A Trend Which May Help HD Radio Become Profitable

[musichead1029]

The problem is that the HD-2 analog translators are permitting large groups to evade ownership caps; the issue isn't maximization of spectrum use as you suggest. The translators are being used as competitive flankers in many instances to freeze out smaller broadcasters and import automated corporate-developed formats. That's contrary to the intent behind the rules.

When the FCC authorized HD on FM, it realized that each existing owner could end up with several extra stations per signal. By allowing HD signals to serve as originators of translator programming, the FCC simply follows through on that line of thinking. Owners couldn't 'evade' previous caps if the FCC wasn't okay with it. And the listener gets additional stations to choose from where they would not otherwise have had that option.

I will agree with you that the rules favoring translators over LPFMs are lousy, but no one ever accused the FCC of being to immune to politics. Until the FCC straightens out the LPFM situation, this is at least a way of introducing unique regionally-oriented content onto translators, and is preferable to more noncomm satellators. You can be sure that few if any existing translators will be converted into LPFMs, so this is as good as it gets for now. Enjoy it for what it is.

 

[stacker]

Enjoy it for what it is.

I think I have to side with Savage on this issue. The HD-2 signals flipped back out on fill-in translators take an HD signal that very few are listening to and translate them to analog which many can listen to. And the signals are being used as flankers. It's not right.

 

[musichead1029]

Enjoy it for what it is.

I think I have to side with Savage on this issue. The HD-2 signals flipped back out on fill-in translators take an HD signal that very few are listening to and translate them to analog which many can listen to. And the signals are being used as flankers. It's not right.

I dunno, it seems right to me as a listener.

Assume that HD FM caught on with listeners and HD radios were selling. Would it be okay for an HD2, 3 or 4 to serve as a 'flanker' then? Didn't the FCC explicitly approve of additional signals for existing owners by approving HD FM?

What about AM daytimers/weak signals on FM translators? Unfair, or an efficient use of existing FM translators?

Is it unfair to listeners in Kansas City that they now have a popular Comedy station not previously available? Is putting that new format on a signal that the public can easily receive unfair?

Ignore ownership. Is providing more unique choices for the listener using existing bandwidth a good thing?

 

[KB1OKL]

Enjoy it for what it is.

I think I have to side with Savage on this issue. The HD-2 signals flipped back out on fill-in translators take an HD signal that very few are listening to and translate them to analog which many can listen to. And the signals are being used as flankers. It's not right.

I dunno, it seems right to me as a listener.

Assume that HD FM caught on with listeners and HD radios were selling. Would it be okay for an HD2, 3 or 4 to serve as a 'flanker' then? Didn't the FCC explicitly approve of additional signals for existing owners by approving HD FM?

What about AM daytimers/weak signals on FM translators? Unfair, or an efficient use of existing FM translators?

Is it unfair to listeners in Kansas City that they now have a popular Comedy station not previously available? Is putting that new format on a signal that the public can easily receive unfair?

Ignore ownership. Is providing more unique choices for the listener using existing bandwidth a good thing?

It is unfair to the vast majority of radio stations owners and employees.

 

[musichead1029]

It is unfair to the vast majority of radio stations owners and employees.

How so? Competition is unfair? Anyone who's been in radio for 10 minutes ought to be familiar with the arbitrary mature of the rules promulgated by the FCC.

We could spend the rest of our lives discussing the rationality of the FCC's diktats. I think at some point you have to accept that it's part of the business landscape for the transmitter and stick portion of the distribution chain, and go forward from there.

 

[stacker]

Ignore ownership. Is providing more unique choices for the listener using existing bandwidth a good thing?

When that bandwidth was granted to fill in coverage losses, fine. When that bandwidth is used to create a new "voice" in the market....No.

 

[Ai4i]

I will agree with you that the rules favoring translators over LPFMs are lousy, but no one ever accused the FCC of being to immune to politics. Until the FCC straightens out the LPFM situation...

They can't!
They wanted more LPFM's to happen, but NPR and the NAB proved to congress that a third adjacent 100 watt LPFM will QRM a full power station but a second adjacent quarter kilowatt translator will not.

 

[Savage]

"Ignoring ownership" is the problem. That's the issue, not all of the other makeweight rationalizations about programming, choices and competition. The intent of the current rule is clear: translators are supposed to rebroadcast STATIONS, not auxiliary services.

If the FCC wants to change its rules, it has the power to do so....so honor the process. Issue the required Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, allow the public and the industry to comment, wait for the statutory period, etc. As I see it, the problem is shadowy behind-the-scenes rulemaking-by-committee or individual. It breeds corruption at worst and suspicion that the legislative process is being nullified, at least.

And from where I sit it looks like once again, the favored digital-perps are getting special concessions not available to analog-only broadcasters. It's unfair and not the way our government is supposed to behave. This isn't Russia (at least for now.)

 

[JohnnyElectron]

The problem with the numbnuts who set up these two bogus translators in Detroit is that he should turn on his f****n car radio first and say, "Wow, listen to that nice 50KW signal booming in from WIOT in Toledo, and I can hear programming from CKSY in Chatham too, oh, guess I should pick two different frequencies then"...but as John Belushi would say: ' But NOOOOOOOOOO'
Intertesting concept, and he's got one hell of a tall antenna (about 900 feet for his translators) BUT he picked two frequencies already in use.
I hear now he wants to move the 104.7 signal to 93.9 - oh, there's only a 100KW station from Windsor on that frequency.

Must be easier to piss off the CTRC than the FCC for interference complaints.
Interesting use of HD radio technology though. I would rather daytimer AM's got those FM's or those with 500watts, like CKWW.

 

[Barry]

There have been a number of posts indicating that having translators rebroadcast HD radio signals primarily benefits the Big Radio companies.
But the setup in Detroit actually uses the HD channel of an small independently owned station that is not part of a big chain. And while Martz Communications, owner of the Detroit translators, does own a number of radio stations, it is not one of the larger radio firms. So I believe it should be noted that smaller operations can benefit from this as well.

 

[Savage]

Again: the issue isn't whether Big Radio versus small operators are using HD subs as sources for analog translators. IMO the problem is using HD as a tool to evade ownership caps, since the translators are in effect mini-Class A facilities in many major markets.

Maybe this doesn't apply in Detroit, but it does elsewhere.

 

[local oscillator]

These HD sidechannels on translators are a bad idea, no matter where they are and/or who put them on the air. I can see this nonsense in time being the only thing separating HD Radio from its ultimate demise. Isn't it telling that the only redeeming quality of this junk science is as a backdoor justification to independently program an analog translator?

Here's an interesting thread on the Detroit situation from the Michigan Buzzboard: http://mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32385.

 

[Savage]

If "in time" is the time horizon for the HD subs being the only factor separating HD Radio from oblivion, time has galloped into fast-forward mode like an obscenity delay whose DUMP button has just been pushed. There is literally no broadcaster or listener interest in the digital signals, other than a handful of industry enthusiasts, engineers with careers invested in HD and a tiny but loud band of consumer-tinkerers. Oh yes, and NPR, which finds HD a nice way to shut up supporters clamoring for specialty formats....at NO expense to stations, thank you very much, pro-pubcaster Congress.

The industry is rife with reports of interference, rampant muting, silent carriers, coverage-hobbled HD signals, listener complaints, endless weird glitches plus local management distrust of HD subprogramming as possibly fragmenting precious listenership. There are no receivers any more - at least not enough to mention. Informed professional opinion about HD ranges from "profound disinterest" to "virulent hatred."

Using analog translators to generate an audience for HD subs is ba$$ackwards. Can it be done? Sure, but it kind of makes you wag your head in bewilderment. So....the radio industry has bought an Aston-Martin classic roadster and turned it into a decorative planter? Now THAT'S a smart use of resources.... :