11-1-13
Cromwell CEO Bud Walters did not have as much praise for the NPRM as Downs did. He said it asks many good questions but it will take years before the first FM translator will be granted, no matter the good intentions Of the FCC. "Many of these same questions were asked by AM licensees in 1988 during 80 90 proceedings. The only thing that can now help AM Broadcasters who want a translator is the approval of the Tell City waiver. I am sorry that we so far have not made the case well enough. The Tell City waiver would allow AM broadcasters to move FM translators and Walters has been waiting on a ruling for his request for over a year. Read more on that HERE
Broadcast Attorney John Garziglia Calls this a good first step:
"The NPRM?s most important element is the recognition that for the near term, providing for the availability of FM translators for AM stations is most important. It is unfortunate, however, that the FCC failed to recognize that allowing for the move of existing FM translators to where they can better serve AM stations is a marketplace approach that would provide far more certainty to struggling AM operators than does only the NPRM approach of opening a future new filing window that is likely to take years to bear results."
"AM stations that are hoping for the prospect of a free FM translator may find that when they are finally allowed to file the one application on the one channel in the one-time window, there may be other mutually-exclusive applications filed for that same channel. Rather than a free FM translator, the AM station may find that it has only ended up in an auction with the prospect of significant expense and more delay. But for some AM stations, the proposed one-time window will likely yield an FM translator."
"If the FCC had removed its procedural barriers to allow for greater flexibility in moving FM translators, it would have gone a long way to helping AM stations now rather than months or years later. There are hundreds of FM translators now cluttering the FM band that will inevitably be used as repeaters for distant stations that could otherwise have been used by AM broadcasters if procedural barriers to moving translators had been relaxed. Instead, with the FCC?s proposal to eliminate current flexibility in moving FM translators, it appears as if the FCC is going out of its way to make it more difficult for AM stations to obtain FM translators for reasons that are not readily apparent."
Mark Douglas Haden tells Radio Ink, "I would hope that the commission would narrow the choices, and do a better job of choosing a standard as opposed to how AM stereo was handled."
"In this age, there is not a need for clear channel stations. If the whole idea is to serve the local community, why have a signal come in from a faraway market? Yes, I remember how cool it was to listen to those out of market signals as a youth, but there were fewer choices then. That thrill is gone. Have the clear channels power down so the other stations can power up. If there is a national emergency, those out of market signals will not tell the listener what he needs to know in his particular area. Also on that note, why daytime only stations? Every AM signal should be full service, full time. Skywave interference could be allayed with a logical placement of frequencies, far enough apart to prevent such interference. That would solve daytime signal problems and nighttime signal problems. Assign daytimers an FM frequency and take daytimers off the air, or keep them on with the powering down of the clear channel stations."
"Fish or cut bait on the digital broadcasts. As in the digitizing of television, and the mandate to manufacturers, similar actions can be made regarding radio. Manufacturers seem to not consider AM when it comes to fidelity. From what I have read, IBOC may not be the best way to go. There have been success stories, and ones not so successful. Create a digital standard. Mandate that manufacturers adhere to a fidelity standard. Make those standards uniform. The marketplace concept did not work with AM stereo. Give the public time to adjust, as was done with television."
"Giving FM frequencies to AM stations to fill in the gap sounds good in one sense, but it does not fix the AM problem. If an FM frequency is available with the same programming that is on the AM, and it covers the same area, why would one listen to the AM without a fidelity improvement? That does not fix the problem of AM. If the FM just continues the programming of a daytimer at night, get rid of the daytimer and assign an FM frequency instead. Fix the fidelity problem, the interference problem, the coverage problem and the daytime only problem, and people will listen to AM again...or an FM replacement."
"I know that it comes down to the bottom line for many broadcasters. It always has and always will, but if the commission is serious about saving AM, maybe they need to erase the board and start afresh. Whatever method is chosen, I would hope that the commission would use the KISS method. Keep it simple stupid. Do not have a potpourri."
Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend
Bryan Broadcasting Vice President Ben Downs says of his friend, ?Bud didn?t pull records for Mr. Marconi, but he has played a role in a significant percentage of radio?s development. He?s always been willing to share his ideas and things he?s learned with people who are new to the business. Radio is blessed with a few special people who get into the business early and stay late. That love for our industry and our communities is what makes Bud and the owner-operators like him unique to radio. They?re why radio continues to remain relevant as we start looking toward the second century of radio broadcasting.?