July 19, 2017 07:07AM
Decent enough article, but it again shows that the FCC isn't aware of the true problem; they're working on band-aid approaches like translators, which will only crowd even more stations into the FM band and won't solve the problem.

The "industry" really needs to work on producing some programming that the listeners will want to listen to. They refuse to do so because it will cost them money, and the owners just want to skim all the profit(s) off and not invest. You cannot support a radio station with programming that is boring, or that comes from some centralized studio complex and doesn't have any local flavor. Today you are also competing against internet streaming and portable mp3 players. The AM station is not the only game in town anymore (and, if you know broadcasting history, we can thank the FCC for that, too).

AM stereo was not the answer; thus we're stuck with C-Quam instead of true (Kahn ISB) stereo.

IBOC was not the answer; and, in fact, created more problems. Interference anyone?

Good programming is the answer. And broadcasters have shown that they prefer to whine about things instead of solving their own problems with investment.

-.-. --.-
Nobody wants a cheap hairpiece, but everybody wants a low-price toupe'.
Subject Author Views Posted

AM rivitalization? AM stereo revive? AM not totally dead, yet.

ThaDood 113 July 18, 2017 06:42PM

Re: AM rivitalization? AM stereo revive? AM not totally dead, yet.

jtart 88 July 19, 2017 07:07AM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login