In Cincinnati we have two FM translators serving the same AM WDJO 1480 .
Would this no longer be permitted?
-
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
FCC Seeks To End Simulcasts
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Would this no longer be permitted?
Is there any difference between simulcasting with two stations on the same band (an FM simulcast with two positions on the dial) vs. one AM simulcasting an FM?
I'm curious about how HD sub channels are treated with this new rule. For example; if I've got an FM with an HD-1/analog, and want to simulcast that same programming on another one of my FM's in the same market on an HD-2 or HD-3 with both stations having 100% overlap, does the Commission consider the ancillary (HD) channels within a simulcast?
Looks like they have different coverage areas, with 99.5 focused on Cincinnati itself and 107.9 directional to the Kentucky side of the river. So likely not affected.
Radio-locator also lists a third translator on 95.3 but I’ve never heard WDJO promote it. Actually on the air? Supposedly 2 watts with minuscule coverage.
Myrtle Beach SC has had a lot of simulcast pairs over the years. WYAK was heard on 103.1 and 94.9 back in the 90s. I think someone said both stations eventually improved their signals and they ended up doing separate programming. For most of their history 93.9 FM and 93.7 did a simulcast, one in Georgetown about 40 miles south of Myrtle, and the 93.9 frequency farther north. I don't imagine there's much overlap with those two signals. WYNA at 104.9 (licensed to Calabash NC) did a simulcast with 100.7 in Georgetown at one time. WEZV (like WYNA, with a tower way up on the north end) has had a Georgetown-area simulcast partner since 2000. First it was 94.5 which was kind of weak on the north end by itself. Then 94.5 began airing its own programming and 100.7 became the partner. I've heard 94.5 has problems with interference from 94.5 in Wilmington, but it switched from music to talk.
Greenville NC is a market that had a lot of simulcast pairs at one time but I'm not aware of any now.
Greenville NC is a market that had a lot of simulcast pairs at one time but I'm not aware of any now.
If there are any questions about the goals of MusicFirst or Fairness in Music Coalition, this will remove all doubt:
radioink.com
musicFIRST Calls On The FCC To Tighten Radio Ownership Caps - Radio Ink
The musicFIRST Coalition and the FMC have again taken pleas to impose additional fees on radio to the FCC, seeking more radio ownership caps.
radioink.com
They've got their hand out, that's pretty obvious. What I don't understand is their pleading that says:
"musicFIRST and the FMC criticize the current structure of the radio broadcasting industry, claiming that consolidation within terrestrial radio has led to decreased local competition. They say, “We have consistently seen that past ownership consolidation has driven homogenization and the adoption of repetitive playlists, resulting in fewer opportunities for the vast majority of artists and songwriters on commercial FM stations.”
What, that those mean ol' FM programmers won't play stiffs? That's nothing new.
Their notion that radio play only nominally affects music sales is also inconsistent with their logic. If radio play doesn't generate sufficient sales, why worry about getting played on the radio? Why even waste the time to petition?
Because they have a different agenda than radio stations do. They want more money, don't care what makes that money possible, and want more publicity for their artists without having to work for it. Reminds me of crypto-land.
The first time I heard this new agenda aimed at radio, it was coming from the mouth of a major record label. He said to an industry group: "Radio is stealing our content." This was at a time when record labels were still mailing CDs to radio for airplay. I raised my hand and asked the label head, "how am I stealing your content if you're the one sending it to me?''
So now they're no longer mailing us music, but we're still on the receiving end of the weekly pleas to play. That process seems totally foreign to the folks at Music First and the Coalition. They see radio as another streaming service. They give us music, and we play it without curation. We are expected to play it all. When we don't, they get mad. But they forget that they have promotion staffs on their side, and publicists, and lots of tools to get radio to play music. That still happens.
They think of us as another streaming service, and for that reason, they don't understand why we don't pay the same royalties as the streaming services. They don't understand the difference between analog and digital, and the reason streaming pays extra is because they're digital and we're not. They think there was some loophole in the law. There isn't. There never was a law. The labels never set up systems to collect royalties, and we never paid them. No loophole.
But yes, it's a different agenda, even though our conversations with the promo people is we're partners. We are partners in the music promotion business. They make the music, and we promote it. But we can't play everything. I think everyone understands the process now except for Music First and the Coalition. So they see their mission as doing everything they can to make it difficult for us to do our jobs. When one of us goes bankrupt, they're happy. When we want regulations loosened, they come up with reasons why that's bad for the public interest. They are not our partners. They are not helpful in the music promotion process. Which is why, when they partnered with REC Networks on this new simulcast rule, it was for a different purpose from REC.
Unless we pay them ridiculous sums of money on an escalator in perpetuity.
No, then we suck because we aren't paying them money.
Yeah, I thought that was kind of weird too.
I'll be curious to see if this affects the Rock simulcast of WQBK and WQSH in the Albany, NY market. WQBK at 105.7 is a Class B1 station and WQSH is a full blown Class B at 103.5. Both frequencies have very significant coverage overlap that is far from fringe...
I doubt it. Citygrade coverage overlap between the two isn't much. 103.5 has had a simulcast partner off and on going back about 30 years. I'll grant you the simulcaster back then was 103.9, which is a different signal, but it has about as much overlap with 103.5 as 105.7 does and never ran afoul of the old rules.
The transmitters are 46 miles apart and the signals directional. The 70dBU signals do not have 50% overlap. The 103.5 facility barely gets a city grade signal to Schenectady and not to Albany and Troy.
As I recall the translators serve different areas of town
For the most part yes. There is overlap on I-275 for about 10 miles but some overlap must be expected.
Again, this has to do only with FM stations simulcasting other FM stations. It doesn't apply to boosters, translators or AM stations.
There is no "again: I posted that early in the thread before this had been made clear.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
The Commission has announced an effective date of August 5 for the reinstatement of the rule:
Affected stations have six months to comply (until February 3, 2025) before the rule is enforced, and the FCC wants any waiver requests to be filed before the end of October.
Affected stations have six months to comply (until February 3, 2025) before the rule is enforced, and the FCC wants any waiver requests to be filed before the end of October.
- Status