• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The Next AM Fix May Be Giving FM Translators ‘Primary’ Status

TheBigA said:
The guy quoted in the OP seems to think there is. Once again, I don't expect the FCC to do what he wants.
Click to expand...

While a few major market AMs may have very valuable real estate where the station is worth more dead than alive, those same major market stations will not achieve full market coverage with the average translator.

Yes, many former Class IV (graveyard channel) stations in bigger cities can cover well or better than the AM with a full power 250 watt translator at decent height, but most larger market stations won't get anything comparable to their AM market coverage, at least daytime.

And once you get out of the larger markets, land values decline most dramatically.

I'm thinking of a market where I know a bit about land values, Traverse City, MI. Were any of the AMs, like 1400, or 1310 (the ones that would come close to duplicating most of the population coverage with a translator) to close, the land they sit on is going to be priced at orchard / vinyard costs which may be from $5 thousand an acre to $15,000 an acre, depending on proximity to roads and tourist zones (view, woodlands, etc.). Nobody is going to be using "windfall" in the context of those properties.

And the same scenario is going to play out in comparable markets, from Imokalee, FL to Ishpeming, MI and from Caribou, ME to Brawley, CA.

The real gain is not having to maintain a tower, lighting, a little building, a transmitter and such.
 
DavidEduardo said:
The real gain is not having to maintain a tower, lighting, a little building, a transmitter and such.
Click to expand...

And how does this benefit the FCC? Why should they approve such a change, that means fewer radio stations on the air, and less revenue for them to get?

They've already given AM stations a free translator. Isn't that enough help? I don't see where in the FCC rules they should worry about an owner's finances. If they can't afford to own the station, sell it or shut it down. But that doesn't mean they can run their free translator as a primary station.
 
TheBigA said:
And how does this benefit the FCC? Why should they approve such a change, that means fewer radio stations on the air, and less revenue for them to get?

They've already given AM stations a free translator. Isn't that enough help?
Click to expand...

The advantage is in thinning the herd, and at some point, if the medium is still viable, we'd see the ability of low power and daytime stations to improve facilities.

The annual regulatory fee for class B, C and D AMs in markets under 150,000 is from $1475 to $1700. The FCC could easily have a fee table amendment specifying a higher fee for translators that replaced rather than supplemented AM stations. The amount of money would be insignificant from a regulatory perspective.

Translators and boosters now pay $430 per year. Add a "premium" for replacing an AM and there is no difference.
 
DavidEduardo said:
The advantage is in thinning the herd, and at some point, if the medium is still viable, we'd see the ability of low power and daytime stations to improve facilities.
Click to expand...

Thinning the herd doesn't benefit the FCC. We've already discussed low power, and if they were viable, they would not have needed translators.

So you end up thinning the current herd, new applicants come in demanding more FM translators, which consequently clogs up the FM band even more.
 
TheBigA said:
Two words: "Financial windfall." That's how these AM stations see this. They should not have been allowed to get a financial windfall for free. They either run their AMs as licensed, or turn them in. But they shouldn't be allowed to gain a financial windfall.
Click to expand...

We do it all the time. See the recently conducted Digital TV spectrum auction.

As you know I'm a proud member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but I agree with you.
The broadcast spectrum is a public resource. Allowing station operators to auction it off for a windfall is like leasing them a corner of Yellowstone Park and letting them sublease it for oil drilling while they keep all the money.

The country is $21 trillion in debt. If public resources are going to be sold to the highest bidder
the proceeds need to go to the US Treasury.
 
Last edited:
I think regulatory fees the FCC gets would actually increase. AM fees are deeply discounted already. Translator fees are token amounts due to secondary status. Make them primary and the rate would be akin to a Class A FM in the market, generally eclipsing the AM and translator annual spectrum fee combined. In my market the AM class I work for pays 10 cents on the dollar compared to the full class C FM.
 
The concept of "financial windfall" came from the writer of the article, not the FCC, and what "benefits the FCC" has nothing to do with this thread.

Some of you forget that AM station owners set aside huge plots of land and, once the FCC issued their "permission", spent many thousands to install the infrastructure. If they turn off the station and send the license back in, the equipment value of that site becomes, essentially, scrap.

Maybe the land will have appreciated over time. If that long-term set-aside results in a "windfall" for the owner, then it's a result of their elective holding of the property, not anything the FCC or public might have done. Therefore, it's none of the FCC's business, nor yours, nor mine.

Granted, many owners aren't taking good care of their sites these days, but others are. Not having to maintain those sites can eliminate a major business expense, freeing up money that can, at the owner's option, be used elsewhere. Call that a windfall if you want but again, it's none of the FCC's (or public's) business what the owner does with that money.

The public granted licenses to broadcasters in exchange for the provision of a "public service", nothing more. You can debate what that means, but the FCC has set the goalpost. By granting and renewing his license, the broadcaster has been assumed to have provided that service. That he might have operated a good business is the motivational side of the deal. If the broadcaster turns in his authority to operate the station, for a profit or otherwise, the FCC's (and public's) interest is dissolved. You don't get to dictate whether the guy got to make some (or a lot of) money along the way.
 
Last edited:
Grounded Grid said:
The concept of "financial windfall" came from the writer of the article, not the FCC, and what "benefits the FCC" has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes I know...I started this thread. But the writer of the article is trying to convince the FCC to do this. These days, the FCC doesn't always do what's best for the public. And they rarely do what's best for broadcasters. He's asking the government to allow him to turn a translator into a primary station. That's the issue here. The windfall is just one of the side effects.
 
If you will allow, The Big A, might I assume that windfall comes partly by coming in the back door? We know for some time now new commercial stations have been auctioned to the highest bidder. Naturally an FM signal commands a higher auction price than an AM. Thus, although low in power and typically coverage, by taking the translator to primary status is essentially escaping the auction to benefit (albeit some of those AMs were won at auction but that price did not reflect the FM translator). In essence the AM can revert to FM without paying the literal auction price to get there, something quite a few of those full power primary FMs paid dearly to get.
 
I can understand the broadcaster looking for some protection. There's not much point in all of this if the translators can get bounced around (or turned off) at the whim of a primary operator. One of the translators I take care of has been moved twice, where all of the contours suggested it would be comfortably OK, and was recently forced to directionalize and reduce power in order to "protect" the extreme fringe of a new FM. It's hard to imagine anyone being comfortable with their future if they know they could lose their shiny new FM tomorrow.

This doesn't mean I have a better answer, as I get the primary operators' point as well... but if this is "revitalization", then maybe there's still work to be done.

On a related topic (also covered by the article), it will be interesting to watch whether the FCC will actually force the expanded band operators to let their original station go. The FCC has let this drag on for so long, the broadcasters can probably make a case that the two stations together don't equal what they had before this mess began. By letting them keep the stations for this long, I'd bet someone would try to make a legal case that the FCC caused the stations to depend upon the combination and it would now be unfair to force the separation that should have happened years ago.
 
What would make Katy listeners turn off the greater Houston stations and listen? Presumably those residents don't work, shop and play entirely in Katy. Is there even a retail base unique to there?
 
Grounded Grid said:
I can understand the broadcaster looking for some protection.
Click to expand...

So just because a business that has made buggy whips for 100 years, do they deserve some sort of protection too? As with any business; if fewer want the product you sell, it shouldn't be up to the government to save you from obsolescence.
 
Yes, Katy is very distinct. It has a business district, etc. It has about 250,000 population in it's school district. It is a place in the Houston metro people choose to reside. So, yes, there's a daily paper and a sense of place and community. With that said, quite a few people in Katy mostly work elsewhere, so like any other metro suburban station, grabbing enough of that population to matter is the tough spot. Certainly high school sports and local news would need to be the anchor for such a station. There's a decent business base and active chamber of commerce. Lots of mom and pops. Done right, a station might reach 1 million in sales with some hard work. I base that on how Conroe seems to respond to their station that does not target Houston. By the way, most of what is Katy is not Katy proper. In the infinite wisdom of earlier city council members, they voted that Katy could not expand the corporate limits. Thus, Katy is define more by it's school system than corporate limits. Even though the population is about 250,000, no station pays any attention to Katy and rightly so. Why target 250,000 when the metro is 5.5 million?
 
I can absolutely see giving AM stations who migrate to FM protection...in a small market where the radio band is less crowded. In these places throwing AM’s on FM will (at best) prevent local listeners from receiving fringe signals from major markets. A drawback, yes, but chances are good the major market FM doesn’t care about the listeners in a small town 50-60 miles away. It would allow a lot of these rural daytime only/flea power nighttime AM stations a chance to survive (they are going dark very rapidly— remember, not everybody follows FCC rules and files to go silent when the station is permanently signed off).

The problem I have is when you’re in markets like Seattle or Houston, where a translator on the right frequency with the right power and height is equivalent to a class A FM in terms of coverage area. Why does a perfectly viable AM station that already has a voice on a dial packed with signals get basically a free conversion to FM without having to go through petitions to deny by angry listener groups, auction fees, and the like?

Personally, the smartest thing to do is to start Class A1 stations: 500w at 100m equivalent. Minimum power of 50 watts (which would cap height at around 250-300m). Auction the frequencies off as they normally do — if the frequency is currently occupied by an AM to FM translator, give them the opportunity to win the auction at half or third of the final price...meaning anyone wishing to displace the translator would have to pay 2-3x what the AM station would. If the AM wins the auction, they have to surrender their AM license in 2 years.

In rural markets, you’ll find little to no competition for this new A1 service. Heck, you’ll even see a few new voices from standalone A1’s! AMs will move to FM just like now...only they’ll have some form of permanence and have to shell out a thousand or two for an unopposed auction. In big markets, the competition will be much greater but will probably force some of the larger companies taking advantage of the AM revitalization to shell out some big bucks to keep their translator permanent. You’ll even find some who think a 250w on FM at 700’ isn’t worth trading in a 50kW AM flagship news/talk station for.

Regardless, this is the FCC we’re talking about. They’re not particularly staffed anymore to deal with technical complaints from listeners or most broadcasters these days. Not knocking them (it’s not their fault...they have been cut back to the bone there), and not even saying it’s bad. But they’re in the business of making money off of licensing these days. Just like the mafia of old days, give them a way to extract some cash out of it, they will wholeheartedly support whatever scheme you come up with so long as it doesn’t tick off too many people.

Archie B.
 
Last edited:
it’s not their fault...they have been cut back to the bone

I knew an engineer back in the day who threw a party after Reagan got elected.
"He's going to cut the FCC's budget so low that three years from now you'll be able
to hear this station on Jupiter!"

Did not quite work out that way.
 
This is going to be a disaster for anyone who listens to a semi-local especially in a larger market. They'll have the priority to take over any 'open' channel (meaning, those with semi-locals) and replace your rimshot with conservative talk or all-sports, while making $$$ off the deal and shutting off the AM for good. Basically, kind of like the analog TV shutdown in 2009 except the AM stations are going to FM and the owners can choose to shut them off. In Seattle, KKNW wants 96.1 for a translator. Are you kidding me? With Mixx 96.1 KXXO coming in just fine in south King County and Tacoma, not to mention parts of Seattle proper? This is going to happen more and more and it may drive a lot of listeners off the FM band. If it wasn't LPFM and HD2/3 analog translators, this is the new fad for making the FM band more and more packed.
And by the way I used to be a regular listener to KXXO...they had a better variety of music than KRWM. But that's for another day.
 
I know I'm an amateur, but I know of situations already where although the "main" station is on AM, the owners are using it to feed translators and using a name for the translator or group of translators. In Jackson, TN there is WLLI 1390, which uses a translator on 94.1 and calls it Willie 94. There is also WJAK 1460, which has a translator on 96.1 and goes by Hot 96.1. And then in Memphis there is Guess FM, which runs off of 2 AMs and 3 translators that cover the area. So in reality it's very likely the AMs get little or no listeners while most of the audience is listening on the translators. In cases like these why couldn't they shut down the AMs and go strictly to FM? I don't mean that every AM should get an FM translator, but in situations like the stations I mentioned why shouldn't they be allowed to shut down the AMs and go strictly to FM?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom