FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

AM Radio discussion. Directional arrays are FUN!
Post Reply
w9wi
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:40 am
Location: Pleasant View, Tennessee
Contact:

FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by w9wi » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:43 pm

I'm a bit surprised there haven't been any comments on this.

I'm particularly surprised I haven't seen any comments (on any forum) about the Commission's tentative conclusion to repeal all skywave protection for Class A stations. I don't find it particularly surprising the Commission did it but I'm surprised nobody's said anything about it:)
--
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

User avatar
KPJL FM
Posts: 587
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:28 am
Location: planet Earth, 3rd rock from sun

Re: FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by KPJL FM » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:53 am

What's a AM?
Why does anyone want to improve it?
:P
Trim to fit, paint to match, tune for minimum smoke.

User avatar
Deep Thought
Posts: 3364
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:23 am
Location: La Grange, IL
Contact:

Re: FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by Deep Thought » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:53 am

That's because they didn't. Those proposals (and a couple other ones like changing the protected service contour for class B/C/D stations to 2 mV/m) are in the further PRM which has yet to be released, and are far from a sure thing.

What was voted on and will take effect after Federal Register publication are the community of license coverage requirement changes, a reduction of 25% in the minimum antenna efficiency requirements, the MDCL rules and the elimination of the "ratchet rule". None of them are "improvements" and will continue the technical decline.
Mark Mueller • Mueller Broadcast Design • La Grange, IL • http://www.muellerbroadcastdesign.com

vacuum tube
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:49 am

Re: FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by vacuum tube » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:33 am

I agree DT. I can't figure how allowing less COL coverage, lower antenna efficiency (weaker signals), and allowing more co channel interference will improve AM listening. I guess I'm just old and irrelevant and part of the problem with radio today.

TPT
Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: St. Marys, WV

Re: FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by TPT » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:08 pm

It's called an "FM translator."

Procedure for the two windows came out Friday.--first window for move-ins to open sometime early 2016; second window for new apps, after the close of the first window. First window restricted to daytime and class C stations seeking to move and modify the translator.

User avatar
kkiddkkidd
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 am
Location: Lawrenceburg, TN

Re: FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by kkiddkkidd » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:32 pm

vacuum tube wrote:I agree DT. I can't figure how allowing less COL coverage, lower antenna efficiency (weaker signals), and allowing more co channel interference will improve AM listening. I guess I'm just old and irrelevant and part of the problem with radio today.
Although I mostly agree with you there are a couple things to keep in mind.

1. Allowing less COL coverage. Most stations can't cover their COL with current night time power anyway. And many stations can't move ANYWHERE that fully covers the COL. At least anywhere that you could afford property. One of my clients had a site that was declared imminent domain by a huge city water works project. The site was located along the TN river which was also the southern boundary for the COL. The city had grown dramatically AWAY from the river in a figure-8 shape and hence away from the old and proposed TX sites. The new site was closer to and actually covered a little more population than the old site. It took thousands of dollars and months for the FCC to decide that there was actually NO site that would provide the required night COL coverage and grant a waiver for a smaller portion of the population.

2. Ratchet Rule. I have a client that owns 2 AM's in the same area that are literally within sight of each other. One is on owned property and the other leased. They have had consultants look at diplexing them together at the owned site but all consultants have reported that it can't be done without dramatically reducing the moved stations power via ratchet rule requirements. I read somewhere that the FCC often grants waivers for that as well but for some reason the consultants didn't think they would issue one in this situation. As I understand, it is and would remain fully spaced after the move and would remain at full power except for the ratchet rule. Diplexing these stations could be paid for in about 2 years lease payments and then be profit there after.

I think that allowing an across the board efficiency reduction is a really bad idea.

Later,
--
Kevin C. Kidd CSRE/AMD
WD4RAT
AM Ground Systems Company
http://www.amgroundsystems.com
KK Broadcast Engineering
http://www.kkbc.com

User avatar
Deep Thought
Posts: 3364
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:23 am
Location: La Grange, IL
Contact:

Re: FCC AM improvement R&O, NPRM, and NOI

Post by Deep Thought » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:20 pm

Both the CoL >50% <80% coverage situation and the "ratchet rule" were being addressed via routinely-granted waiver requests so that's really nothing new. Not sure why it wouldn't have flown in your situation and why it would be "drastic". 10% field reduction is ~19% power reduction all else being equal. That's less than the nightly variation in skywave interference. What is new is allowing a station to abandon their CoL completely at night. The FCC sez that this is intended to be applied in a hardship situation where the station must move but the devil is in the details. Why do we even hold on to the concept of a "community of license" when there is no intent to actually serve it?

Going back to the pre-1991 50% RSS nighttime and 1:1 first adjacent protection ratios makes sense. Some of the "further proposed" stuff really doesn't.

The translator thing is going to be a giant CF.
Mark Mueller • Mueller Broadcast Design • La Grange, IL • http://www.muellerbroadcastdesign.com

Post Reply