Who listens to AM radio anymore?
The answer, of course, is a whole lot of people across the U.S. and its territories. Stations on the kHz band include Class A giants, such as iHeartRadio’s WGY-AM 810 in Schenectady, N.Y., Tyler Media’s KOKC-AM 1520 in Oklahoma City, and Cumulus Media’s WLS-AM 890 in Chicago.
What sort of interference protection should these booming stations, which reach multiple states after dark thanks to skywave reception, have in the modern age?
That’s exactly what the Commission would like to answer, and it is turning to the public for assistance in reaching its conclusion.
A Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (SFNPRM) was released Friday (10/5) by the Commission, as part of the agency’s continued efforts “to assist AM broadcast stations in providing full-time service to their local communities.”
That language alone sets the tone of the initiative, which seeks “revised alternative proposals regarding interference protection to Class A AM radio stations.”
Translation: Should a station such as Class D 10kw daytimer WKNV-AM 890 in Fairlawn, Va., serving the Blacksburg-Pulaski-Roanoke, Va., area, have to sign off at sundown to protect WLS? If it is allowed to stay on at night, what sort of protections are needed in the final months of 2018, anyway?
WLS, which can be heard in six states during daylight hours and across much of the eastern U.S. at night, presently has a 400-mile buffer zone from the closest co-channel station at 890 kHz. WKNV is some 500 miles away; WLS’s closest co-channel worry is 960-watt Class D KMVG-AM in Gladstone, Mo., covering the Kansas City market some 400 miles away from WLS’s Tinley Park, Ill., tower site.
KMVG uses two towers to cover Kansas City during the day. It signs off at dark, reliant on only its 250-watt FM translator to serve the market with religious programming.
But, what if KMVG didn’t have to protect WLS?
These scenarios are at the crux of this FCC SFNPRM. The Commission in this proceeding’s Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, “sought comment on technical proposals to reduce the nighttime protection afforded to wide-area coverage Class A stations, to enable more local AM stations to increase their nighttime service that is currently curtailed by the need to protect Class A stations’ service areas.”
What did the FCC receive, in terms of responses?
“While many commenters supported or rejected the Commission’s proposals as set forth in the AMR FNPRM, a number of commenters proposed thoughtful and evidence-based alternatives to the Commission’s proposals,” the FCC says.
As a result, the Commission is now presenting one new proposal for the protection of Class A AM stations during the day, and two alternative proposals for “critical hours” protection, as well as two alternative proposals for protection of Class A AM stations at night.
“These alternative proposals are designed to preserve some of Class A stations’ wide area coverage, while relieving more local stations of their current obligation to protect Class A stations from interference,” the Commission claims. “Our proposals should enable local stations to provide greater and improved local service to their communities, especially at night.”
Does this mean one should begin to say goodbye to “DX’ing,” and the ability to hear a faraway station after dark? If so, is this a matter of national security, leaving precious few ways the U.S. government could reach the nation in the event of a disaster that prevents communication through means other than, perhaps, KMOX-AM 1120 in St. Louis — a Class A that can be heard in nearly every corner of the U.S. after dark?
The latter question has not come up in discussions designed to give added life to media properties some view as archaic, and relics of a yesteryear when transistor radios were the hand-held audio delivery vehicle of choice and “Superjock” Larry Lujack woke up hundreds of thousands of Americans on WLS’s big-watted signal.
Yet, the success of AM radio — in particular in rural communities or with multicultural broadcasters — has greatly contributed to its continued use in the U.S., as opposed to several European nations and even Canada, which has taken several AM radio stations dark through FM signal conversions.
With comment dates set for 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register and reply comment dates affirmed for 90 days after such publication, the public may soon respond to the following plans:
- Nighttime and Critical Hours Protection to Class A AM Stations
The AMR FNPRM proposals attracted “a voluminous and diverse set of comments.” This came in response to a tentative conclusion that all Class A stations should be protected, both day and night, to their 0.1 mV/m groundwave contour, from co-channel stations, thus maintaining daytime protection but reducing protection to secondary coverage service areas at night. Additionally, the FCC deemed that, in its proposal, that all Class A stations should continue to be protected to the 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour, both day and night, from first adjacent channel stations; and that the critical hours protection of Class A stations should be eliminated completely.
“Understandably,” the licensees of Class A stations, represented primarily by the AM Radio Preservation Alliance (AMRPA), argue that the Commission’s proposal would do “significant harm” to the AM band by creating new interference, resulting in “small islands of service in a sea of interference.”
AMRPA, interestingly, pointed out “the vital role” that Class A stations have played in prior emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina; Class A WWL-AM 870 in New Orleans was a key communication dissemination point in August-September 2005.
A number of other commenters join AMRPA in opposing the AMR FNPRM proposal. “Some believe that reducing protection to Class A AM stations would reduce those stations’ utility during national emergencies,” the Commission noted.
Supporters, including licensees of AM stations that must reduce nighttime power to protect Class A stations, wish to improve their local nighttime service and argue that extended skywave service that Class A licensees seek to protect “has become increasingly unreliable and prone to interference, particularly given high environmental noise floors caused by power lines,” and even LED lighting.
Then, there is a third group of commenters. They believe that changes to Class A protections are necessary, but do not believe the Commission’s proposals are the right way to bring change.
The majority of the third category of commenters state that protecting Class A stations to their 0.1 mV/m groundwave contours “is pointless, as such a low-level signal cannot be heard over environmental noise.”
The majority of these commenters propose instead that Class A stations be protected to their 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour, both day and night, from co-channel stations and, in some cases, first-adjacent channel stations as well.
What should the FCC do? It’s turning to you.
“We seek comment on revised proposals for amending protections to Class A AM stations,” the Commission says. “We remain committed to the Commission’s decision, in the AMR FNPRM, to explore a reduction in the extensive distance protections afforded to Class A stations to enable improvements to local service by the other station classes. We recognize the value of wide-area service but, at the same time, commenters suggest that much of the wide-area service that was once the exclusive province of Class A AM stations has been supplanted by FM stations, satellite radio, and other media.”
The FCC SFNPRM, in addition to comments on alternative proposals presented to the Commission, also offers suggestions on changing its nighttime RSS calculation methodology; and amending the daytime protection afforded to Class B, C, and D stations.
Full details can be viewed here.
At least one FCC Commissioner is highly interested in what the public, and broadcasters, have to say about the continued protection of Class A AM radio stations.
In a statement, Republican Mike O’Rielly notes, “The Commission bases its new proposal on engineering data in the record indicating that protection of the 0.1 mV/m Groundwave contour cannot be heard under current noise conditions. Therefore, it is contended, that it is only necessary to protect Class A AM stations to their 0.5 mV/m Groundwave contour. If true, I would be more sympathetic to this change as it wouldn’t alter the realistic reach or expectations of those holding existing licenses.”
O’Rielly adds that he appreciates Chairman Ajit Pai accommodating his request to clarify that, at this time, “this is not a universally held viewpoint.”
He said, “I hope the record will reflect a consensus by engineers on how far a listenable signal extends. I will be hesitant to support a final order on this proposal without such consensus. However, at this stage, I support moving forward and developing a record on this, and other, important questions presented in the SFNPRM.”
