I. Introduction

Of new and important interest to international scholars is whether, in the United States and abroad, AM radio and its signature, profitable news/talk/sports/information content is threatened by encroaching technical issues and the massive departure of potential AM radio band listeners to other audio platforms [1]. Recently, the U.S. government has offered unprecedented help in an effort to mitigate this technical encroachment, but it will be up to the radio executives themselves to preserve their programming products that are heard on the AM band. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was originally established only to coordinate the use of radio signals, to “regulate the ether” that is shared by American commercial, military, civilian and non-commercial interests [2]. Media managers and executives themselves make the decisions regarding format content and thus are critical to the success of any FCC initiative.

Already suffering from low fidelity in the U.S., AM is now confronted by enlarged competition from FM, satellite radio, personal media players, podcasts, and other digital audio streams [3]. Technical limitations in the AM band are the main threats to its physical sustainability. The proliferation of florescent lighting, computers, TV sets, and power lines that emit their own low radio frequencies (RF) increasingly interfere with AM band reception [3]. Conventional wisdom holds that due to AM radio signal issues, the FM band is the “band of choice” [1].Footnote 1 On October 29, 2013, “In the Matter of Revitalization of AM Radio Service,” the FCC adopted six proposed rule changes [3], many of which pertain to the implementation of FM translators. FM translators are low power FM transmitters that augment the coverage area of a radio station. Primarily, FM translators are set aside for FM stations. These new rule changes encourage AM radio license holders to apply for an FM translator to compensate for AM signal coverage problems. For years, conventional broadcast industry theory has maintained that all viable AM radio stations eventually will migrate to the FM band.Footnote 2 Evidence suggests, however, that American radio industry leaders actually are divided on the future of AM radio and whether any government regulatory changes are needed. This study fills in a gap in the literature by presenting a short history, some industry background, and exploratory content with regard to emerging, international digital technologies. In the U.S., the FCC has encouraged AM radio to consider signal innovations for more than a decade [4]. The FCC and AM radio enjoy a long relationship of shared interests.

Amplitude modulation (AM) radio is the oldest broadcast medium in the U.S. [2, p.1]. Developed out of the nascent Federal Radio Commission, the FCC was formed to better manage the advent of AM commercial radio. With the regulatory assistance of the FCC, entertainment and news delivered by commercial AM radio stations have shaped American culture. Today, of the approximately 13,500 radio stations in the U.S., 4,781 are on the AM band. In 2010, Arbitron, the radio ratings service, reported that 3,795 U.S. radio stations describe their format as news/talk/sports/information [5], the majority of which are on the AM band. The loss of AM radio could result in the demise of an historic and treasured American community forum, an important early warning source and gathering point in the case of emergencies, and a medium for governmental mass communication.

This study explores the apparent lack of enthusiasm from radio executives with regard to FCC 13-139. Previous research on AM radio programming is almost non-existent. Academic mass communication research that might predict and explain the behavior of media management with regard to the future of AM radio also is lacking. No previous research has attempted to determine the attitude of broadcast industry leaders toward the technical restrictions of AM radio, how those technical restrictions impact the programming and sales of AM’s dominant formats, and the implications of new digital platforms. Fourteen radio executives representing AM radio management, AM network radio programming, sales and talk radio programming were surveyed for this pilot study. The researcher asked questions to determine if AM radio industry leaders felt that AM radio service would be “revitalized” by moving to the FM band in any form. The researcher attempted to determine whether new technologies and audio platforms would “revitalize” AM radio and would be enough to mitigate any need for further FM band migration.

II. Literature review

Judging by the ratings of its most popular format, AM radio is in trouble. Because of the problems associated with the AM band, “News-Talk has the distinction of being one of the worst performing formats we’ve examined thus far,” concluded a national radio consulting newsletter.Footnote 3 “The median share for News-Talk is 3.1. This places the format next to last among the formats we’ve analyzed. More telling is the high proportion of News-Talk stations that have lost ground over the past year. Of the 52 AM News-Talk stations in the format at least a year, 61.5% have declined.”Footnote 4 The decline of the status of the AM band has been an ongoing issue for years. As early as 1991, radio researcher David Giovannoni already had noted, “Listeners have been abandoning the ’standard broadcast’ AM band in favor of FM for well over 20 years . . . Technical displacement is the reason. By simply switching to FM, the consumer hears clean stereo, full fidelity, and no AM static.”Footnote 5 A recent example of this is Phoenix, Arizona’s “The Peak.”

For ten years, Phoenix’s “The Peak” at 98.7 FM was a successful “adult hits” format playing popular songs from the 1980s and 1990s. In January of 2014, the station’s music format was scrapped and AM 620, Arizona Sports, a Phoenix sports talk station, began simulcasting on 98.7 FM. Radio industry observers were not surprised. “Overwhelmingly, FM is the band of choice” opined one media columnist.Footnote 6 The decision to kill a successful music format in favor of a sports talk simulcast was based on the potential audience growth of the AM talk format being able to reach a larger, younger audience on FM. Yet, despite the global perception that the FM band is still the gold standard in broadcast radio, and despite ratings problems for AM News-Talk stations, the migration of Arizona Sports to the FM band remains exceptional. Even with conscious efforts by the FCC to generate interest among broadcasting’s elite executives through the FCC’s electronic comments filing system [6], only five responses have been posted to the FCC 13-139 online comment page regarding the availability of FM band space for AM stations. As of this writing, of the five, two of those comments were from the same person.

A. AM radio limitations

Studies affirm that in a typical American home today, radio frequency interference (RFI) is so pervasive that getting state-of-the-art AM radio reception is a near impossibility [7]. Radio Jay Allen, an “engineer’s engineer” highly respected by the FCC, maintains that if one were to turn off all other RF emitting electronic devices in the home, wire mesh home construction material such as that found in stucco walls, foil-backed insulation and steel-framed house construction might be sufficient to create enough buzz and hum on an over-the-air AM signal to render it unlistenable [7]. AM stereo never panned out as the technology that was going to make AM signals more listener-attractive [8].

The decline in AM radio listening is attributable at least in part to its rudimentary and beleaguered 19th century technology [3]. Overwhelmingly most Americans do not like to listen to local, terrestrial, over-the-air radio in general but will as a matter of convenience or for special purposes [5]. Most people who are not AM talk radio listeners already likely will never go to the AM dial, particularly the younger listeners. Myers and Sadaghiani explains that so-called “Millennials,” those U.S. young people born between 1979 and 1994, often see themselves as seekers of respectful conflict resolution, who value diversity, and expect frequent, open, supportive communication [9]. So far, Millennials are among the least likely to sample the AM band’s typical, combative talk radio products [5].

B. Digital listening platforms

Two important concerns are “digital platform” and “digital radio.” In the literature, digital platforms and digital radio are treated interchangeably. Yet, they pose different problems and possibilities for uses of the AM band. A digital platform is any non-analog system that processes audio and/or visual information digitally (through pulse code modulation). In contrast, digital radio refers to an audio product that is delivered and received through a digital platform such as smart phone applications, online radio stations, so-called HD radio, audio podcasts and satellite radio. Pandora is a popular digital radio service. Thanks to data compression rates, though, the advantage for digital broadcasting is a more efficient use of bandwidth allowing for text services on the receiver display [10]. Households that receive cable or satellite TV also receive digital radio music channels “though they may not think of it that way” [10, p. 151].

Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB and DAB+) is a less generic term that refers to a particular type of digital platform that has the capability of superseding the need for analog, over-the-air, terrestrial bands like AM or FM [10]. Development of DAB began in 1987 with the intention of replacing FM. National DAB requires an interested country to reorganize its entire broadcasting system. DAB is a complete digital broadcasting system that provides more channels and better sound. Pandora is an internet- based service and is not DAB but its digital audio could be easily transmitted over it. DAB receivers can record and store audio information [10]. In order to “free up” bandwidth, many national communication agencies are turning to DAB systems. Canada and many European countries are developing timetables for a national FM-to-DAB migration before the FM band is “turned off” by those respective governments completely [10].

Internet radio receivers are another digital platform that provides wireless access to all online radio stations worldwide. Digital platforms most often carry digital performances but regular, analog AM and FM broadcasts are often translated to a digital signal. Digital radio adaption in the U.S. has been slow overall but significant in some demographic categories. For example, while the vast majority of Americans still report incorporating over-the-air AM radio content in their daily listening habits, about 40% are listening to their favorite AM programs and hosts on a digital platform such as an iPhone. This number is expected to double by 2015 [5]. On digital radio platforms such as TuneIn Radio, an application for smart phones, AM radio content can exist next to 70,000-plus live radio stations from all over the world, each with equal sound quality [11].

In the U.S., in-car radio listening accounts for two-thirds of all radio usage. In-car listening is a primary domain for radio content providers seeking to attract younger listeners to radio [5]. Broadcast radio listening on terrestrial bands like AM is not expanding. “Growth and momentum” in radio listening is only evident on digitally based listening platforms [5]. Only 22% of adults said that they “loved” over-the-air radio stations while 39% confessed they “loved” satellite radio. By comparison, 66% said they “loved” their iPhone [5]. More and more consumers are demanding digital radio platforms for their cars. In 2012, the radio industry heard rumors that U.S. automakers were considering replacing the AM band with digital radio in all new car models, something Detroit has denied-- for now.

Among younger radio listener rankings, the preference of digital radio listening over terrestrial signal listening is extensive. Digital radio listening, now the most preferred method by younger radio listeners, ranks “iPod use” second and over-the-air radio signals third [12]. This is consistent with FCC findings indicating only 4% of young people ever go to the terrestrial AM dial itself. Almost 60% of news/talk/information listeners are over 55-years-old [5] and the median age for the AM talk radio listener is 67.Footnote 7

C. Radio executives

Because of FCC deregulation, broadcasting executives must function in the most highly competitive time in commercial, American radio history [13]. Market size notwithstanding, today’s radio executives all face the challenge of returning a profit for their respective companies under enormous pressure [13]. Never before has the fate of so many AM radio stations been decided by so few executives. Because of commercial radio station consolidation, not only must U.S. radio executives compete against each other, they are competing often against themselves [13], again, regardless of market size.

Yet, for all of their centralized authority to design and shape the future of radio, media managers are a rarely studied group [14]. Very little primary information is available with regard to the opinions and outlooks of broadcasting’s powerful business, sales and programming managers in the era of ownership consolidation [14]. Given the challenge of managing several radio stations in an unprecedentedly competitive business environment, existing research indicates that the more experienced the executive is, the more he or she will resist making decisions within short time frames [13]. Broadcast managers associated with large media companies (e.g., Clear Channel Communications, Infinity/CBS, Cumulus/ABC) and those responsible for the greatest number of radio stations in a market also are prone to be more judicious and deliberative and less reactive [13].

D. Summary

U.S. broadcast industry leaders are an undermined source for new knowledge in mass communication studies. Seasoned radio executives-owners, network program managers, general managers, sales managers, local programmers, and elite level content providers--have firsthand knowledge of the challenges facing AM radio. Only part of AM radio’s problem in attracting new, younger audiences is related to radio signal problems. The FCC is entrusted with regulating the technical aspects of commercial radio and for being “the policeman of the ether” but broadcast executives in the private sector control the future of radio with regard to content [2].

So, considering AM radio’s moribund state, why has there been such an anemic response by radio executives to the FCC’s overtures to “revitalize” the AM band? At stake is the almost 90-year-old community-building service of AM radio, the marginalization or loss of the majority of news/talk/information stations in the U.S., and the potential waste of tax money by the FCC on misplaced “revitalization” efforts. Radio executives, not the FCC, will ultimately decide the fate of the content currently heard on the AM band.

If the FM band is still the “gold standard,” why are AM-to-FM migrations so rare?

E. Research questions

Given the U.S. government’s regulatory efforts to allocate new FM radio space as a means of revitalizing AM radio service, and based on the literature suggesting that the role of AM radio as a social force has been marginalized, and anticipating the further growth of current digital platforms and the implementation of new forms of digital radio, this study proposes two research questions:

RQ1: If given the chance, will AM radio programmers and executives want to migrate to the FM band to ensure the future of their formats?

RQ2: Are existing digital platforms and new forms of digital broadcasting eliminating the need for an AM-to-FM migration?

III. Methodology

This exploratory study consisted of elite interviews with broadcasting executives in small, medium and large U.S. radio markets as well as executives in nationally syndicated radio program management. Based on the researcher’s past career experience, a master list of 30 potential participants was composed. Elite executives were listed on the basis of their experience, respect and reputation in radio. Care was given to include executives in a variety of radio market sizes and national leadership positions. The researcher then determined the 18 executives who were most likely to respond to a request to participate in an academic study. Preliminary email discussions were conducted between the researcher and those 18 executives to determine their availability. Of the 18, 14 men and women agreed to participate including four national radio executives, three major market program directors, two veteran consultants, two medium market executives, one medium market program director, one national host that actively participates in the affiliate/public relations, and one small market radio group owner.

The elite interview method was chosen in order to determine how executives are framing their views, why they hold those views and to gain insight from the connections they are making [15]. With this method, interviewees can offer analysis, analogies and anecdotes. Elite interviews also can reveal the “mind map” of key decision makers [15].

Interviews were conducted online using the synchronous, in-depth, semistructured interviewing modality during a twelve week period beginning in November of 2013 and ending in January of 2014. Synchronous, in-depth, semistructured interviewing differs from e-mail surveys in that the answers are revealed through back-and-forth email exchanges over a period of time [16]. Synchronous, in-depth, semistructured interviewing differs from a “virtual focus group” in that no participants are aware of any other participants’ answers [16].

The researcher also adhered to Hothschild’s (2009) elite interview research method with regard to information gathering. Pursuant to standards of rigor, the researcher did not ask direct, binary “up or down” questions. Indirect questions were worded in such a way that responses maintained some uniformity but allowed pursuit of each area of inquiry [15]. Interviewees agreed in advance to take an initial questionnaire and to answer any necessary follow-up questions. Due to the nature of the executive schedules and limited opportunities for access, some questionnaires were distributed twice before follow-up questions were pursued. The initial questionnaires were designed to be completed in under fifteen minutes but could be answered at greater length [15].

Two subjects were the main foci of this pilot study. Questions were designed to test industry attitudes toward the viability of AM radio with regard to moving to the FM band and other technologies. The first set of questions asked respondents to judge their overall feeling with regard to the future of talk radio formats on AM radio. It was expected that this would reflect the perception that for various reasons, the AM band is considered moribund and that given the opportunity, AM programmers would want to give their news/talk/information formats a presence on FM. Also, respondents were asked to judge the potential of existing or emerging digital technologies with regard to the possibility of reaching new audiences. Specifically, he or she was asked to determine if developments in digital technologies bypassed the need for an AM to FM format migration. The sensitive and propriety subject matter necessitated blind and voluntary responses. Follow-up emails were sent to clear up ambiguities or to encourage elaboration. Despite being guaranteed that their responses would be listed anonymously, not every respondent answered every question. Based on the content of their answers, respondents’ answers were then categorized as either positive or negative with regard to the research questions.

Elite interview subjects agreed to have their names listed as participants as long as their individual identities were not attached to any specific answer. Of the fourteen executives, ten were men and four were women. Participants of this study have either appeared on, worked for, or are affiliated currently with most of the AM talk radio stations in the United States (for a roster of the elite executive subjects, their titles and bona fides, see Appendix).

IV. Findings

As a result of these elite interviews, important matters that may concern the future of AM radio are revealed. Although follow-up inquiries revealed some equivocation, key executives currently involved in the programming, production, promotion or management of AM radio products do not want to migrate to the FM band, as was examined in RQ1.

Moreover, as RQ2 had probed, elite executives were more likely to anticipate an AM radio- to-digital platform conversion to solve current signal problems.

A. Research question #1

In determining the respondents’ outlook on AM talk radio formats, the elite interviewees were asked whether they were feeling positively or negatively about the future of the band. Even if given a chance, most of the respondents were disinclined to move an AM station onto the FM band. Furthermore, elite executives were not concerned by the small number of new, younger demographic groups sampling AM radio talk products. One national programming radio executive insisted, “AM . . . has a strong, vibrant future ahead of it . . . .” That sentiment was echoed by a syndication company executive who said, “We are very positive about talk formats on AM. AM talk radio is incredibly steady in terms of listening.” A large market executive assessed, “There’s no question that the AM band has become more of a challenge, but the future continues to be very bright.”

“The logic of great radio,” according to one national program director, is simply to “put on great programs hosted by intelligent hosts . . . layer in solid guests and adeptly screened callers as ’spice elements’ and voila! You end up with a winning station.”

Other major market executives were only “moderately positive” or more vaguely, “not super positive.” One executive compared AM radio to organic farming. “AM radio is like real orange juice while digital technology is like Tang--sexy and newfangled but just not rooted in the local dirt. Even kids who are so connected to their phones turn on the radio when Mom and Dad take the phone away. AM is your boring friend who will always be there for you when the cool people are on restriction.”

Many interviewees summed up their sentiments with the headline, “Content is king.” One major market talk radio program director was more specific. “Great content will attract an audience on AM or FM. A great AM station is like having a great store in a crappy neighborhood--less foot traffic. That makes it more critical for the station to be exceptional to attract people to become aware of the outlet and to go ‘out of their way’ to visit.”

However, not all respondents believe that the AM radio band “has a strong, vibrant future ahead of it” at all. Several experts put the lifespan for radio stations on the AM band at around five years. One expert is convinced that while the AM band’s signature format, talk radio (political, sports, or topical), has a “future (that) is as bright or brighter than ever,” that expert believes the format will not be on AM: “ANYTHING on AM is going the way of the dodo bird.” Another minority viewpoint was that success on AM, regardless of the effort, “depends on the market.” In some cases, as one AM talk radio program director put it, some markets will abandon even popular, very well-programmed stations sooner than others but, in the end, all “AM stations will become an unsuccessful business model. It does not matter how many units get sold on an AM station, no one will hear (the commercials) being aired.” A different major market programmer cautioned, “Just putting a talk station on FM (even sports) doesn’t assure victory. Gotta have the horses. Gotta have the right match-ups in the market. Gotta change the tone so you can appeal to the natural constituency on FM. It is all about who you have hosting shows.”

Based on their expression of confidence in the viability of the AM band, however, the researcher determined that most of the respondents were moderately positive to enthusiastic about AM radio stations while the rest were clearly negative. In comments to RQ1, the consensus among respondents reflected an unwillingness to take advantage of the FCC’s offer to fast track an FM “translator” in urban trouble spots for one or both of two reasons. Either (a) they see nothing wrong with the AM signal in the first place or (b) because they didn’t see the “fix” as worth the effort in the long run.

One veteran AM talk radio programmer went so far as to mock governmental efforts to shore up AM radio products through FM augmentation. “Of course several people are touting plans to save AM radio including the new chief of the FCC in Washington, D.C.. I have little confidence in these solutions as well. Most of them are poor excuses for Band-Aids at best and give false hope to owners, operators and even people thinking of investing in a facility . . . You can’t bend or change the laws of physics.”

In sum, the results of RQ1 are as follows: The idea that all AM radio station executives feel the need to migrate to the FM band to remain viable does not hold. Other executives are resigned to AM radio’s demise and at least mildly open to an FM migration. Furthermore, called into question are the policy changes adopted by the government in FCC 13-139. No respondents expressed interest in FCC 13-139.

B. Research question #2

Terrestrial radio stations and formats are already carried on many existing digital platforms such as websites, web-based audio services, and smart phone applications. In light of these developments, leading media executives were asked: “Will existing or emerging digital platforms eliminate the need for an AM to FM migration?”

“Why would a talk station have to move to FM? AM content will be provided on all kinds of distribution outlets including hip apps like iHeartRadio,” wrote one national executive, “AM content will be discovered in areas with younger demos.”

“We have to go where the audience is--online, on their phones, whenever and however they hear us in their cars and in their lives,” commented another interviewee. “Be where the active consumers are,” said a program director, “You can sell more water in a desert in the heat.” But have active consumers already moved past FM listening?

Some radio leaders do not see the digital platforms as equal to the impact of a talk station on FM. “Apps and alternative platforms have done to radio what Direct TV and Dish have done to television: Increased fragmentation.”

Still, the majority of elite interviewees were positive with respect the question of whether existing digital platforms and new forms of digital broadcasting will eliminate the need for news/talk/sports/information formats to make an AM- to-FM migration. Findings indicate a greater interest among those interviewed in new digital platforms to maintain and expand the reach of current popular AM band products such as new/talk/information stations on new digital audio bands currently being employed in Europe.

Based on the responses of executives interviewed for this study, the radio industry is concerned but cautious about hastily abandoning the AM band. During the interview process, the radio executives expressed confidence in the AM band and the profitability of news/talk/sports/information formats to wait for the right move, not just take the next available move. In follow-up questioning, one respected national voice in AM programming, however, suggested that typical AM radio programming is dying either way: “The radio industry has spent the better part of the last 25 years or so defining what ’AM’ means. That would generally be (1) Angry White Guy Political Talk (2) Sports (3) Religion and (4) Ethnic programming. Hmmm . . . nothing there for me other than maybe catching part of the game on my way home.”

In follow up questioning, some respondents elaborated about their uncertainty with regard to talk radio’s lack of need for change. When asked by the researcher, “If a successful AM neither moves to FM nor makes significant changes to its content, how many years of financial success would that station have?,” a consensus of the respondents had a negative impression of a station’s financial viability. In other words, apart from how a radio station sounds, the majority of executives interviewed believe that radio revenue through ad sales will be negatively impacted by maintaining the status quo.

This seeming contradiction was further accentuated by responses to this question: “If a successful AM talk station DOES make the move to FM, will revenue be positively impacted?” Most of the interview respondents said from a sales perspective, they believed talk radio revenue would be enhanced by an AM to FM band migration.

According to many of the interviewees, the AM band of the future could find new success by becoming more localized and non-commercial. Instead of 50,000 watt “clear channel” stations that cover large parts of the country with syndicated, “cookie cutter” programming, the AM band could serve hundreds of not-for-profit niche formats. “Localism,” which continues to disappear from radio station line-ups in favor of so-called “McRadio” business models [17], could bring new meaning and purpose to the AM band. Some interviewees suggested that instead of answering to Wall Street, smaller, community-specific stations “are more mission than money (oriented) . . . Ethnic niches MIGHT have a chance as we’re seeing more and more stations appear in large cities on AM offering things like Mandarin Chinese programming, Korean, Arabic, etc.”

In sum, the results of RQ2 are as follows: The belief that new digital developments are mitigating any need for AM radio stations to move to FM holds. AM radio executives interviewed appear content to remain on the AM band while building in a digital direction with new radio technologies, because, as one major market programmer put it, “Digital is ’the future’ not ’the now. ’”

V. Discussion

The findings of this study, while still exploratory, necessitate further investigation into the future of the AM band internationally, the future of news/talks/sports/information formats with which AM radio has become synonymous, and the capabilities of new digital technologies to extend the life of all existing AM formats. Elite interviews with AM radio executives contradict the perception that the FM band is any longer “the band of choice” and challenge the practicality of the FCC regulatory action to make easier an AM-to-FM band migration as some sort of panacea. While these results should not be seen as an indication that the FM band has lost value, the fact that radio executives are looking to other technological solutions for AM radio programming problems suggests further studies could indicate that governmental energies might be better spent creating a new national digital audio band.

The overall willingness of some media managers to participate in an academic study on the production and consumption of mediated mass communication should serve as a reminder of their importance as a resource. Done with academic integrity through email, the elite interview method used in this study could be employed to gather more relevant and useful data in future scholarly studies.

This study had several limitations. First, as a pilot study, the qualitative results are exploratory. While the researcher mixed business and creative management from market sizes for this case study, future quantitative investigations could be conducted following the appropriate survey research techniques needed to produce a stratified, proportional, random sample that would better represent small, medium and large market sizes. Thirdly, despite assurances that no single answer would be attributed to any particular participant, a few elite executives expressed reservations about their participation out of concern for how their comments might adversely impact their occupational status or the stock price of their companies. Future researchers need to be mindful of reluctant executives to get the best results.

Also, more scholarship is needed for the American taxpayer on the “return on investment” aspect of existing and proposed FCC regulations regarding digital audio bands. If the FCC could shepherd every U.S. television station into the digital transmitter/receiver age, why not radio?

For purposes of future academic inquiry, the answer may be simple. Unlike the television industry that was forced by the U.S. Congress to switch from an analog-based service (like AM) to a digital system (like DAB), the FCC is allowing commercial radio leadership, for now, to figure out the future for itself [18]. Future research could assist the FCC in determining whether the U.S. radio industry is experiencing “analysis paralysis” in this self- autonomy, however. Inaction could prove costly. Whether AM stations switch to FM, DAB, DRM or a configuration of digital delivery systems, the quality of AM signals themselves will continue to deteriorate and AM radio content will continue to be marginalized by technical issues.

Moreover, domestic and international telecommunications business interests are increasingly focused on procuring available openings on the radio frequency spectrum and/or purchasing frequencies from existing broadcast facilities and repurposing them for non-TV or radio products [19]. Like a condemned home on a desirable lot, in 2015 the FCC is expected to auction “chunks” of valuable spectra owned but under used by TV stations. Someday, the frequencies of the AM band also might become more valuable than the stations that are heard on them.

The findings of this exploratory study, therefore, may also indicate a possible need for an increased leadership role for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Several European countries and Canada may serve as role models. The NTIA performed the telecommunications research, engineering, and planning that managed the U.S. conversion from analog to digital broadcast television. The NTIA is responsible for the development of the executive branch’s domestic and international policy with regard to the efficient and effective management and use of the radio spectrum. The NTIA also oversees the Federal government’s radio spectrum requirements for public safety. Under the direction of the executive branch, the NTIA could be instrumental in securing our national interest in having enough bandwidth for a wirelessly connected world as well as leading a skeptical radio industry further into the age of digital distribution.