AM Broadcasters Spar Over Interference Protections
AM broadcasters, engineers, professional sports teams and associations don’t agree on whether the FCC should alter some protections that prevent Class B, C and D radio stations from interfering with the more powerful Class A stations, in comments filed in docket 13-249 in response to a Further NPRM and notice of inquiry on AM revitalization. Dual-band broadcasters also opposed an FCC proposal to require them to surrender one of their licenses, and NAB and the Society of Broadcast Engineers argued the proceedings should focus on reducing the growing interference from unlicensed devices rather than changing power levels in the AM band. It’s “discouraging” that the FCC “seems content to allow the ambient noise levels in the AM broadcast band” to continue to increase and accepts “the deteriorating RF environment as a given,” SBE said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Class A stations are to the AM band what an “anchor tenant” big box store is to a shopping center -- a draw for consumers, said the AM Radio Preservation Alliance, consisting of larger radio broadcasters including CBS, Cumulus, Entercom, iHeartRadio and Scripps Media. The FCC sought comment on eliminating or changing skywave and critical hours protection rules on when and how much power non-Class A stations can use for their signal. Reducing Class A protections from interference would hurt the band rather than help it, said the alliance and several other filings by AM broadcasters. With AM facing a worsening “noise floor” Class B, C and D stations need to be able to increase their power to deliver a quality signal, said AM licensee Mount Wilson and numerous other smaller broadcasters. “Increased competition from unlicensed program services employing Wi-Fi and internet delivered radio, which have the same signal quality and range day and night, makes the future of AM radio questionable,” said Radio Vision, which supports lowering Class A protections.
Four professional sports teams that operate their own radio stations -- the Pittsburgh Steelers, Miami Marlins, New York Mets and Cincinnati Bengals -- opposed lowering the Class A interference protections. “With NFL games being broadcast live and with broadcast radio being critical to sports fans across the nation, special sensitivity would seem appropriate on this issue,” said the Bengals. The AM Radio Preservation Alliance said the Class A broadcasters serve an important role in widely broadcasting emergency alert system warnings and public safety information. Several AM broadcasters supporting the interference changes said the smaller stations could step into that role if allowed to broadcast more clearly. Increasing the reliability and coverage of AM radio will allow stations to “give better and more recent commuting, traffic and emergency information” to travelers, said the Delaware Department of Transportation, which operates an AM traffic information station.
Modifying the daytime protections for Class B, C and D stations is “complicated” and could benefit some stations while “negatively impacting” others, NAB said. Stations that increase power under proposed changes are likely to expand their interference-free population, but in doing so they could interfere with other stations, NAB said. “AM stations that are unable to take advantage of the proposed rules to upgrade their own service because they are already operating at maximum power or cannot afford the associated costs of equipment or electricity” could suffer under the proposal, NAB said. If the FCC moves forward with the proposals, “it is imperative that a process be implemented to manage the transition in a way that allows all stations an equal opportunity to improve or protect their service,” NAB said.
The most important action the FCC could take to improve the AM band “is to control and reduce the ever-increasing noise floor that degrades AM signal quality,” NAB said. SBE made similar arguments, calling the proposals contained in the FNPRM and NOI “short term initiatives.” To create long-term change, the FCC needs to address the interference created by unlicensed devices, through “difficult regulatory reforms that it has not heretofore addressed, and to commit to a regulatory plan which, over time, will reduce the levels of man-made noise,” in the AM band, SBE said.
An FCC proposal to expand the use of the expanded band and require AM licensees with dual standard/expanded band authorization to surrender one of them faced resistance from expanded band broadcasters and the Multicultural Media Telecom and Internet Council. “They are Expanded Band ‘pioneers’ and should be rewarded for their investment, perseverance and commitment in the face of a declining AM service,” said a joint filing from numerous dual-band broadcasters and MMTC. The dual-band stations are diverse and hyperlocal and the FCC proposal would hurt the public interest, the filing said. NAB and MMTC also supported an FCC proposal to eliminate the main studio rule. “From the standpoints of viewers and listeners, maintaining a physical studio has become problematic,” MMTC said.
The FCC should also relax the criteria for where FM translators can be located, NAB said. “These criteria are too restrictive in certain situations, such as where a station’s transmitter site is located far from a population center because of land costs,” NAB said. Low-power FM group REC Networks also said it supports “a reasonable expansion on the placement of FM translators for AM stations.”