{"id":7634,"date":"2014-02-17T08:00:02","date_gmt":"2014-02-17T12:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/?p=7634"},"modified":"2023-03-29T13:40:34","modified_gmt":"2023-03-29T17:40:34","slug":"am-revitalization-comments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/2014\/02\/am-revitalization-comments\/","title":{"rendered":"AM revitalization comments"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>I have been reading the comments regarding the FCC&#8217;s NPRM (<a rel=\"noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/apps.fcc.gov\/ecfs\/proceeding\/view?z=2p37k&amp;name=13-249\" target=\"_blank\">13-249<\/a>).\u00a0 Clearly, many people are interested in keeping the AM broadcasting band both active and relevant.\u00a0 Some of these suggestions have merit but are unlikely to be adopted by the FCC.\u00a0 Others are viable and could alleviate at least a few of the technical shortcomings of the AM band.\u00a0 The rest fall along expected positions.\u00a0 Here is a brief rundown:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Clear Channel, iBiquity: Allow stations to transmit in all digital mode.\u00a0 Likelihood: Possible.\u00a0 The hybrid version of AM HD Radio has been a failure on several fronts; added interference to adjacent channels, self-interference, poor adoption, wonky CODECs, etc.\u00a0 However, letting stations choose to broadcast in all digital AM HD Radio may decide the issue once and for all.\u00a0 As long as the all-digital carriers fall within the current analog channels, this would be fine.\u00a0 Actually, I would add that stations transmitting in all digital be allowed to choose DRM as well as HD Radio<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>REC Networks, MMTC: Move AM stations to former TV channels 5 and 6.\u00a0 Likelihood: Unlikely.\u00a0 It would be a neat solution, however, there are currently many full and low-power TV stations still using those frequencies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Clear Channel, SBE, MMTC, Crawford, et al: Allow AM stations a special translator filing window.&nbsp; Likelihood: Almost assured.&nbsp; This has been broached by the FCC itself.&nbsp; I would add that Class D and Class C stations be given priority.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>SBE, du trial, Lundin and Rackely, MMTC et. al: Remove the &#8220;ratchet rule,&#8221; reduce antenna efficiency requirements and city of license contour requirements.&nbsp; Likelihood: probable.&nbsp; Over the years, the FCC&#8217;s rules and regulations designed to help AM broadcasting&#8217;s technical product have done the opposite in many cases.&nbsp; This is especially true of the &#8220;ratchet rule.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>SBE, du Trial, Lundin and Rackely, MMTC: MDCL (Modulation Depended Carrier Level) Likelihood: Possible.&nbsp; MDCL does not do much to improve AM signal quality, but it can save the station owner some money on the electricity bill.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Alabama Broadcaster&#8217;s Association, et al: Better FCC enforcement.\u00a0 Likelihood: Not very.\u00a0 This is another area where interference and AM noise problems can be fixed.\u00a0 Given Ajit Pai&#8217;s desire for &#8220;non-regulatory&#8221; relief, stepped-up enforcement seems to be a non-starter.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hatfield and Dawson: Eliminate substandard AM stations.\u00a0 Likelihood: Not very.\u00a0 Getting rid of substandard stations and letting the remaining AM stations enjoy a little breathing room is actually a big step in the right direction.\u00a0 H&amp;D notes that the FCC should petition congress for tax relief for those stations that choose to surrender their licenses.\u00a0 Unfortunately, it does not appear likely that the FCC, congress, and the current station owners would go for it.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>du Treil, Lundin, and Rackely: Do away with skywave protection for class A stations\u00a0 Likelihood: Possible.\u00a0 The argument goes; skywave listening represents a very small number of mostly hobbyists (AM DXers) as other, better methods for program distribution exist for serious listeners.\u00a0 Sad but true.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>du Treil, Lundin, and Rackely: No more new AM stations.\u00a0 Likelihood: Possible.\u00a0 There is a cogent argument to be made regarding the overcrowding of the AM band.\u00a0 Stopping any further crowding is a good idea.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>SBE, Cohen, Dippell, and Everist, et al: Tighten regulations on electrical noise emitters.\u00a0 Likelihood: Unlikely.\u00a0 The FCC does not have the mettle to tighten regulations against powerful manufacturing and technology lobbies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>iBiquity: Do not let anything get in the way of the HD Radio rollout.&nbsp; Likelihood: Is it possible to get in the way of something that is standing still?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Talking amongst engineers and AM broadcasters, many of these ideas have merit.&nbsp; The real question is, will any of this bring more listeners?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I have been reading the comments regarding the FCC&#8217;s NPRM (13-249).\u00a0 Clearly, many people are interested in keeping the AM broadcasting band both active and relevant.\u00a0 Some of these suggestions have merit but are unlikely to be adopted by the FCC.\u00a0 Others are viable and could alleviate at least a few of the technical shortcomings &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/2014\/02\/am-revitalization-comments\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">AM revitalization comments<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,37],"tags":[87],"class_list":["post-7634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fcc","category-hd-radio","tag-am"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7634","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7634"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7634\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11293,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7634\/revisions\/11293"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineeringradio.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}