often single stations, sometimes an AM/FM combo, just out there doing their thing. Stations like WDST, WHVW, WKZE, WHDD, WJFF, WTBQ, WSBS, WNAW… I am sure that I am forgetting a few.
You can read the entirety of the NAB’s comments here.
The Massachusetts house is considering a bill to outlaw unauthorized transmission in the AM and FM broadcast band. The bill, H.1679 is included here for your reading pleasure:
SECTION 1: The General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after chapter 93I, the following chapter:-
Chapter 93J. UNAUTHORIZED RADIO TELECOMMUNICATION
Section 1. As used in this chapter the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:—
“Emission”, radiation produced, or the production of radiation, by a radio transmitting station.
“License”, a radio frequency assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for use by amplitude modulation (AM) radio stations between the frequencies of five hundred thirty kilohertz (kHz) to seventeen hundred kilohertz (kHz), or frequency modulation (FM) radio stations between the frequencies of eighty-eight megahertz (MHz) to one hundred eight megahertz (MHz).
“Person”, a natural person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity.
“Radio telecommunication”, any transmission, emission or reception of signals and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems
Section 2. Any unauthorized radio telecommunication or emission to, or interference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission are prohibited.
No person shall (a) make, or cause to be made, a radio telecommunication in the Commonwealth unless the person obtains a license or an exemption from licensure from the Federal Communications Commission under 47 U.S.C. s. 301, 47 U.S.C., s. 605, or other applicable federal law or regulation; or (b) do any act, whether direct or indirect, to cause an unlicensed radio telecommunication to, or inference with, a public or commercial radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or to enable the radio telecommunication or interference to occur.
Section 3. The attorney general may bring an action pursuant to section 4 of chapter 93A against a person or otherwise to remedy violations of this chapter and for other relief that may be appropriate.
Section 4. A person may assert a claim under this section in superior court, whether by way of original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party action, for money damages, injunctive relief, and forfeiture of any property used in violation of this section. Said damages may include double or treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.
No forfeiture under this section shall extinguish a perfected security interest held by a creditor in a conveyance or in any real property or in any personal property at the time of the filing of the forfeiture action. Said forfeiture action shall be commenced in superior court.
This legislation is slightly different from the anti-pirate laws in NY and Florida as it appears the unauthorized operators would be liable for civil and not criminal penalties. That is an interesting twist; potentially, a commercial broadcaster could sue an interfering pirate operator for loss of revenue, etc. At least that is my interpretation of the above text and as I am not an attorney, I could be wrong.
It is also interesting to me that very few pirate operators in NY have actually faced a non-FCC law enforcement agency as of yet. I have heard about only one, which was in NYC. Is the criminalization of unauthorized broadcaster really affective in curbing pirates? A quick tune around the NYC FM dial says no. There are more pirates than ever and the NYPD seems to be too busy with other issues to go after them.
On June 19th, WKZE received a notice of violation from the FCC’s New York Field office. The crux of the issue seems to be interference being generated on 784.8 MHz (WKZE 8th harmonic) to a new Verizon Wireless installation located nearby:
47 C.F.R. §73.317(a): “FM broadcast stations employing transmitters authorized after January 1, 1960, must maintain the bandwidth occupied by their emissions in accordance with the specification detailed below. FM broadcast stations employing transmitters installed or type accepted before January 1, 1960, must achieve the highest degree of compliance with these specifications practicable with their existing equipment. In either case, should harmful interference to other authorized stations occur, the licensee shall correct the problem promptly or cease operation.” The eighth harmonic of Station WKZE-FM (784.8 MHz) was causing interference to the Verizon Wireless transmitter located approximately 500 feet away.
First off, we note that the WKZE transmitter is not allegedly causing interference to a Verizon Wireless transmitter, but rather to a Verizon Wireless receiver. That may be splitting hairs, however, since the FCC is quoting a technical rules violation, they can at least get the technical language right.
A brief examination of rest of FCC part 73.317 is in order to find the specification cited in section (a). Section (d) states:
(d) Any emission appearing on a frequency removed from the carrier by more than 600 kHz must be attenuated at least 43 + 10 Log10 (Power, in watts) dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier, or 80 dB, whichever is the lesser attenuation.
Since 784.8 MHz – 98.1 MHz is greater than 600 KHz, this is the section that applies to the WKZE situation. Thus, the interfering signal must be greater than -80 dBc to trigger the Notice Of Violation (NOV) from the FCC. The station ERP is 1,800 watts or +62 dBm. Measurements were made with a an Agilent N992A spectrum analyzer using an LPA-1000 log periodic antenna. At a 12 foot distance away from the WKZE transmitter cabinet, the signal on 784.8 MHz was found to be -94 dBc or 0.000063 watt. At the base of the Verizon Wireless tower, the measurement was -124 dBc, or 0.000000025 watt, which is barely perceptible above the -130 dBm noise floor. There does not appear to be any violation of 47 CFR 73.317. Rather, the issue seems to be Verizon Wireless’s deployment of 700 MHz LTE band and the use of high gain antennas coupled with high gain preamplifiers on frequencies that are harmonically related to broadcast stations nearby. In this particular installation, the antenna has 16 dB of gain, minus a 4.5 dB of transmission line loss into a 21 dB preamplifier before the receiver. At the output of the Verizon preamplifier, the signal on 784.8 MHz was measured at -89 dBc, which is still in compliance.
By these measurements, clearly WKZE is not in violation of any FCC regulation. It makes one wonder, does the FCC understand it’s own rules? Or, is this a matter of favoritism towards a huge corporation over a small independent radio broadcaster. Is it a matter of “broadband at the expense of all others?” There are several of these broadcast to 700 MHZ LTE interference cases pending throughout the country. This could set a dangerous precedent for broadcasters and other RF spectrum users as wireless giants like Verizon throw their weight around and eye even more spectrum to press into broadband service.
Alternative title: Who will really benefit from all digital AM HD Radio™?
Remember when, at license renewal time, radio and TV stations played this announcement:
On (date of the last renewal grant), (station’s call letters) was granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public interest as a public trustee until (license expiration date)…
There seems to be a disassociation between those words and the actions of certain broadcasters who view their licenses as a matter of fact and have little regard for the public interest. The FCC exacerbates the situation with the attitude that everything, including the entire radio frequency spectrum, is for sale to the highest bidder. John Anderson (DIY Media) has a great article on how big business interests game federal regulators into doing what they want. This happens in all sectors; banking, agriculture, energy, health care, media, military and so on. There are many examples of shoddy regulators and big business gone wild over the last ten years to fully prove this theory. If you don’t believe me, do a little research. There is no reason to think that the FCC is different from any other federal regulatory agency.
The vast majority of mass media outlets in the US are owned by just six major corporations (see below). Radio remains the only piece of the mass media system that has not been completely rolled up in consolidation. Currently, there is a small number corporate radio owners who own a combined ~2,300 stations and one public broadcasting network that accounts for another ~900 stations. I include public radio here because the majority of those station’s upgrades were footed by the taxpayer though grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That leaves a majority of the approximately 8,500 radio stations that are still owned by a diversified collection of medium and small groups and individuals.
Forcing radio stations to adopt the proprietary, all digital HD Radio™ as the broadcasting standard would, in effect, drive many of those small owners and individuals out of business because of the exorbitant costs for equipment upgrades, antenna modifications, and licensing fees. This would create a new wave of consolidation as smaller groups and single station owners sold out. Any remaining small station owners will not have the legal wherewithal to fight against the coming waves of digital interference on both the AM (medium frequency) and FM (VHF) bands.
Therefore, the short answer to the question; who benefits from an all conversion to all digital HD Radio™ is iBquity and its investors, many of whom are found in the list of consolidated media corporations below. Who looses? Just about everyone else; small and medium group owners, independent radio owners, listeners, communities of license, radio employees, advertisers etc. For those sitting on the fence, thinking “I’ll just do my job any everything will be just fine.” Full implementation of HD Radio™ will destroy what is left of broadcasting in this country. Radio is already on shaky ground as a result of product dilution, staff cuts, mediocre programing and competing media systems. One more step backward, such as adopting a technically flawed digital system that works worse than its analog counterpart, and the remaining listeners may just say “screw this,” and abandon radio altogether. When the last radio station is turned off, what do you think will happen to your job then?
At the big NAB Las Vegas confab, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai and to a lesser extent, Commissioner Rosenworcel, encouraged people to write or email them with their ideas on how to revitalize AM radio. I suggest we take advantage of that invitation and tell them what HD Radio™ really is. There is a shrinking window of opportunity to join the discourse and be heard, now is the time.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. ~John Stuart Mill
What is at stake? The future of diversified media and radio broadcasting in the US.
Sidebar: Mass Media Consolidation
Can the public trust a mass media that is owned mostly by six mega corporations to honestly and without bias report news, current events, investigate corruption, and be a government watch dog? History says no.
Who owns the media?
Home Box Office (HBO)
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
CW Network (partial ownership)
New Line Cinema
Time Warner Cable (spun off in 2009)
ABC Television Network (8 stations owned, 200 affiliates)
Radio Disney (31 stations, 2 affiliates)
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Buena Vista Theatrical Productions
Buena Vista Records
Walt Disney Pictures
Pixar Animation Studios
Buena Vista Games
Paramount Home Entertainment
Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Country Music Television (CMT)
Nick at Nite
The Movie Channel
Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Fox Television Stations (25 stations)
The New York Post
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Business Network
Fox Kids Europe
Fox News Channel
Fox News Radio
Fox Sports Net
Fox Television Network (175 affiliates)
My Network TV
News Limited News
Phoenix InfoNews Channel
Phoenix Movies Channel
STAR TV India
STAR TV Taiwan
Times Higher Education Supplement Magazine
Times Literary Supplement Magazine
Times of London
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
20th Century Fox International
20th Century Fox Studios
20th Century Fox Television
The Wall Street Journal
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Interactive Media
The National Geographic Channel
National Rugby League
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Sky Radio Netherlands
CBS Television Network (16 stations owned, 200 affiliates)
CBS Radio Inc. (130 stations)
CBS Consumer Products
CW Network (50% ownership)
Simon & Schuster (Pocket Books, Scribner)
NBC Television Network (10 stations owned, 200 affiliates)
Profile of a successful AM radio station, March 2013: WSBS, Great Barrington, Massachusetts
Great Barrington is a either a large village or medium sized town with a population of approximately 7,100. There are many listenable FM and AM radio stations from Albany, NY, Pittsfield, Springfield and Poughkeepsie, NY markets. There are also a few local stations; WBCR-LP, WMAQ (WAMC repeater) and W254AU (WFCR repeater). While the competition is not fierce, citizens have a variety of stations to choose from.
WSBS is a class D AM station on 860 KHz with 2,700 watts daytime power, 250 watts critical hours and 3.9 watts night time power.
WSBS AM 860 KHz approximate daytime coverage area
This is the approximate daytime coverage area for WSBS AM. I could not find any good coverage maps on line, so I made this one myself. When I am driving, I get the station reliably to Kingston, NY, however, indoor listening may be a different matter. With 3.9 watts ERP, night time coverage does not include much of the city of license.
They have a translator on 94.1 MHz, W231AK. This is an example of when an FM translator on an AM station is a benefit to the community of license. W231AK has recently been moved from the top of the roof of the Fairview Hospital to the WSBS AM tower. During this move, the ERP was increased from 35 watts to 250 watts and the highly directional antenna was replaced in favor of a 2 bay half wave spaced circularly polarized Shively 6812.
W231AK old service contour
W231AK new service contour
Not only did the move increase the translator’s coverage area, it also reduced operating expenses for the radio station, as they no longer have to pay rent or TELCO charges.
WSBS 860 KHz Harris SX2.5 transmitter, courtesy of NECRAT
The main transmitter for the AM station is a Harris SX2.5 . It transmits from a 79 degree tower, the tower and antenna field are well maintained.
WSBS 860 KHz, Great Barrington, MA tower base and ATU
The studio has a new Audioarts Air4 console, which we just finished installing last December.
The station has an AC music format, which is quite popular. As the FM translator’s coverage has been quite limited until recently and there have been issues with the telephone company circuit taking the translator off the air, the majority of listeners are tuned to the AM signal. There is a live morning show and afternoon show, the rest of the day is voice tracked with music on hard drive. They have frequent contests and give aways. They also do local sports, community events, news and things like live election night coverage. In short, the station serves its community and, as demonstrated by a recent Chamber Business event at the station’s studio, the community appreciates its radio station.
There is nothing magic here; no gimmicks, IBOC, or other technical wizardry. This facility is at best, technically average, albeit well maintained. There is an older Orban Optimod processor, an older AM transmitter and the original, electrically short tower. The station also has a working emergency generator. The only new tech is the web stream, which all radio stations should have.
The station is successful because of its programming, period. People love local radio. Making connections with listeners imparts a shared sense of community. Being on the air with a local presence during storms, even when the power is out, is a big deal. When it comes to relevance within the community and local businesses; in 2013 all radio stations need to earn that.
I do not suffer from technophobia; when digital radio was first proposed, I welcomed the idea. It was not until I began looking at the technical proposals and iBiquity’s proprietary system that I became concerned. After hearing the initial implementation of AM HD radio on WOR in NYC, I was not impressed with either it’s audio quality or the side band interference that the analog/digital hybrid AM HD system created. What is of an even greater concern is the propensity for government regulatory agencies to rubber stamp technical proposals by lobbying associations without testing or even fact checking.
Digital modulation methods at medium frequencies presents a unique challenge where the ratio of signal bandwidth to available frequency spectrum becomes too great to be practical. This is exacerbated at the lower end of the band where side band symmetry is difficult to achieve at ±15 KHz required by the all digital and the analog/digital hybrid version of AM HD radio.
Clearly, AM radio needs a technical revamping. Can it be saved? Yes. Is it worth saving? Yes. Is a yet unproven proprietary digital modulation scheme the way to do it? No.
Can the AM broadcast service be revitalized and returned to relevancy? If so, how? The previous post demonstrated that AM radio services problems are multigenerational and multifaceted. There is no one solution that will make everything better. Pushing an all digital solution will not solve electrical noise issues or the overcrowding issues on the AM band. It will not address the paucity of local, unique programming that is the bread and butter of successful AM operators. Because the issues that face AM operators cover many different areas of broadcasting, any proposed solution must address every aspect. Any proposal that simply addresses the poor fidelity, for example, will simply be another band-aid (no pun intended), placed on top of numerous others which have been previously ineffective.
The FCC is looking for deregulatory solutions to the AM problem. Deregulation and the FCC’s lasissez-faire attitude is exactly why the AM broadcast band is in the condition it is today. Relaxed technical standards have allowed the creeping crud to take over like Kudzu. Further deregulation will only exacerbate the problems.
In broad categories, AM radio’s problems are:
Noise and interference
Lack of ratings
Electrical Noise on AM broadcast band
In order for any solution to be effective, this problem must be addressed first. Noise and interference are at the heart of the technical issues confronting the typical AM radio listener. These problems come from multiple sources, but the worst of which are electrical devices such as CFL’s and other fluorescent lights, LED lamps, street lights, utility company wires, computers, computer monitors, TVs, power line communication, appliances and other intentional emitters. The FCC has, within it current powers, the ability to address at least some of these noise generators. Devices like CFL’s, LED lamps, computers and others are regulated under Part 15 and 18 of the FCC rules. While there is little that can be done with fluorescent lights (they work using an internal electrical arc), other emission standards can be tightened and better, more specific warning labels can be implemented on packaging.
Station to station interference on the AM broadcast band
Another aspect of this problem is mutual interference on the AM broadcast band. In short, too many stations are licensed to a small slice of the electromagnetic spectrum. The increasingly poor condition of many directional antenna systems ensures that there is a cacophony of interference at night. While this is a politically sticky situation, some tough love is needed to solve these problems. There are many under performing AM stations on the air that are junkyards of last ditch formats that have little or no hope of success. These stations are often technical disasters that pollute the spectrum with interfering signals. Compounding this issue is the transmission of IBOC at night. The current iteration of IBOC (HD radio) intentionally transmits on adjacent channels creating more problems than it solves.
Confronting any of these issues is almost certain to be a non-starter and that is a shame because real, meaningful steps can be taken here.
One scenario would be a one time test, applied during the next license renewal cycle, that allows station owners to assess their operations. Those that do not pass the test would be able surrender their license for a tax credit. This type of culling is not unprecedented, as the FRC did something very similar during the early days of broadcasting when the AM band became a free for all. The test should have three areas of consideration; technical operations, programming and business profitability. Something like this would be a reasonable example of a re-licensing test:
Does station have its own studio
Are DA parameters or base current as specified on license
Is antenna array being maintained, field mowed, trees cut, tower fences secure, signage posted, catwalks or access roadways maintained
Does station have a working backup transmitter
Does station have a working backup STL
Does station have a working emergency generator
Does station have a current transmitter maintenance log
Are NRSC measurements up to date
Are monitor points measured at least biannually
Minimum score to pass technical operations: 5 points
Does station originate local programing
1 point per average weekly hour
Does station have local news
1 point per average weekly quarter hour
Does station appear in market ratings survey
1 point per survey period (or 4 points for continuous survey markets)
Minimum score to pass programming test: 5 points
Is the station profitable
¼ point for every profitable quarter during last license period
Minimum score to pass business test: 3.5 points
Minimum overall score for all three tests combined: 16 points
This is a fairly low bar to get over. I generally do not advocated more government regulations and regulatory burden. However, this is one case where relaxed regulations lead to the problems currently being encountered. Perhaps a one time re-regulation would be warranted in the public interest.
Audio quality and other technical improvements
There are several areas where new technology can be used to improve AM stations technical quality. There is a common misconception that AM broadcasting has low fidelity due to inferior bandwidth. Truth be told, AM broadcasting can pass 15-20 KHz audio. It is restricted to less than 10 KHz because of the aforementioned band congestion problems. Since the NAB and the FCC has made exceptions to the NRSC-1 requirement in order to transmit HD radio, perhaps other wide bandwidth uses can be considered. One possibility would be to allow transmission of 15 KHz audio during daytime hours, switching back to NRSC-1 standard after dark. This may not work on local (class C) channels but for regional and what remains of cleared channels, it may offer some improvement. Also, turning off IBOC hybrid analog/digital transmissions after dark should be examined regardless of whether an all digital solution is sought. Hybrid IBOC is a part of the night time noise problem and not a viable solution, particularly troublesome are class A skywave signals.
Also, much benefit could be derived from requiring that all AM stations sync their carriers to GPS. If all of the stations on the same channel are on exactly the same frequency, it will eliminate carrier squeals, growls and whines. This is something that can be done very easily and inexpensively, especially with newer transmitters.
Double sideband AM is wasteful, as both lower and upper sidebands contain the same information. Suppressing the lower sideband and transmitting just the carrier and upper sideband would free up quite a bid of bandwidth and reduce adjacent channel interference. Most simple diode detectors demodulate the upper sideband anyway.
A concerted effort must be made to restore all of the technically deficient antenna systems. Not only fixing out of tolerance DAs but also addressing bandwidth issues, general maintenance, ground systems, clearing away brush and undergrowth can all have noticeable positive effects on signal performance.
At the same time, better receivers are making their way into the market place. Receivers that have auto variable IF bandwidth based on signal strength could greatly improve audio quality. The auto bandwidth function could be overridden by user selected bandwidth, if desired. I know that wider IF bandwidths are in the current chipset because of IBOC and DRM, I do not know to what extent they can be adjusted, but it is something that receiver manufactures should consider.
None of these solutions are Earth shattering, nor would they require great sums of money to implement.
AM to FM Translators
The current thought process is that using FM translators for AM stations is a fantastically great development. For a class D AM station with little or no night time power, an FM translator is a good way to maintain service to the community. For class C or some class B AM stations where night time interference greatly degrades the station’s service area, an FM translator is a good way to maintain service to the community. Does a 50 KW blow torch really need a 250 watt (or less) FM translator to aide with reception in its city of license? No. Yet, this is how the AM to FM translator service will be rolled out, those that already have sound technical operations will be given FM authorizations. This does nothing to actually fix AM broadcasting technical issues, it is a well meaning measure that will be incorrectly applied by the broadcasters that need it least.
All of the technology and gadgets will not solve the problem of poor programming. This is an area where the FCC should not tread, however, broadcasting associations can assist their members with local programming issues. Broadcasters need to understand that good local programming that is unique will attract listeners, worthless junk will not.
In order to get to the root problems of AM (aka Medium Wave, or Medium Frequency) broadcasting, a bit of history is required. For the sake of brevity, here is the cliff notes version:
Early broadcasting services were entirely AM and heavily regulated by the FRC and later FCC
FM broadcasting was introduced in the late 1930’s experimentally, then commercially circa 1947
In 1946 the FCC relaxed its regulations allowing many more AM stations to be licensed as both class II (currently class B regional) and class II-D, II-S, and III-S (currently class D) stations. Between 1946 and 1953 the number of AM stations more than doubled from 961 to 2,333
In spite of FM’s technical superiority, AM remained dominant until approximately the mid to late 1970’s when the FCC forced FM stations to end simulcasting with co-owned AM stations
Broadcast deregulation came in small waves at first; programming rules, business rules, some technical rules, operator license requirements were done away with, enforcement of other rules became more selective
Deteriorating antenna systems, splatter, modulation wars, declining technical resources and increased electrical noise created interference issues
The electrical noise floor gradually increases as more electrical appliances, street lights, fluorescent lights, and other intentional emitters increase
Radio manufactures responded to consumer complaints by greatly reducing the audio bandwidth of their AM receivers
Broadcast deregulation greatly increased in the 1980’s
The FCC voted in 1980 to limit skywave protection of clear channel (class I or A) stations to within 750 miles of transmitter site allowing former daytime only stations to stay on at night which increased interference
AM Stereo is implemented in 1982 to improve quality and compete with FM broadcasting. Competing systems are proposed, FCC does not mandate a standard, lets the market decide, the technology dies off
The National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC) is formed and comes up with a standard (NRSC-1) that restricts AM broadcast audio to 10 KHz or less, mandates yearly measurements
Ownership rules are loosened somewhat in 1994, then greatly in 1996
The expanded AM band (1,610 to 1,700 KHz) is opened up in 1997 to existing AM broadcasters. Once stations are licensed to operate in the expanded band, they are supposed to surrender their former licenses, few do
The great radio consolidation takes place; 1997-2004. Synergy is the word of the day, stations are overvalued in multiple transactions which created a debt bubble
Skywave listening is mostly depreciated as an acceptable communications method by the industry
The introduction of IBOC hybrid analog/digital broadcasting in 2002 greatly increased the adjacent channel interference issues. Sidebands out to ±10-15 KHz of carrier are introduced with power levels of -16dBc. For a 50 KW station, this equals approximately 2,500 watts power transmitted on each of the adjacent channels. Analog audio of stations transmitting AM IBOC is restricted to 5 KHz, background digital noise is often present in analog audio, further degrading the quality
Inside electrical noise greatly increases as compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) and LED lamps become popular energy saving measures
Night time operation of HD radio permitted in 2007 creating greater interference problems to distant adjacent channel stations
There are 4,738 AM stations licensed, 89 are silent, approximately 210 transmit HD radio, approximately 66 (mostly class A and B stations), transmit HD radio at night
There is not any one development that can be singled out as the smoking gun that killed the AM broadcast band, it is rather, a death from a thousand cuts. Because of heavy debt loads, technical, programming, promotional and personnel resources are directed away from AM stations (and FM stations too). After staffs were reduced and news departments eliminated, AM stations became a dumping ground for mediocre satellite syndicated talk programming. Eventually many also became a technical nightmare due to deferred maintenance.
There can be little doubt, AM broadcasting is a tough business to be in. In spite of all of that, however, there are several AM stations that are not merely surviving but thriving. What does it take to be a successful AM broadcaster in 2013? There seems to be several common threads, but the two most common are a good technical operations and local programming.
After reading this article in Radio World it seems the all digital AM testing completed last December was “nearly flawless.” This comes as no surprise considering that WBCN is owned by CBS, also an iBiquity investor. Could there really be another result? I think not. But let us examine the technical aspects of the WBCN test itself.
WBCN is on 1,660 KHz in the expanded part of the AM band. According to the FCC database, it transmits from a single 90.7 degree tower. As such, the tower is likely either broad banded already or easily modified to be. Also according to the FCC database, there are eight other stations licensed to 1,660 KHz, all of which transmit with a power of 1 KW at night. This eliminates much of the interference issues found on the rest of the AM band. It can be further noted, the problem with electrical noise is most prevalent below 1,000 KHz. There is little wonder in the nearly flawless results.
From a technical standpoint, this is about as favorable a testing configuration as can be conceived for AM IBOC. If AM HD radio did not work under these test conditions, then it would never work at all. The actual data from the tests has yet to see the light of day and it may never be released. This is likely due to the same reason the NAB will not release its technical improvement study on AM; we simply won’t understand it.
Near the end of the article someone (it is not exactly clear who) asks the NAB, “why the opacity?” For which the answer given is “to get stuff done.” There is a fair bit of hubris in that statement. Is the NAB now the technology decider for the rest of us? I think not. Shutting out everyone but a very select few rightly causes suspicion, something that the Radio World article acknowledges.
Accurate, real world testing involves more than using one technically favorable test subject. In fact, the tests should be run in the most technically challenged environment to present meaningful data points in real world conditions. Stations like a six tower directional on 580 KHz, or a 190 degree tower with a folded unipole on 810 KHz, or pretty much any class C AM station at night time. These types of test will represent at least a few of the existing antenna systems and stations. Will that happen? It depends on whether the FCC will hold somebody’s feet to the fire and demand meaningful testing.
Much ink has already been spilled by various trade publications debating the future of AM broadcasting. Most take the position that there are several technical issues which makes AM broadcasting problematic if not downright untenable. There are indeed some technical issues with AM when compared with FM or IP based audio distribution. There are also several ways that AM broadcasting is superior to both FM and IP based audio distribution. The truth is that AM broadcasting’s issues are complex and involve technical, regulatory and operational considerations.
These can be broken down as follows:
AM is prone to electrical noise interference
AM is prone to co-channel and adjacent channel interference
AM has inferior bandwidth and thus audio quality
AM has poor signal quality
AM has low or no market share
All of these problems conspire to make AM broadcasting unprofitable, or so the narrative goes. Does all digital AM HD radio really solve any of these problems? From the WBCN test alone, results are inconclusive.
Transmitting a signal in digital format does not make it immune to noise or interference. It simply masks the interference until the noise floor becomes too high causing excessive bit errors, at which time the receiver mutes. Thus, with AM HD radio in a noisy environment, the listener will not hear static, that much is true, they may not hear anything at all. Is this all or nothing reception an improvement?
AM broadcasting audio bandwidth problems are mostly self inflicted. AM stations created loudness wars in the 60’s and 70’s, causing splatter and adjacent channel interference on older, cheap diode detector type receivers. Receiver manufactures responded by limiting IF bandwidths to 3-4 KHz, slightly better than telephone quality. The industry came up with the NRSC-1 standard which limited AM bandwidth to 10 KHz or less. For a long while, AM radio receivers remained very poor. This appears to be changing with newer receivers that are both more selective and more sensitive. My Toyota has a Pioneer radio which has good bandwidth on AM. Is it as good as FM? No, but it is certainly listenable, especially if no other station is playing that style music.
That brings me to programming, which is the real crux of the issue. Continued in part II.
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optimist sees the glass as half full. The engineer sees the glass as twice the size it needs to be.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~1st amendment to the United States Constitution
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
~Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Article 19
...radio was discovered, and not invented, and that these frequencies and principles were always in existence long before man was aware of them. Therefore, no one owns them. They are there as free as sunlight, which is a higher frequency form of the same energy.