WRNJ, Hackettstown, N.J., will be filing a petition with the FCC requesting they explore moving AM band stations to the near-vacant 45 to 50 MHz VHF band.

The AM band is no longer capable of providing a quality service to its communities for several reasons. Noise, skip, overly expensive antenna systems, varying hours of operation, and directional patterns to name just a few immediate issues. And lack of listeners!

WRNJ suggests the FCC consider the digital transmission DRM+ system, along with a simple vertical only, non-gain antenna. The VHF 1 band is ideal for local/regional coverage. Exactly the local service that was expected during the early days of AM would return.

Overcoming DAB+ SFN Challenges

The two-way radio licensees of the 45-50 MHz band have all but fled the band for either trunked or cell service. This ended the expense and maintenance of low band FM mobile radios for the many users. Also, Motorola and Kenwood, it is reported, no longer manufacture low-band equipment. A scanner covering 45 to 50 MHz at a tower with reception from New York City to Philadelphia can go days before hearing a single carrier.

International regulations for ITU Regions Two and Three already call for broadcasting between 47 and 50 MHz. As previously mentioned, the band is ideal for local/regional coverage and can provide Americans with the latest technology from their local stations.

It would be wise for broadcasters to familiarize themselves with all the capabilities of the DRM+ modulation scheme; it?s far from just an audio transport. Many countries in (ITU Regions Two and Three) are already embracing the DRM+ standard, which is so far superior to anything we?re presently using the USA. Why should we wait any longer?

The Case For DRM+

In July 2008, the Broadcast Maximization Committee published the results of their study on AM and proffered the concept of converting the Channels 5 and 6 to digital AM?s, LPFM, NCE?s et.al. (See http://www.broadmax.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/proposal.pdf)

That was 12 years ago and nothing has been done about it.

With this proposal, we would avoid AM noise, nighttime interference, adjacent channel issues and eliminate the awful fidelity issues. There is occasional skip on the proposed band. Adjacent TV channel 2 survived it for 50 plus years. Skip is infrequent and probably won’t have the deleterious effects experienced with analog. There is skip on the AM band every night!

Additionally, DRM+ channel efficiency is more compact than present channel spacing. Spectrum efficiency vastly exceeds anything we?re using today. The implications of that efficiency are evident. Far more information can be packed into DRM+ in much less space.

A basic explanation of DRM+ can be found here. A more technical explanation can be found at this location. Note in the video that 1 kW ERP of DRM+ equals the same coverage as a 5 kW conventional installation. An efficient system lowers the electric bill. The proposed vertical antenna of unity gain reduces tower loading and or rent.

Overcoming DRM + Obstacles

There are no receivers! Right. However, the current state of the art in chipsets is such that most new receivers could be capable of decoding both DRM+ and HD Radio systems.

In light of this, we propose a transition period of years for this to come to fruition. American broadcasting has spent tens of millions on moving TV facilities, and the market responded to the shifts in frequency and modulation schemes. The AM band, too, was extended and radio manufacturers responded. Simply stated, if not now, when?

The AM band is beyond practical (economical) use at this juncture. The transmission systems are onerous, to say the least. We have to live within the bounds of physics, and that, simply put, eliminates today’s AM band as it is currently structured.

Japan will soon be amongst the nations that terminate AM radio at the request of AM operators! Italy is converting to DRM+, too.

We propose that AM operators simulcast the new and old band until the market dictates the AM shutdown of dual facilities. We propose the system be local and that any who might wish to stay with AM be free to stay there.

Also, with this migration, we expect the AM band may again have a chance for wide area service from those who can increase power and coverage upon spectrum availability resulting from the migration to DRM+ VHF. The FM band would be relieved of the congestion it’s now experiencing from translators. We would hope that the ownership remain local and avoid the dereliction of local community service that came with ownership-consolidation.

Is there any better time to start this than now? I can’t think of one real negative, can you?

We look forward to your input if and when the FCC moves forward with the petition for rulemaking.

– – –

Larry Todd
larryradio@wrnj.com

Reading Rollye James article on NAB 2019, I have to add my take on her line, “I shudder to mention the blank stares I got in response to questions about the role of AM radio in the new landscape.”

That was just the memory jog I needed to write about the gleaming, polished Audi parked in the North Hall that have everything you could want for in-car entertainment except an AM tuner in the dash. This was either a way to ferret out Industry sentiment on scrapping the AM tuner, or a harbinger of the automotive industry putting their corporate thumbs on the scale weighing the future of AM.

I think harbinger.

No Secret

The booth person told me that “a number of people” saw something was missing and make no secret that they were not happy.

I added myself to that hopefully long list. I doubt that it is going to make a tailpipe’s worth of difference to the corporate “Audifiles” to whom the booth person promised to report our displeasure. Turns out Audi, who markets the hybrid line named A3-etron, is apparently unwilling to invest in a sufficient amount of ferrite and other shielding technology to make AM reception possible. After talking to other radio colleagues, the consensus was that pure electric and hybrid autos may succeed in killing the “AM Radio Star.”

Contrast this with the focus on all digital AM that was prominently featured in at least one radiating product on the show floor. Full disclosure: I am not a fan of turning off analog AM across the band. There might be a future where we have a mix of pure digital AM’s, AM-only AM’s, and AM’s like we have today with analog carriers and digital HD radio technology, but not if dashboard radios start coming out in quantity without AM tuners. It will not matter if there is an HD demodulator in the radio, if the radio is blind to signals from 540 to 1700. kHz.

AM is Worth Saving

There is still a reason to make sure AM tuners survive in dashboards and other places; last ditch emergency communications to the public.

Victims of Hurricane Sandy might agree. When power, cell phones, and utility power went out, many in the areas ravaged by Sandy went to their vehicles to tune in AM stations that were their only source of emergency information.

Besides that, I feel I am not the only broadcast engineer who would miss hearing demodulated AM when standing next to an ATU cabinet at an AM tower base.

– – –

Richard Rudman
rad01@me.com

Yes, to Chris’ article on simple and older is better.

I chuckle every time there  is a cell phone or Internet failure panic. Even though the millenials do not know what radio is, especially AM radio, the day will come when it will save their hide.

Most broadcasters are committed to keeping a signal on the air no matter the circumstances or disasters. Both the cell phone people and the Internet people rely on “wires” or fiber optic or some other easily damaged link.

In contrast, Radio has always performed the necessary service to keep information flowing to the people that need it. The Internet cant do it, Cell phones cannot do it, Satellite radio or Television cant do it and with most other people not using off air television anymore (satellite or catv) television with the exception of viewers with real antennas, cannot do it.

I wonder how many billions of lives AM radio has saved in its almost 100 year history. In 100 years, I doubt if cell phones will still be around, they will be implants and will still only work 50% of the time at 50% of the locations.

If I am caught in the middle of a disaster, give me a good old 1960’s transistor radio and a couple of spare 9-Volt batteries, forget the rest of the technology “cr*p”

– – –

Ron Schacht

Contract Engineer – Northcentral Iowa and Southcentral, MN
screamingeagle@wctatel.net

AM radio will always be with us despite what some European countries are doing. It is a backup and an outlet for media like talk that does not compete well with other modes.

Unfortunately the power trains of our new generation of vehicles emit so much noise in the AM band that some electric autos are coming out without AM radios at all.

Maybe part 15 rules should apply to these cars.

– – –

Mark Miller

As I read about the hand-wringing about reverse 911 failures, EAS failures and the like, I am struck by the fact that no one is looking at older technologies that we have abandoned in favor of newer technology.

New technology depends on infrastructure that is always in danger of being compromised in a disaster. So my modest suggestion is, what about sirens?

I really think that none of the systems in place currently can respond quickly enough to start evacuation in the presence of a fast moving wild fire like the Camp Fire.

Sirens have the advantage that they don’t require any end-user technology to work. If residents know that the sirens mean an evacuation alert, they can immediately get into motion and turn on their portable radios to get information (by the way, we are living in the era where many young persons do not own a radio receiver, portable or not — big problem). At least most cars have radios.

If the cell phone was left in the kitchen and they are in bed, they know to get it into their hands. I see only two real down sides. One obvious one is deaf or hearing impaired coverage. Also there is the need for power and signaling to activate the sirens. It is possible to harden these devices so that loss of power could be dealt with by a fairly small generator set. If wireless signaling were used, the generator would be sufficient. Such systems could be built in areas that have a high risk of wild fires.

Of course these days, they need to be designed to be as non hackable as possible.  That is one reason I specified a radio link, not the internet! That needs to be true of everything remote accessible.

I’m old enough to remember the scheduled testing of the air raid sirens in the cold war era. Regular tests would be required of course.

In closing, I’d like to point out the error of discarding old ways.  Two examples:

Because of GPS, the military shut down and in some cases dismantled loran-c, which was a functional radio location system. Now they realize that because of the weak satellite signals from GPS, it is easily jammed or faked by an enemy. Now they are scrambling for funding to get e-loran (improved system) installed as a back up for GPS. Had they not discarded loran-c, a more gradual upgrade might have been possible while all along having a terrestrial working system in place.

Remember morse code? Shortly before it was abandoned there was in incident where a vessel off the coast of Alaska had a fire in the engine room.  They got the fire out, but it left them with no power to run all the modern technology on board leaving them adrift. But what they did have on board was an emergency battery operated morse set and an operator who knew how to use it. The only “processor” needed was a trained human brain, and they were able to call for help. The call was received by coast station KPH who was able to notify the coast guard.

Sometimes, simpler is better.

– – –

Chris Hays
chris@chrishays.com

Barry posted an article by Richard Rubman titled: ‘EAS Alert / CA Fire Sparks Key Discussions.’  The piece is well-written and researched, and outlines numerous ideas and discussions regarding changes and improvements to warning systems to alert the public in fire zones to evacuate.

Having lived in Carlsbad, CA (35 miles north of the city of San Diego) a decade ago and watched large airborne embers stream past my condo, and seeing the morning sun turn red and the beach turn black, I tell you fire on that scale is a fearsome and terrifying thing to behold.   But
so is cancer. Despite the discussions in the referenced article, it is highly probable none of the improvements and changes will have any material effect.

Why not? Because of human nature to deny the real
possibility of losing all your possessions to fire or your life to lung cancer due to smoking.  It’s too terrifying to think about — people harbor hope against hope that the fire and tumor will stop just short of their house or chest.  People will only flee for their lives when they see the flames high in the sky over their neighbor’s garage, then jump in the car and join the Conga line to the freeway — and burn up in
situ.

No amount of complex alerts on iThingies or the EAS annos on radio or TV will motivate the vast majority of home owners to abandon their properties well ahead of the firestorm. Folks just won’t do it until they feel genuinely threatened — like when the house across the street
goes up in flames — then it’s way too late to escape.

What does make sense it to have your vital papers and computers and basic clothes and toiletries and a $grand or so readily accessible to be carried to your car(s) to beat it the hell outta Dodge when the fire is 15 miles away but still spreading. Get the wife and kids and the dog into the wagon(s) and head down/up the freeway to a Motel 6 for a while and keep tabs on your own burg by watching TV.

If your house is consumed in the flames, at least you have your lives and can rebuild them — somewhere else.

My ten year stay in Carlsbad was idyllic for many reasons, and the most lovely and beautiful living experience of my life. I loved it there. But just like many other places in the country or on earth, there are natural disasters waiting to strike. In California’s case, it’s both fire and the San Andras Fault which one of these fine days is going to pop and California will slip into the sea. People live in California fully well aware of the risks of fire and earthquake, but do so anyway, ignoring the risk.

Earthquake warnings are another absurd joke.  Can you imagine all of California attempting to escape using the 101 or Interstate 5 in a panic?  Heck, ordinary drive time traffic is a parking lot. Such is life.  You pays your nickel, and you takes your choice of where to live and what risks to accept.  And nobody gets out of this life alive.

– – –

Regards/J

Re: the recent failure of EAS and cellphone/text evacuation warnings during the Paradise fire in California: About 10 years ago, I built a TIS radio station for the City of Sierra Madre, CA. It’s main purpose was to provide emergency evacuation info in the event of a wildfire or other emergency.

It’s AM radio! Low-tech, hi-reliability! Anyone can hear AM radio, at home, work, in the car. You don’t need any tech infrastructure, just a simple AM radio and batteries to run it.

It’s an ideal use for TIS!

As a participating station, each station is authorized to originate an EAS alert at their discretion. The FCC Rules permit this and will back a broadcaster that takes the initiative when the local or state emergency officials fail to originate an alert or alerting infrastructure fails.

At KTAR in Phoenix we used Alert FM. It is an elegant, simple solution that operators can learn quickly. Our step by step guide left little room for error. In the newsroom we had 16 people trained to use it. While on the CSRIC full council we reviewed numerous software options that did a commendable job.

Broadcast EAS lacks the targeted alerting of WEA, but insures all the bases are covered.

State and local emergency management needs to step up and fulfill the purpose of their creation.

While the body of the article does bring up an important point, the solutions are well outside the purview of broadcasters, the FCC, and FEMA.

These incidents have been discussed ad nauseum on many EAS forums and it comes down to one main problem in all cases: local Emergency Managers do not have the training needed to originate meaningful alerts. They are trying to manage the emergency by coordinating responses to mitigate the emergency.

They know they need to let people know, but they do not know or understand the best way to do that. Instead, they have purchased, or have access to, tools such as Reverse 911. These tools were purchased with local tax dollars, and as such are the “go-to” techniques so that the purchase of these tools is justified. I can’t blame them for doing so. To this point there is not a comprehensive “Alerting Technique and Deployment” syllabus in any training offered by anyone.

The EM’s are inundated with vendors who offer wondrous alerting programs. These vendors then sell the product, show the EM’s how to use it, and go cash the check.

No one is teaching the EM’s when, why, who is charged with sending the alerts, and the most effective way to use these products in their jurisdictions.

That is why we have Reverse 911 that doesn’t work due to downed phone lines and other problems that arise during an active event.

I am NOT blaming EM’s completely for this. These people have budgetary and political considerations that they also have to deal with during these events. After the event they are tied up with everything involving the restoration as well as endless reports to various agencies. Without taking all of the above into consideration prior to the event, and making detailed plans that can be followed during the next event, it seems that lessons are not learned.

As far as SECC’s and LECC’s receiving support from FEMA, they are not under FEMA jurisdiction. These groups are called for by the FCC, then created and operated at the State and Local level. A little remuneration would be nice, but in today’s real world of tight finances it is unrealistic.

EAS itself is also under FCC jurisdiction, not FEMA’s. Supplying EAS equipment to individual stations should, if anything, be a State and Local function.

Remember, EAS was established by the FCC for only one purpose, to propagate EAN’s across the country. Period. State and Local agencies are allowed to use EAS for State and Local alerts, but only as a secondary service to the Federal government.
Licensed broadcasters can no longer opt-out of EAS. That option was removed at the same time that the new EAS boxes with CAP were required.

FEMA did come up with IPAWS and allows State and Local agencies to send alerts via public internet to broadcasters and cable operators, but that is a passive function, with security protocols, due to the nature of the public internet. It is not a source to be counted on when a disaster takes down the internet for a myriad of reasons. It is great on a blue sky day, but beyond that it should be the last option for sending alerts.

In closing,

Yes, there were issues with alerting at almost every large disaster over the last few years.
Yes, there needs to be a comprehensive training syllabus available to EM’s.
Yes, the funding for this training needs to be made available.
The training and funding will probably be coming in the near future given the bills in Congress as well as reports by others that have targeted the lack of training, and other things, as problems that can and should be resolved in the coming months and years.

Until this happens we have to work with what we have and do our best at all levels.

I […]