[Other Topic] FCC'S AM Revitalization Plan

Following this closely, and one of the biggest followers of it is WRDN, Durand, WI.

It's my understanding that from reading the FCC is not in favor of dropping nighttime coverage requirement to 50 percent, though it was suggested. I'll have to re-read, but that goes against the "localism" they want put (finally) BEFORE long distance reception of the "biggies." (Brian, want to jump in on this one?)

Needless to say, not everyone gets everything suggested or that they want with this, but at least SOME attention is going to it. And, before someone jumps in and insults AM, it still reaches millions of people, provides employment, and, in many areas is the PRIMARY mass communications media, so don't even TRY to turn the thread against AM. (Sorry, but I'm tired of fighting that fight with uneducated people.)

it is a fact that a blanket increase in night power for any particular class of station or AM frequency only increases noise overall, however...in some cases, "less is more." In our case, a directional 330 watts as mandated to point north all night is useless IN our town, yet that's the design of the license. By current law, if we were to go "non directional" (night) we have to reduce from a nighttime "license" to what is called an "authorization, and we could only be entitled to 64 watts! This reduces both the coverage, and the station's value. While reducing and moving the night 'stick" actually into town would probably cover the whole town with such low wattage, it would also allow others on 1430 which we protect to UP their power, the end result being NO GAIN for our town.

HOWEVER, if the FCC would allow random logged testing so competing frequencies don't know (and automatically complain) I bet we can prove that 250 watts, (not our usual 330, directional) non-directional is no threat to other stations, and our town would be covered JUST FINE at night on the AM stereo side of our operation! Each time we've had to service our facilities' directional array, we've legally run 250 at night up to the limit of days required before filing a Special Temporary Authority. Each time, there's been NO complaints to us or the FCC by other 1430's, and still, our town was BETTER covered.

I'll be watching this carefully as it proceeds through the FCC and hopefully chatting with Commissioner Pai who is a GREAT supporter of AM broadcasters.

The post is correct. FM translators for AM-only broadcasters won't help where there are not frequencies available in larger markets, and, in my opinion, in NO SITUATION should a station with a larger signal day/night be allowed to "just get one" for the purpose of having it.

If you've got a good day/night signal or even a clear-channel frequency, you don't NEED a translator. It should also be, as earlier proposed that AM's getting FM translators cannot sell them off to other broadcasters as "speculative" income, and that they are paired to the AM for which they are purposed. Perhaps allow sale to other AM stations only and only if they meet reasonable requirements for moving the license. Let's leave the big, speculative "wheelers and dealers" out of this, and concentrate on BROADCASTERS who really need the help. Not sure if they're including this condition in the possible AM window, but there was discussion of this in previous years when the topic was raised.

There is a religious AM station in El Paso (KELP 1590) that has to cut down to 800 watts at night. They have a FM translator on 95.9 at 10 watts that I used to set for my Mother at night. This always made me think that it is not necessary that most of the FM stations in town are 100,000 watts when a 10 watt station can be received reliably on a good radio.
It was very interesting in the early 1990's when the expanded AM stations started coming on at the new end of the dial. I could get 500 watt stations from Utah or Brownsville, TX easily while driving to work in the morning. It was quite entertaining as I lived in the tiny town of Hatch, NM at the time.
I am glad to see there is still interest in radio, both among forum members and the FCC, and that everything has not been replaced by people holding a phone in front of their face.

In FM, it's always "height over power." 10 watts on a huge tower can cover what a much higher power can't do at lower height. Terrain is a big thing for FM, too. My town is in a valley, and my FM won't get through many of the old, thick buildings, but the AM does.....the FM travels right OVER the town and goes primarily South with the null being to the North/Northwest because of the tower.

radio said:

In FM, it's always "height over power." 10 watts on a huge tower can cover what a much higher power can't do at lower height.

Click to expand...

This 10 watts is on on a 7190 foot mountain peak which divides the city of El Paso north to south.

Hi everyone..New to group and thanks for add. I have just received confirmation with Commissioner Pai for an interview on November 3rd to talk about the rule changes. If you have any questions you would like me to ask, just let me know. I will be doing one interview for our listeners and will do another more technical in nature for the engineers. I hope to post a link to that interview here or maybe Scott, you will just want me to send you the file.

Brian Winnekins
WRDN Radio

The Spokane market has an AM on FM translator operating with just 8 watts (Morgan Murphy's KXLY-AM), with the antenna currently located on the roof of a house. I live 25 miles from the translator and get good reception. They have a construction permit to move it to an existing tower with increased height and a new ERP of 80 watts. With that, the signal will rival most of the big guys.