AM Revitalization Debate Steps Forward at NAB

3-21-13

(by David Webster)<./b> FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is staying focused on AM revitalization with his moderation of a panel dedicated to the subject at this year's NAB Show.  This is encouraging news to AM broadcasters, many of whom have seen their technological, competitive and economic vitality sapped over the years.

Radio has advantage in its localism and accessibility; however this advantage, especially in the case of AM, is hampered through the poor reception experience suffered by many listeners.  Noisy signals with limited fidelity, combined with a night coverage that causes many stations to "effectively disappear" after sunset, puts AM in an intractable situation.  To remain relevant and thrive in the coming years AM radio clearly needs a "reboot".

I continue to applaud Commissioner Pai for taking, and sustaining, the initiative on this issue. There are various ideas on the table to be addressed by the panel, with many in the industry eagerly anticipating the discussion.  I have reached out to professionals in the industry in effort to gather their thoughts on creating a "wish list" of suggestions they would like to see addressed by the panel.  I have collected and summarized the most prevalent suggestions into 7 possible discussion points.

1.  There have been proposals for "across the board" power increases for AM broadcasters to combat interference and overcome reception issues encountered by poorly designed, yet commonplace, receivers entrenched in the marketplace.  This single change, while potentially costly for broadcasters to implement, offers the single most immediate benefit regarding improving AM reception issues outside of being on FM translators.  Yes, the ideas of regulating and cleaning up the "noise causing" devices that are creating the interference should and must be addressed, but the sheer quantity of these emitters makes the quest extremely daunting if not impossible.  What are the panel's thoughts regarding these two critical issues relating to AM revitalization?

2.  The use of FM translators by AMs to better serve their service area has been a boon to the broadcasters that can acquire them.  However, there have been many cases in which an AM could acquire a translator but current rules will not allow the translator to be moved within a station's service area.  There is proposal to relax these rules and better help accommodate these moves that is awaiting decision.  As it is generally not the policy to comment on policy changes that are currently under review, it would still be good to hear panel discussion on the subject along with other issues related to FM translator use by AMs.

3.  There has been much discussion about transitioning current AM stations to a new "all-digital" band.  The majority of broadcasters that I corresponded with ultimately believe this to be the most likely long-term solution.  Proposals include those by the Broadcast Maximization Committee for repurposing the spectrum of television channels 5 and 6 along with the DRM Consortium's utilization of the 26Mhz space for local broadcasting.  Converting to a new band scheme will certainly take time to occur, so it is imperative to begin as soon as feasible.  It would be great to hear discussion amongst the panelists along with those that may have taken place within the Commission regarding these issues.

4.  There has been much discussion, and recently testing of, utilizing the HD Radio or DRM systems in their "all digital" modes with a possible goal of dropping "hybrid digital" and "analog only" broadcasting.  I have found almost unanimous opinion by broadcasters and others in the industry that this is a total non-starter without some sort of timeline and receiver mandate by the Commission such as occurred with the DTV transition.  In taking this issue as a serious consideration, would the Commission consider "mandating" a digital radio transition to accelerate uptake and what is the industry's opinion?

5.  An AM improvement idea which is gaining traction is that of "Single Frequency Networks" or SFNs.   In SFNs a synchronous transmission is simultaneously broadcast on multiple lower-powered transmitters covering smaller "cells" throughout a station's service area.  These more numerous lower-power localized nodes could overcome issues including noise and coverage limitations, especially at night.  Many stations have to reduce their power to a fraction of their daytime levels at night, so if this lower-power level could be simultaneously broadcast from multiple locations, a station could cover its service area without contributing significant skywave interference at night.  SFNs make even more sense with digital transmission since these systems have been purposefully designed for these broadcast environments.  It would be nice to hear the panel's perspective regarding such "synchronous" broadcasting topologies on AM as well as FM.

6.  Many barriers to AM improvement are due to the physics of the band itself, at this lower frequency AM radiators are much larger than those of FM, often hundreds of feet in height.  Many AM transmission facilities are ageing and in need of replacement or repair which can be an expensive, if not impossible proposition for an operator, especially in cases of directional antenna systems.  For the current broadcast environment and for future consideration of synchronous transmission systems with a multitude of  "cells", the need for less costly lower profile, yet efficient, antennas is at hand.  Since most AM antenna technology, designs and principles have not changed much since the 1920's, what could industry and the FCC do from a regulatory perspective to foster, test  and ultimately approve new "lower profile" antenna systems for AM?

7.  Continuing along the lines of "transmission improvements", the concept of "anti-skywave" antennas has taken on an almost "cult like" status as the Holy Grail for AM.  It would be great to hear the panel's insights on this issue, especially in regards to what private industry along with the Commission and other governmental entities could do to computer model, test, construct and proof these designs.

In summary, these are just few AM revitalization topics that will hopefully be joined with many more to be discussed by the panel.  Again, my appreciation to Commissioner Pai, along with this esteemed group of panelists for their consideration and commitment to help AM broadcasting "Reload" as it transitions towards its second century.

Dave Webster is the CEO at VSI|HD Media Services in Southington, CT and can be reached at David Webster DWebster@vsimedia.com

(3/21/2013 6:43:17 AM)
WIBG salutes the FCC commissioner for looking at rebooting AM . FCC should require all utility companies to replace and renew their infrastructure. AM radio competes with the local electric companies because of their RFI noise generated by junk equipment As importantly, insist that radio manufacturers re install new digital IF circuits in receivers, as their removal
40 years ago denegrated AM quality, forcing listeners to FM. Third, eliminate IBOC from AM. Pure noise..pure buzz

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

We Found Someone Unhappy With Romney's Debate

10-3-2012

PBS issued a statement after being mentioned in the presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama. They weren't all that happy with Romney and they have trotted out Big Bird to help get their point across. "Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves."

In 2011, the federal government spent about $430 million to support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which then divided that money between PBS, NPR, and various other stations and programs. Romney said, ?I?m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. But I?m not going to ? I?m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.?

The PBS statement went on to say, "For more than 40 years, Big Bird has embodied the public broadcasting mission ? harnessing the power of media for the good of every citizen, regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Our system serves as a universally accessible resource for education, history, science, arts, and civil discourse."

"Each day, the American public receives an enduring and daily return on investment that is heard, seen, read and experienced in public media broadcasts, apps, podcasts, and online ? all for the cost of about $1.35 per person per year. A key thing to remember is that public television and radio stations are locally owned and community focused, and they are experts in working efficiently to make limited resources produce results. In fact, for every dollar of federal funding invested, they raise an additional six dollars on their own ? a highly effective public-private partnership."

(10/4/2012 10:51:16 PM)
Let 'em raise $7 instead of 6. Commercial broadcasters face budget issues like this every day.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

The Debate About FM Chip was Fierce Thursday

4-25-2012
Getting an easy-to-use FM chip into every cell phone sold has become a major issue for the radio industry. Emmis CEO Jeff Smulyan has spearheaded the effort, however the NAB is also heavily involved, and iBiquity just became part of the push last week when it unveiled an HD chip in Las Vegas. After an attempt to have the chip mandated was thwarted, broadcasters are now using community safety as their number-one selling proposition. Not everyone's buying the safety pitch

On Tuesday, the issue made it to Florida Congressman Gus Bilirakis, who is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness. Smulyan was joined by NAB CEO Gordon Smith, Clear Channel's Jeff Littlejohn, and others representing broadcasters. AT&T and Verizon were invited but didn't show. Representatives from the International Association for the Wireless Industry (also known as the CTIA) were at the meeting, perhaps only to make sure the word "mandate" didn't pop up again. Jot Carpenter (pictured) is the organization's Vice President of Governmental Affairs. We spoke to Carpenter about the meeting and it's his opinion this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with broadcasters wanting a free ride into the smartphone.

LISTEN TO OUR INTERVIEW WITH CARPENTER HERE
Carpenter says if broadcasters can get the chip into the phone, they wouldn't have to pay streaming fees because the chip delivers the over-the-air product, therefore eliminating the streaming cost. He was also less than impressed with the rollout last week of the new HD chip by iBiquity and Intel. "I chuckled when I saw that. I don't know a soul who has HD. That was just an attempt to jump start the FM chip business which has not taken off." Carpenter also says those phones that already have the chips are not really being activated all that much.
Both Smulyan and the NAB say the meeting was positive, and Smulyan believes the issue is going to get some traction ? perhaps additional meetings with lawmakers. Bilirakis has not taken a position on whether the FM chips should be installed in cell phones. He said, ?The best ideas and innovation come from the private sector, not the federal government. The telecommunications sector ? from television, to radio, to the wireless phone industry ? offered valuable insight and suggestions today for Congress to consider.?
There are some phones now on the market with chips already installed, but they are not widely known brands like the iPhone, mostly because it appears AT&T and Verizon have very little interest in the chip. The reality is there has been very little consumer outcry for the FM chip, perhaps because an emergency hasn't hit them yet. Perhaps it's because they have so many apps on their phones already they figure they have what they need. Or maybe the radio industry needs to figure out a way to organize and educate the public on why they might need it.

(4/27/2012 6:57:53 AM)
I find it deliciously ironic (and hypocritical) that we preach that many of the FCC's statutory mandates over the broadcasting industry are onerous government regulation in light of new developments int he media world, but we turn around and use political muscle in order to try to force another industry to take steps that are probably not economically justifiable in order to serve our own interests. Do we believe in a free market with only the most necessary government regulation, or is that just something we say when it is in our interests to say so? I've been in this business for more than 30 years and I see the same thing played out over and over again. The default position for many broadcasters when faced with the prospect of additional competition is to go crying to Congress or the FCC for protection. I guess you can have it both ways, but I would suggest that it is not an intellectually coherent place to end up.

The bottom line is that if the public really wanted FM radios in their phones, the phone companies would provide them. (I guess putting an AM chip is impossible?)

Rather than try to force people to buy products that they probably don't want, perhaps it would be better for broadcasters to continue to evolve into the new digital world rather than be like King Canute and try to will the tides to change. The TV guys seem to be evolving to meet their challenges. Why do we believe we have a inalienable human right to play in the sandbox with which we are comfortable?

(4/26/2012 6:02:09 PM)
From these comments its very clear that the Radio industry has to be more united for this to ever become a success. I agree with Mr. Carpenter that an HD chip was a lame ploy (my words). Why an FM chip? Why not an AM chip? Why not both? Is this a technical issue? I do agree that we need something in cell phones/smart phones so people can be alerted to natural disasters and other emergencies -- let's keep working on it!
(4/26/2012 5:40:41 PM)
In true emergencies, such as those in Tuscaloosa and Joplin last year, good luck with Twitter or anything else online, because the internet won't be there. Your smartphone will quickly become an FM radio -- if so equipped. In those true emergencies, local radio is likely to remain on the air. I know that with 24/7 staffing and back-up generators at both studio and transmitter, listeners in my market will have someplace to turn.
(4/26/2012 4:10:58 PM)
Having FM radio access on cell/smart phones is a no brainer. And there are still family owned independent broadcasters(unlike the cookie cutter conglomerates-I am proud of our 50 year history of serving the public--GoCountry105.com,KMOZART.com, ClassicCountry105.com).
There is ample precedent and history for the FCC to mandate FM access in cell phones. UHF TV access was made mandatory circa 1962, and Expanded Band AM radio was also made mandatory.
(4/26/2012 2:46:16 PM)
So its the streaming cost, yeah thats it! Because it cost so much more to stream to the phone too! But if all the FM station will stop streaming that would open more bandwidth for Pandora!

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

The AM Radio Debate Continues

2-3-2012
Earlier this week we ran a story about the NAB conducted an engineering study to help broadcasters determine how to save the AM Radio band which has been challenged of late with consumers moving more and more to their phones and tablets for content. The band is also challenged with technical issues making it nearly impossible to listen to when other delivery methods are much more clear. Here are your comments on the issue.

1-31-2012

The National Association of Broadcasters Board of Directors met this week for its regularly scheduled winter board meeting. And while 2012 is poised to be a year the NAB spends a lot of time on Television spectrum issues, several radio issues were discussed at the meeting. The challenge of what will happen to the AM dial has been a major topic for discussion lately and board members heard a report from Chief Technololgy Officer Kevin Gage (pictured) regarding an AM engineering study that was conducted.

The future of the AM band has become a concern for many broadcasters as consumers migrate more and more to their phones, tablets and crowded dashboards for crystal clear sounding content. Even broadcasters are moving away from the static sound of the AM band, flipping - or at least simulcasting - their news and sports products to FM dial where it's become fact they can pick up younger listeners and the sound quality is much better.

Some see the writing on the wall regarding AM due to that sound quality as well as other technical issues. Gage presented a summary of the AM Engineering Study, conducted in collaboration by NAB and consulting firm Hammett & Edison, to cover the full gamut of future technical options for AM broadcasters. The study is very lengthy and board members are going to need to read it and digest it before asking more questions and releasing it.

Gage also briefed the Radio Board on FASTROAD initiatives related to the development of HD Radio technology.

NAB Executive VP of Legal & Regulatory Affairs Jane Mago updated the Board on media ownership, the EAS national test and FCC order, public disclosure related to online public files and Enhanced Reporting Form and the pending Supreme Court indecency case. The NAB did not release any specific details about what Mango reported.

The future of the AM band has become a concern for many broadcasters. Kevin Gage presented a summary of an AM Engineering Study, conducted in collaboration by NAB and consulting firm Hammett & Edison, to cover the full gamut of future technical options for AM broadcasters. He also briefed the Radio Board on FASTROAD initiatives related to the development of HD Radio technology.

Kelly Cole provided an update regarding efforts to educate lawmakers on the benefits of radio chips in cell phones. Ms. Cole also briefed the Radio Board on

NAB's concerns related to felony streaming language in copyright legislation SOPA and "PROTECT IP" Act, now stalled indefinitely. Ms. Cole also provided updates on the status of issues related to performance tax and spectrum fees.

NAB CEO Gordon Smith said, "the unity between NAB Radio and TV Boards has been the hallmark of the association in the last two years, and has helped broadcasters achieve public policy goals. He contrasted NAB's unity with the partisan gridlock in Washington, where legislative efforts to reduce the deficit and protect copyrights have stalled."

It was also announced that Joel Oxley, senior regional VP and market manager, Hubbard Radio Washington Market; Rick Cummings, president - programming, Emmis Communications Corporation; Ronald Davis, president and general manager, KBOW-AM/KOPR-FM/KGLM-FM/KANA-AM/Butte Broadcasting and Eric Brown, general manager, KRVN-AM are rotating off the NAB Board.

(2/3/2012 1:09:54 PM)
Look at my comments on Docket 99-325 and I have outlined a whole plan for the AM band - requiring mandatory AM receiver requirements to meet AMAX specs, allowing for SuperPower AM's of 500KW-750KW to overcome the noise, and noise mitigation - forcing imported switching power supplies to meet RF snubbing. After all that, then it's up to US to put compelling niche music programs and local entertainment to bring people back to the AM band. And our sales staff to sell it and PD's to program it. It IS America's lifeline when the chips are down - AM radio.
(2/3/2012 10:58:22 AM)
The skies been falling on AM's since I started as a local salesguy for WJR-AM--OneA --50KW Clear Clear Channel. Then it was TV--then FM--then Cable--The beat goes on still. AM is still a vital service in 300 US Communities. Thx to US Govt , FCC -the AM Band keeps getting filleted for politically correct reasons. My partners and I have owned the 50KW giants like WGY to daytimer in Peterborough, NH.
AM's today are the lifeblood of Hispanic, Urban, Sports, Business, Talk/ News formats..ask Rush Limbaugh..
To start Cleaning up the static--terminate AM licenses that have been DARK for more than a year--give 50% IRS Tax donations for Am's being shut off--Curious how FM 's have just started to do All News in Major Mkts --after 50 yrs of saying it'd never work.

(2/3/2012 9:12:56 AM)
I am sick and tied of so-called RADIO people continuing to write obituaries for AM Radio!

The problem is NOT with the AM band; the problem is with US! We KNOW that nobody listens to AM because we don't; so we sell FM and actually discourage advertisers from investing in our AM; and then we blame the "band"! BS!

Look in the mirror! That is the problem with AM Radio!

(2/2/2012 8:52:15 PM)
By permission:

Warren Shulz writes:

AM radio will not make it without a migration to ch 5/6 TV….And then the fights will begin to who gets what. Bigger issue is receiver base. My guess if it were a success it could take a decade to migrate. Over air broadcast is doomed whether it be TV or radio.

37,000 i-somethings are sold every day. Apple can’t get out of the way. Public can’t get enough. Folks are NOT going back to broadcast concept. DTVs are losing spectrum to make more wireless spectrum which will further compete with DTV. DTVs will end up airing endless infomercials. It’s only a matter of time the broadcast tent as we know it will fold. Big killer for AM is Part 15 device noise floor rising to levels that you will need a 25mv/M signal to overcome the background noise in urban areas.

Just my opinion as I fade into the sunset.

Warren Shulz

WLS CGO

(2/2/2012 7:05:37 PM)
AM began losing ground in its survival chances when the NAB, FCC and industry in general quit enforcing previous requirements to keep AM and FM bundled together on all receivers sold in the US. Now, FM only radios are everywhere. What happened the plans to merge the two bands together in a seamless package.

Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

(AUDIO) The Rock Radio Debate Continues

Download this show

(by Ed Ryan) Recently I wrote an opinion piece about Rock & Roll and my lost love for the format I grew up with. There was a lot of reaction to this piece, mainly split down the middle from readers. However, those that have worked in that format, disagreed 100%. They say the format is alive and thriving. And obviously there are Classic Rock stations doing quite well across the country. Someone who has developed a stellar reputation in the industry is Jeff Pollack. Pollack disagrees that the format is fading and sent a letter which you can read here as well. We gave Jeff a call to get specifics from him on why he believes this format isn't on a respirator. Here is that full interview. Although I'm not sure I agree that someone who listens to The Doors also listens to Jay Z and Eminem Pollack details how the format has changed, survived and spawned other splintered rock formats that do very well even today.  

Here's my full interview with the gret Jeff Pollack

Also, Check out Jeff's recent piece at the Huffington post.

Jeff's letter to Radio Ink after we ran THIS PIECE

People getting tired of Pink Floyd? So that's the reason for the recent format shifts? Glad we're all learning the real reasons from Radio Ink.
I know you were looking for a reaction and you got it, but maybe next time you should realize that putting forth such a confused conclusion based on what are actually wildly different competitive scenarios simply represents evolution and attrition, where the stronger survive and those who are behind sensibly explore their options. But to even hint that classic rock, around since the late 70's when legendary PDs realized the enduring appeal of the music, is dead, is just silly talk.
If your article instead pointed to some of the real challenges facing contemporary rock formats in PPM markets, I think more of us would have been interested. If you had asked for example, how a rock format, whether Active, Alternative or AAA, can hope to compete in PPM markets without being more cume focused in their music, that would be interesting. Or, without a big cuming morning show, how can you compete with the big stations in your markets, that would have been a more thoughtful discussion. Or why is it that certain rock stations effectively reach a large audience, while others argue themselves into a no win spiral trying to arbitrarily decide what is rock and whether a particular artist "fits" the format. Or addressed whether the current state of new music is a primary issue in the health of contemporary rock formats, a point made by Virgil Thompson in his rebuttal about how "current 'rock' is in a valley and has been for awhile". But instead, you dismissed all of the various permutations of rock in a sweeping manner.

The world is completely different than it was even 10 years ago. Rock fans today own Jay Z, Jason Aldean and Eminem records, listen to Lynryd Skynyrd and The Who, while others are perfectly comfortable with defining Coldplay and Nickelback as rock. The audience has decided that rock is a whole lot wider than many gatekeepers do. I would have liked a sensible debate about real issues facing rock formats going forward, not statements that are barely worth responding to. You can do better.
Jeff Pollack

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here

More About The Streaming Debate From Fred Jacobs. Did We Miss The Point?

June 23, 2011

Earlier in the week many of you read and commented on several articles we posted on whether or not it makes good financial sense to stream your signal over the Internet. Legendary broadcaster Jerry Lee made a strong case for why he doesn't do it, considering it a waste of his money. Of course a lot of broadcasters disagreed with that and let us know about it. Fred Jacobs has been on the cutting edge when it comes to adapting to technology and applying it to his business model with a goal of helping broadcasters. He's posted a blog you should all check out. It's a different take on the streaming debate and one certainly worth your time. Here it is...

OK, it started with this screaming headline in Radio Ink. (You have to hand it to Eric Rhoads ? he loves a good controversy and enjoys using his publication as a forum.)

JERRY LEE: ?STREAMING YOUR STATION IS A BAD BUSINESS MODEL?

And from there, a digital can of worms opened, eliciting comments ? often emotional ? from many different sides of the question. Continue Reading  HERE

Add a Comment Send This Story To A Friend

View the original article here