"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message

It has been three decades since the FCC has considered night skywave
coverage important. It has been that long or longer since stations
themselves considered skywave coverage to be much more than a
curiosity.
Much of this has to do with the change int he radio model in the
mid-50s
from having the heaviest AM usage at night (before TV was universal) to
today, when AM listening at night is vastly less than any other
daypart.

Who was leading who on this? That is did the FCC decide out of the blue
to
deemphasize the clear channels or was it other stations who wanted to
operate at night?

Neither. The 1-A clears organized into a lobbying group to try to ge
thigher
power. The FCC reviewed this and the follow up presentations from the late
40's through about '67 when the commission finally said "no, never" and
decided to develop additional stations on the clear channels to provide
more
local service, especially to grey areas, which was a major FCC goal in
that
era.

But what, the FCC did this on their own, without being lobbyed?



And why would they want to operate at night, anyway?

Everyone wants to operate at night, but we all wish there was no skywave,
as
local coverage could be improved. In any case, nobody did not want to
operate at night... they just realized that skywave listening was pretty
much dead after the 1-As were broken down... 30 years ago.


And most markets still had plenty of space on the FM band then. Perfect for
local coverage, perfect for nightthme coverage.



Canada is phasing out AM rapidly in all but the biggest cities. This is
because they believe there that AM is not the way of the future. AMs
are
left in big cit9ies to serve niche and minority audiences, like the
Chinese
stations in Vancouver or the standards station in Toronto.

Is the Canadian phase out voluentary?

The CBC has moved nearly all operatins to FM from AM, and commercial AM
operators are encouraged to trade an FM for the AM, with the AM going
silent. This has been going on for over a decade.

By the way, I happen to like listening to the brokered /ethnic stations.
If
that's all that's someday left on AM, AM will still be quite lively.

Certainly there will be limited viability. Many stations that are on SCA's
will possibly become AMs... we have Radio Tehran on our 107.5 in LA!

That's OK. That's hardly death. AM would be no deader than FM was in the
50s.



I know I'm not the only person with the passion for radio, this group's
full
of 'em. But I also know we aren't numerous enough to have an economic
impact on the broadcast industry. I suppose we're mostly a pain in the
ass
to you guys, acting like we get a sharp stick in the ear every time we
hear
the Din of Ibiquity.

I am curious to see if HD can be DXed. No good receiver has HD, and it
would
be nice if we had an R-75 (this Bud's for you, Ace) with an HD module!

I expect DXing IBOC will be all equipment rather than the mental aspects of
DXing. It won't be like listening for ID clues between a couple of stations
fighting it out in the noise.


The FCC has chosen long ago to discard this as less meaningful than
more
local service that is relible and consistent.

I see. It's all the FCC's fault. I suppose that's another one of their
silly decisions like when they were forcing stations to do "editorials".
So, how long has the broadcast industry been fighting them on this?

The congestion of the bands is definitely due to the FCC seeking increased
grey area and local service from the 50's through the 90's.

Why would a prospective owner have wanted to start or expand a AM operation
in the 50s and 60s when he could have gone to FM?



The FCC never forced editorials. To the contrary, until the Fairness
Doctrine was killed under Reagan, we were very afraid of doing editorials
and very, very few of us did them due to the risks.

The FCC did force editoral content, however. And, in that era, alot of the
stations were broadcasting editorals, and the inevetable follow-ups from
the Speaker from the Institute for Editoral Reply.

Thankfully, that's all disappeared with the end of the fairness doctrine.



The FCC, buy restricting to low FM powers (100kw and under) and very low
AM
powers (nothing over 50 kw) has always encouraged localism. As the clears
went form one fulltime signal to a dozen or so, the FCC was sayking that
they preferred a new local station in St George, UT., to extended coverage
for WLS:

This was the very loudly stated opinion of the FCC for years: local
service,
local ascretainment, local ownership, etc.

Try talking to people who make below the US median household income...
families that live on $15,000 a year, or, for whatever reason, are on
subsistence programs. Tell them to spend $12 a month for each radio.
Free
radio has many benefits, or there would not be 94% of the population
using
it each week... and any other alternative further segregates the
priviledges
of the "haves" and thes leftovers of the "have nots."


Oh, that's really a reach. I really doubt most of the stations would go
the
pay route, even if they were offered the chance. But a few might, just
as
a
few TV stations had a fling with pay TV about 25 years ago.

I do not think any terrestrial stations will go to pay subscriptions.

Maybe not. But in a free market, nearly every idea gets tried.


But let's pretend the unimaginable happened. All the stations went
subscription. All the network stations, all the independents, all the
brokered stations, all the college stations ... well, you get the idea.
Then I guess poorer people -- that is those poor people who hadn't moved
to
alternative sources and actually wanted to listen to the radio -- well,
I
suppose they'd have to pay to listen to the radio.

Whatever. But radio will simply die before this happens

Ah. We will always have the poor. And the poor will always have radio.


Gee, I suppose some of those poor people might have to decide between
pay
TV
and pay radio:

"62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. "

And 42% do not.

Not all that different from the general population.



But maybe there's teeming masses of impoverished Americans who are now
barely able to afford radio.

I did not say this. They can afford radio, but would not pay $150
discretionary dollars for what is also available for free. In case yu did
not notice, XM and Sirius have hit brick walls. XM stock is off 60% since
the end of last year due to slowdown in subscriptions; Stern is a
band-aid-.

Nope. I didn't notice. I don't pay much attention to satellite radio.




Actually, I was thinking about rap. It's summertime, and I drive with
my
windows down. I hear alot of stuff which is, to put it mildly, unfit
for
mass radio. I'm guessing I'm hearing recordings.

The Ivy League white guys at the FCC can not understand it!

I don't even picture them listening to the radio.



P.s. Today, it is hip hop, not rap, mostly.



Either way, I hear alot of stuff unfit for broadcast.

Frank Dresser