Fast Action Urged in Class A AM Interference Docket
AM broadcasters and engineers differ on specifics of how the FCC should change interference protections for AM stations but want fast action, in comments in docket 13-249. Comments originally were due Jan. 22. Now, the agency moved the deadline to Feb. 8 (see 1901290043), said a public notice Tuesday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
FCC “inertia” on improving AM damaged the band, said broadcast engineer Timothy Cutforth. New engineering standards to make it easier for AM's to provide signals that better overcome interference “are very much needed -- NOW,” wrote broadcast engineering firm du Treil, Lundin. October's NPRM proposes alternatives for reducing interference protections for Class A “clear channel” channels (see 1810090058). Most commenters broadly agreed with that goal.
The proposals “will enable many AM daytime only stations, and those AM stations with severely-limited nighttime power, to obtain credible nighttime service,” said AM licensee Kentucky Mountain Bible College. IHeartRadio opposes changes to the Class A interference proposals. The National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters supports relaxing the rules. Neither had comments posted.
The NPRM’s proposal to reduce daytime interference protections to protect Class As to their 0.5 mV/m daytime groundwave contour instead of the current 0.1 mV/m level was endorsed by most. It will improve Class B stations' ability by allowing for improved service at night, said Crawford Broadcasting. The interference protections are outdated, said engineering firm Hatfield Dawson. Skywave service by Class A stations is “no longer a useful or important public service even where it actually exists,” said the firm. “The ability to maintain our day pattern at night would allow resources to be more effectively employed in improved local service,” said AM licensee K-Zone Media.
Reducing Class A skywave protections is too difficult an issue and stalls other improvements to AM, said Romar Communications. The issue is “a battleground in which big money and powerful influence are likely to exact delay,” said Romar. It urged the FCC to “decouple” proposals to relax interference rules for Class B, C, and D stations from the Class A proposals to speed rulemaking. “AM Radio hangs by its fingernails,” Romar said. Proposals to alter interference protections for Class A stations would worsen “the consumer experience” in places where it's currently acceptable, said AM equipment provider Broadcast Transmission Services. Don't "authorize facility improvements where incoming interference is high and an extension of service will lead to greater consumer frustration,” the company said.
Many endorsed proposals to change interference protections during “critical hours” around sunrise and sunset, keeping such protections while reducing them at night. “Such protection during the transitional hours of sunrise and sunset is appropriate,” said Hatfield Dawson.
Several disputed changes to interference rules would harm emergency alert system signals. “We would think that such a system would be best based on many nodes rather than the coverage of a Class A AM station that may or may not be staffed 24/7,” said engineering firm TZ Sawyer. “In the context of nuclear attack, AM radio station skywave service will not exist, as the D layer ionosphere will be sufficiently excited to block all skywave signals,” said Radiotechniques Engineering, Winchester Radio Broadcasters and Zip2.