/ 04.27.2010
Think Big: Consultant Proposes AM Daytime Power Hike

Broadcast radio consultant Richard Arsenault has a bold idea to offset electrical interference to the reception of AM radio in the United States.

He is petitioning the Federal Communications Commission to allow virtually all AM stations, if they wish, to increase daytime power 10-fold or, if that's not possible, at least four-fold.

This is separate from his earlier petition, addressing pre-sunrise authorization rules, on which the commission is taking comment.

Arsenault argues that the AM service has suffered serious degradation of coverage from interference caused by new technologies. He cites broadband over power lines, computers, appliances like microwave ovens, energy efficient fluorescent lighting with integrated solid-state switching circuitry "and virtually all other electronic devices and services." In his eyes reception of AM radio is almost useless in many areas.

"Typically, co-channel and adjacent channel interference are no longer the limiting factors to interference-free reception during daytime hours," he told Radio World in a summary of his new petition. "The commission established service contours and interference protection ratios at an earlier time when interference from existing electrical equipment was minimal and interference from digital electronics did not exist. At that time, the protected contours and the interference ratios made sense. Unfortunately, they were calculated without available foresight of the future digital technological revolution."

Arsenault says few radios are capable of satisfactory reception under the protected daytime service areas out to the 0.5 mV/m contour that applies to most AMs. "What we currently have are AM broadcast stations adequately protecting each other in the AM radio band, but these same stations are not receiving protection from the intense electromagnetic interference from unintentional sources." He wants the FCC to rethink its protected service contours: "The sources of electromagnetic interference are part of our current lifestyle and will only get worse."

Increasing power during daytime hours would solidify daytime coverage of participating stations without altering the interference ratios between them. "I recommend that a ten-fold (10 dB) power increase be adopted. If this can not be achieved, alternately, power increases of four-fold (6 dB) could be adopted and still be significant. Ultimately, anything less than a doubling of power (3 dB) would be almost insignificant."

Arsenault suggests that the FCC allow the increases during a five-year window. He also suggests a grace period to allow stations that elect to participate the time to install upgrades. Stations would need only to send a letter to the FCC specifying the degree of power increase and date of implementation. "All future interference calculations could be made utilizing the previous lower power levels of all stations, simplifying future allocation issues."

As to border areas and those where "a salt-water interference path to foreign stations exists," stations could use directional antennas or a partial power increase.

Arsenault would limit the power hike to daytime hours, at least at first, until nighttime interference concerns could be worked out.

He concludes: "AM radio service will further decline without serious intervention to remedy the interference issue as the ratio of the unintentional interference to AM radio will only increase further with the addition of each new technology. The time to get the static out of AM radio is past due."

Comment to Radio World at radioworld@nbmedia.com. Contact Arsenault via his website.



Comments
Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

1.
Posted by: P. Crosley
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 1:21PM Report Comment
500KW = Good; but no HD with that kind of power. Also, manufacturers of radios to put variable bandwidth and noiseblankers on AM, even the AMAX standard option = good. Most important, the FCC enforcing the switching power supply manufacturers, LED traffic signal boys, dimmers, and even pump motors to put the kabosh on the RF noise generated on MW. Hell, I'm all for 750KW clear channel 1A stations for the original batch of stations: ie: if your call letters are just 3 letters, and you're omni, you get 750KW as soon as you want it. Case closed. Let's do it, and do it now!
2.
Posted by: Mike Vanhooser
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 2:51PM Report Comment
Let the well established legacy stations increase power, and let the lower powered, local stations move to a new band at 26MHz (or thereabouts) DRM. Then begin integration of new chips into all new radio receivers which can decode DRM and on a date certain in the future all current stations on the AM band switch to DRM, as happened with TV. That is a transition which makes sense, will work flawlessly but unfortunately doesn't feed the pockets of Ibiquity and their parasites. This is the only workable way to bring digital to the MW band. Otherwise, we might as well as abandon the band, as AM must be transitioned to digital to deal with all the noise.
3.
Posted by: Kaimbridge
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 7:53AM Report Comment
Better idea: Instead of upping station power, how about "downing" RF pollution!? Would it be too difficult/expensive to require RFp producing electronics (light dimmers, fluorescent bulbs, power packs, etc.) to eliminate——or at least greatly filter down——such emissions (such as tightening up the allowed µV/m FCC type-acceptance specifications)?
4.
Posted by: James Johnson
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 7:18AM Report Comment
How much of the interference would go away if Part 15 rules were enforced? Maybe it is time that we have a new VHF digital (DRM) band so all the little "AM" stations could escape the medium wave band. Less power, more coverage. VHF Digital.
5.
Posted by: James Johnson
Thu, 04-29-2010 - 6:59AM Report Comment
If the power companies would comply with Part 15 rules then the noisy power lines would not cause so much trouble. I have considered the idea of using 26.96 to 27.41 MHz for night transmissions of "AM" stations but I think that a VHF Digital band with DRM would be better. Less Power, More Coverage. VHF Digital.
6.
Posted by: Anonymous
Mon, 05-03-2010 - 4:47PM Report Comment
MW has far better coverage than VHF for the same cost. In mountainous areas, an AM station won't want to move to High-HF (with poor night coverage) or to line-of-sight VHF using 10 booster sites (that all have to be maintained) when these restraints can be overcome by using a legacy 575ft tower and 50 kW AM rig with stereo-HD. Also, DRM on HF won't serve listeners as well as properly DSP'ed AM Stereo or iBOC because (apparently) the DRM standard for MW and SW is incapable of stereo. Therefore, high-frequency replacements for AM would not benefit stations or listeners, and the focus of the issue SHOULD be on: -Electronics manufacturers that sell A. Devices which increasingly emit high RF noise levels, and B. AM receivers having crappy sensitivity, no signal processing, and bad audio quality (it's the Year 2010, not 1930, but most AM receivers are deaf to signal, monaural, and muddy-sounding). -Power companies that ignore defective powerlines creating electrical noise, and that overlook buzz-saw style pulse noise entering the power grid from switching power supplies (a blatant violation of Pt-15 when the WHOLE AM band is obliterated 1/4 mile around the lines). Increasing AM transmitter powers may help, but the benefit would be small unless the noise-floor issue was fixed and the FCC did some (terribly-needed) channel reallocations. It would ALSO help if the FCC required the more USELESS talk-syndicators that simply parrot satellite feeds that can be heard on multiple AM channels across the daytime band at any given locale to either A. Provide original programming, or B. Leave the AM dial altogether and give other stations more bandwidth. If AM program content were more diverse, original, and enjoyable (i.e. music and real information) instead of snake-oil ads, sports-talk and right-wing propaganda, far more attention would be paid to AM reception, receiver quality, and interference resolution. In some respect, AM stations have themselves to blame in th
7.
Posted by: Anonymous
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 12:26PM Report Comment
The idea of increasing power is a good one, albeit a temporary fix. Atmospheric and man-made noise sources are too wide spread to hope that any NEW RF standard would have any substantial impact. Part 15/low power intentional radiators are so ubiquitous that putting that genie back in the bottle is just wishful thinking. Raise the power to improve the S/N ratio and work on reinventing the AM band with technology like digital AM, or maybe something better (Leonard Kahn). Eventually, government regulators are going to have to address the problems they created. Let us not forget, as the FCC Commissioner reminded us at the NAB, "All these radio licenses belong to the government"; they are on loan for us to use.
8.
Posted by: Anonymous
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 11:44AM Report Comment
At least he's not pushing that defective iBiquity scheme. While you're increasing power how about widening bandwidth and making better receivers.
9.
Posted by: Anonymous
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 7:07PM Report Comment
Good idea. Let's just allow station groups of seven(7) or fewer AM stations to implement this on their seven(7), or fewer stations. It's about time that the FCC do something beneficial to the public that listens to AM.
10.
Posted by: Anonymous
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 2:43PM Report Comment
What???? "Let us not forget, as the FCC Commissioner reminded us at the NAB, "All these radio licenses belong to the government"; they are on loan for us to use." Let us not forget we citizens put the government in place and therefor we the citizens (should) own the Government and therefore the licenses - lest you forget.




Thursday 12:00AM
Broadcasters File Suit Against FCC’s Political File Rules
“The FCC decision to put the political files online will bring broadcasters into the 21st century, and will make already public information more easily accessible to everyone.” Free Press Senior Policy Counsel Corie Wright.

 
Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology