Again, there is no rule prohibiting such an agreement.
The question is convincing the GM/owner of a FM station with a deficient signal that they could make more money by leasing time on a nearby AM facility, or buying that facility outright.
-
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
Local AM "Translator(s)" for a Local FM Station
- Thread starter kfbkfb
- Start date
The question is convincing the GM/owner of a FM station with a deficient signal that they could make more money by leasing time on a nearby AM facility, or buying that facility outright.
I can not think of a single case where such an arrangement would be desirable. Aside from the high costs of AM, the idea of putting any FM format on an AM station makes no economic sense and, more significantly, is totally unappealing to listeners.
..and there are reasons for that desparation, including:
1) The audio quality of AM is far inferior to FM.
2) AM is very susceptible to interference, and the list of items that cause said interference continues to grow.
3) People simply don't listen to the AM band unless they NEED to go there to listen to certain sporting events or talk programming that's only found there.
Keep in mind that many AMs are only on the air because they need to be in order to have an FM translator. If that wasn't the case, many would most likely take their AMs dark and just keep the translator. Even then, many AMs have greatly reduced power so they aren't burning through $$ to feed a big transmitter when the only reason they keep the AM going is so they can have the FM translator(s).
They are allowed to do so - but no one with good business sense would do it. AM is a dying (some would say RIP) medium. Streaming and other technologies are the way forward. Why would you retransmit an FM signal on a far inferior AM one that no one in a desirable demographic would listen to, when you can simply tell them to stream your signal at home or in the office, or even when driving outside the listening area, using any smartphone, computer, tablet, or smart speaker?
There's an article that was posted to Radiodiscussions just today, explaining that iHeart announced that digital now makes up 25% of their revenues. Podcasting revenue jumped 79% vs. just a year ago. As more and more people stream and they figure out more and creative ways to monetize it, revenue from that medium will only increase as well. That's the way forward, vs. going backwards to AM which, again, few in any desirable demographic would tune to.
Last edited:
From what I've read here in RD, some AM stations are kind of desperate and will sell time in blocks at a fixed cost (that's the total cost of putting your content on that AM frequency).
(found the post, here's the relevant info):
Contact - WCJW - CJ Country 100.9 103.7 104.3 104.9 105.5 1140am
Fast FactsOur Location Name: CJ COUNTRY RADIO Call Letters: WCJW-Warsaw, Batavia, Avon, Geneseo Frequency/Online: 100.9FM, 103.7FM, 104.3FM, 104. 9 105.5FM, 1140AM, Online @ wcjw.com or smartphone on the CJ Country or TuneIn app Coverage Area: Wyoming County Genesee CountyLivingston County...wcjw.com
If a big city FM station wants to retransmit their content on one or more local AM stations too (may be located more on the fringe of the radio market) from 5AM to 7PM weekdays (for example) to increase the their listenership during the typical work hours, then they should be allowed to do so.
Kirk Bayne
No FM station is going to be increasing its listenership by putting its programming on an AM station
The only place where I have heard of this happening is Mexico, where FM stations still have AM simulcasts because by law the really remote areas have to have some kind of access to some kind of radio, and in many cases it's just not profitable enough to build a new FM transmitter there. At least this is what I have heard, so correct me if I am wrong.
An example would be the combo of XHEWA-FM and XEWA-AM, which carry a Top 40 format. The latter is a clear channel signal.
An example would be the combo of XHEWA-FM and XEWA-AM, which carry a Top 40 format. The latter is a clear channel signal.
Yes, and some cases the AM is maintained just to sever a few hundred people. But there are only a couple of such cases.
But I believe they were allowed to reduce the AM power to 50,000 watts which is a considerable saving.
XEABCA 820 Mexicali lit up a full powered FM, but cant turn off the AM.. it would leave.. 3.. THREE people without radio service if they shut off the AM
AM transmitters are less efficient than FM transmitters. A 5kW AM transmitter must produce a 5kW carrier and an additional 2.5kW for 100% modulation.
Additionally, a 100kW FM station only requires a 20kW transmitter. A multi-bay antenna system increases the effective radiated power to 100kW.
Additionally, a 100kW FM station only requires a 20kW transmitter. A multi-bay antenna system increases the effective radiated power to 100kW.
To add to what Frank rightly said, AM stations also have significant land costs. A four tower Directional antenna like WIND in Chicago has ~40 acres of ground that require maintenance and have tax costs.
Even a tall FM broadcast tower can be built on a relatively small plot of land and one tower can support several stations. One station I applied to but never workd for had a downtown studio with a 500' self supporting tower adjacent. The tower and TX shack take about 6000 square feet of property.
Even a tall FM broadcast tower can be built on a relatively small plot of land and one tower can support several stations. One station I applied to but never workd for had a downtown studio with a 500' self supporting tower adjacent. The tower and TX shack take about 6000 square feet of property.
Much of the discussion here centers around the wisdom of your idea. Should you do this? Few would suggest it. Can you do it? Sure. If you're clear on what you're getting yourself into, knock yourself out. I have one client that runs 13 AMs and they're quite happy with them, thank you.
One practical issue I see is with the limited schedule contemplated for the AM station(s): So far as I know, there's still a rule that requires a minimum 18 hour broadcast day, unless that station is a daytimer (47 CFR § 73.1740). That'll mainly be an electricity issue, since you'll need the same infrastructure to run 1 hour or 24.
You'll also add public file requirements and regulatory fees to your property, utility, insurance, tax, maintenance overheads. The regulatory cost alone might cause you to reconsider.
One practical issue I see is with the limited schedule contemplated for the AM station(s): So far as I know, there's still a rule that requires a minimum 18 hour broadcast day, unless that station is a daytimer (47 CFR § 73.1740). That'll mainly be an electricity issue, since you'll need the same infrastructure to run 1 hour or 24.
You'll also add public file requirements and regulatory fees to your property, utility, insurance, tax, maintenance overheads. The regulatory cost alone might cause you to reconsider.
The more I think about this, the more it seems like buying a block of time on a desperate local AM station is a cheap, quick way to do this, if the desperate AM goes out of business, just select another desperate AM.
Note that the typical car radio will blend (FM) stereo to mono, depending on the signal, if it's a poor FM reception area, the FM will be mono, just like the (rebroadcast) AM.
Maybe just buy 5AM to 9AM and 3PM to 7PM weekdays on an AM for an FM rebroadcast.
Kirk Bayne
Note that the typical car radio will blend (FM) stereo to mono, depending on the signal, if it's a poor FM reception area, the FM will be mono, just like the (rebroadcast) AM.
Maybe just buy 5AM to 9AM and 3PM to 7PM weekdays on an AM for an FM rebroadcast.
Kirk Bayne
Mono, yes. But then there’s frequency response.
I cannot see that as viable. Let's skip the expense of operation, value of property required and such. The truth is about 5% of listening is to the AM dial in many major cities. Of 20 listeners that might listen to the FM counterpart, only one would switch to AM for the same programming. The whole reason for FM translators for AM stations was due to the fact people are not listening to AM stations. The current trend is to take directional stations non-directional and sell the once used land. An example is KXEN in St. Louis that went from 50,000 watts days to 160 watts. With the FM translator they likely reach more listeners than the coverage the 50,000 watt signal generated.
It seems this thread is going in constant circles with Kirk being insistent that his idea is a good one, while many folks with years in the broadcasting business and a full understanding of why FM translators are used for AM stations and not the other way around, and how streaming via the web and apps is the future (already widely used) and the best way to accomplish this, rather than moving several steps backward in many ways to consider AM, have given several reasons why it may not be the best approach.
Perhaps the best way to bring this thread to a reasonable close would be for Kirk to invest his very own money and time to prove his concept right or wrong, and then report back to the group with an objective review of his findings.
Perhaps the best way to bring this thread to a reasonable close would be for Kirk to invest his very own money and time to prove his concept right or wrong, and then report back to the group with an objective review of his findings.
Last edited:
Good Lord. It's like trying to explain simple math to a brick.
Some public radio stations receive grant funding based on population served. If the AM signal is delivering daytime service to a significant enough population outside of the FM's service contour, then a rebroadcaster on AM makes sense. This is done in some markets.
That exception is the only benefit I can see to enhancing an FM signal with AM.
That exception is the only benefit I can see to enhancing an FM signal with AM.
I have suggested before that there should be a radio station simulator, so folks who "know it will work if you just try it" can crash the plane without real-world side effects like staff layoffs, bankruptcies, etc.
They could start by taking a simple business economics course.
I can't believe I haven't noticed this thread until now. What Kirk is proposing sounds familiar to WAKY's setup in Louisville. 103.5 rimshots the city from the south, leaving downtown with a poor signal. (See this longley-rice map) They also broadcast on 620 AM, from 6 miles east of Downtown, with 500 watts, directional to the west. I'd imagine this signal isn't exactly penetrating, however it provides better signal to those office buildings than 103.5 does, and there's an added bonus of Bloomington reception. Interestingly enough, WAKY also employs a 100.1 signal in downtown to help bridge the gap on FM, and they are also on 104.9 and 106.3 north-east of Louisville.
However, as others have noted above, AM does not have the best sound quality, FM does. (This is somewhat subjective because I'm more willing to put up with music on AM than others here, however I will absolutely say FM sounds better). Not to mention, we don't really know how long the band has left until it becomes a breeding ground for all things Brother Stair, like Shortwave.
In a world where FM hadn't really taken over yet (probably looking at the 1960's here), you might have a good strategy. People, still accustomed to listening to AM, are surprised that their FM station doesn't travel nearly as far as the AM, and after all, this was before FM went stereo, so there was only a minor improvement anyways, might as well go back to AM! However, as Kelly pointed out, there are options out there that doesn't involve AM, and you get to keep the sound quality.
I agree with what Mr. Berry said about AM transmitters requiring all of their power to achieve full modulation, however the fact remains that AM can just cover more miles. In his example, 5kw+2.5kw is 7.5kw, but if that station is on some good flat land, on a low frequency, it can top 200 or 300 miles easily, whereas the FM station is limited to the curvature of the Earth and the height of the local terrain (usually resulting in 60-120 miles of coverage, however, an FM signal in space can travel quite far without weakening).
An interesting comparison to Mr. Berry's point is 1240 KFBC at 700 watts, and 870 KJMP at 1,200 watts. It appears that KJMP failed to do the mathematics here, because their signal is meh even in the Fort Collins area, however KFBC was actually stronger than KJMP during my trip there, despite lower wattage and higher frequency. AM can go farther than FM with lower wattage, but it must be taken care of properly.
To some of your points, I kind of noticed that I will listen to the FM translator of the station if I'm in range, however I take comfort in the fact that if I drive out of the FM's range, I can sit on the AM for a long shot before it becomes unlistenable. For example, KNX-FM (formerly KNOU) covers LA pretty good, but if I wanted to listen to it up north in Victorville, or south in San Diego, I would be out of range, unless I flipped over to 1070 (or you know, streaming, but just for this point, I chose 1070), and I would still have some room to travel before I would deem the 1070 signal un-listenable. Of course, AM's useful range today is limited because of RFI noise, however when you are just raveling in your car, your chances of running into overwhelming RFI is maybe 15%, and I actually put that in practice recently with KGAB. You can listen to 99.5 for a good 20 miles east on I-80 before it really starts to have problems, but once it does, 650 can carry me another 100 miles easily. Similarly, 99.5 is good on I-25 until you reach exit 4, and then KQMT just takes over, but 650 can last me all the way into Denver, at local strength, and if I did tolerate some static, it could potentially make it to Colorado Springs.
To PT's point, AM land plots can be extremely huge at times, to maintain the ground systems, however a station higher up on the band doesn't need as much land, and my local 1630 operates with only one block, and half of that block is already occupied by a store. It manages 10kw and covers at least to Brighton with a listenable signal, with only 1 little parcel of land here. On the other hand, some stations sport a massive array, like WLS, KCBS, WFAN, and KDFD.
Red Plume puts it perfectly for me. The only thing that really counts on AM is distance and coverage, and without the distance factor, then why be on AM?
Kirk, you do have the right idea at heart, but implementing it in 2022 is kind of odd. However, you are always free to try it out on your own stations, or convince an AM to give it a try. Your strategy does have some basis in what others have done, but it hasn't been tried like this before! I'm a big fan of terrestrial radio (AM/FM), but I suspect it's time to give up on that, and even Sirius at this point. All today's folks want is more bandwidth for my 5G Phone with 4K video! YAH! Even if they know that their cell-coverage is bad anyways
However, as others have noted above, AM does not have the best sound quality, FM does. (This is somewhat subjective because I'm more willing to put up with music on AM than others here, however I will absolutely say FM sounds better). Not to mention, we don't really know how long the band has left until it becomes a breeding ground for all things Brother Stair, like Shortwave.
In a world where FM hadn't really taken over yet (probably looking at the 1960's here), you might have a good strategy. People, still accustomed to listening to AM, are surprised that their FM station doesn't travel nearly as far as the AM, and after all, this was before FM went stereo, so there was only a minor improvement anyways, might as well go back to AM! However, as Kelly pointed out, there are options out there that doesn't involve AM, and you get to keep the sound quality.
I agree with what Mr. Berry said about AM transmitters requiring all of their power to achieve full modulation, however the fact remains that AM can just cover more miles. In his example, 5kw+2.5kw is 7.5kw, but if that station is on some good flat land, on a low frequency, it can top 200 or 300 miles easily, whereas the FM station is limited to the curvature of the Earth and the height of the local terrain (usually resulting in 60-120 miles of coverage, however, an FM signal in space can travel quite far without weakening).
An interesting comparison to Mr. Berry's point is 1240 KFBC at 700 watts, and 870 KJMP at 1,200 watts. It appears that KJMP failed to do the mathematics here, because their signal is meh even in the Fort Collins area, however KFBC was actually stronger than KJMP during my trip there, despite lower wattage and higher frequency. AM can go farther than FM with lower wattage, but it must be taken care of properly.
To some of your points, I kind of noticed that I will listen to the FM translator of the station if I'm in range, however I take comfort in the fact that if I drive out of the FM's range, I can sit on the AM for a long shot before it becomes unlistenable. For example, KNX-FM (formerly KNOU) covers LA pretty good, but if I wanted to listen to it up north in Victorville, or south in San Diego, I would be out of range, unless I flipped over to 1070 (or you know, streaming, but just for this point, I chose 1070), and I would still have some room to travel before I would deem the 1070 signal un-listenable. Of course, AM's useful range today is limited because of RFI noise, however when you are just raveling in your car, your chances of running into overwhelming RFI is maybe 15%, and I actually put that in practice recently with KGAB. You can listen to 99.5 for a good 20 miles east on I-80 before it really starts to have problems, but once it does, 650 can carry me another 100 miles easily. Similarly, 99.5 is good on I-25 until you reach exit 4, and then KQMT just takes over, but 650 can last me all the way into Denver, at local strength, and if I did tolerate some static, it could potentially make it to Colorado Springs.
To PT's point, AM land plots can be extremely huge at times, to maintain the ground systems, however a station higher up on the band doesn't need as much land, and my local 1630 operates with only one block, and half of that block is already occupied by a store. It manages 10kw and covers at least to Brighton with a listenable signal, with only 1 little parcel of land here. On the other hand, some stations sport a massive array, like WLS, KCBS, WFAN, and KDFD.
Red Plume puts it perfectly for me. The only thing that really counts on AM is distance and coverage, and without the distance factor, then why be on AM?
Kirk, you do have the right idea at heart, but implementing it in 2022 is kind of odd. However, you are always free to try it out on your own stations, or convince an AM to give it a try. Your strategy does have some basis in what others have done, but it hasn't been tried like this before! I'm a big fan of terrestrial radio (AM/FM), but I suspect it's time to give up on that, and even Sirius at this point. All today's folks want is more bandwidth for my 5G Phone with 4K video! YAH! Even if they know that their cell-coverage is bad anyways
- Status