A Trend Which May Help HD Radio Become Profitable

[Barry]

The concept of rebroadcasting HD2 stations on translators in major cities is picking up steam. These translator signals running about 100 watts can often be heard reasonably well on regular analog radios in large chunks of the metro areas, and are marketed as conventional radio stations.
Naturally if these build decent audiences, the HD2's can sell more advertising time, and get on the path to profitability. HD2 stations could also be leased to other operators for arrangements of this sort.
An example is The Oasis, a smooth jazz station that just started being broadcast on 104.7 by a translator moved into Detroit. It is retransmitting WGPR HD2 on 107.5. Here is the station's website, promoting it as a regular FM station on 104.7- http://1047theoasis.com/index.html
Detroit lost its regular smooth jazz station a year ago, so there may be a significant amount of people that miss the format.

 

[Savage]

Yes: in a convoluted way. And it's important to note that any quantifiable "success" has nothing whatsoever to do with "HD Radio" as a digital transmission standard. The measurable audience and resultant revenue comes from people listening on good old FM radios to good old proven, reliable, non-proprietary ANALOG FM radio.

The FM HD subs exist solely as a pretense to justify the launch of new analog translator channels. And then there's the additional convenience of allowing big groups to evade their market ownership caps.

It's a win-win-win for the big radio groups who own the FCC and the NAB and tell them what to do.

 

[mmnassour]

OK, let's say these translators gain some traction and the HD main station continues to have no listeners since no one is buying any radios.

Why have the HD main? Why waste the electricity?

This seems to be to be wasteful at best, absurd at worst.

 

[KeithE4]

OK, let's say these translators gain some traction and the HD main station continues to have no listeners since no one is buying any radios.

Why have the HD main? Why waste the electricity?

This seems to be to be wasteful at best, absurd at worst.

Because translators aren't allowed originate programming, but they can legally rebroadcast AM stations and HD subchannels.

 

[spunker88]

OK, let's say these translators gain some traction and the HD main station continues to have no listeners since no one is buying any radios.

Why have the HD main? Why waste the electricity?

This seems to be to be wasteful at best, absurd at worst.

Its a loophole that broadcasters are taking advantage of. If they were allowed to keep the HD subchannels going only on analog translators, I'm sure many would shut off the HD radio signal all together. The fact that they would rather broadcast to a flea powered FM translator than an HD subchannel on a full powered station shows that this technology is not working.

This loophole is being used by some companies so they can have more stations than allowed in a market, since translators don't count as a unique station. Its also how some AM stations are getting an analog FM translator.

Its in Ibiquity's best interest to allow this to happen, as many stations would probably drop HD if they weren't allowed to use it as a gateway for analog translators.

 

[mmnassour]

So, after all the money....and all the time...and all the promotion...and all the interference....


....we're saying all HD is good for is a loophole?


That kind of ends the debate.

 

[Chuck]

So, after all the money....and all the time...and all the promotion...and all the interference....


....we're saying all HD is good for is a loophole?


That kind of ends the debate.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? And a translator can be constructed for pocket change. Unless you have to build a tower, the equipment cost is usually under $10,000. Sometimes way under $10,000. If the FCC allowed translators to rebroadcast FMeXtra, you could save even more....

 

[Savage]

I don't know how "wasteful" this is, but it certainly makes a mockery of the FM translator rules, to say nothing of providing legal cover for evasion of ownership caps. A "translator" is supposed to rebroadcast a primary STATION for the purpose of correcting coverage deficits. I think it's more than a stretch to treat an FM-HD subchannel as if it's a standalone station.

But, as previously observed - they're the FCC. They can do whatever they want. As long as they check with CBS and Clear Channel first.

 

[tomservo]

Yes but… is it cheaper for a station to install and license HD for the sole purpose of using a translator, or just acquiring a dying 1 kW AM to relay? I think the AM might be cheaper.

 

[nd2023]

Technically the analog translator does fill in holes in the HD coverage area. There will always be holes in HD coverage areas.

 

[Savage]

An excellent point, Zach....plus notwithstanding the fact that the good-as-dead AM likely has few listeners, it still probably has more than would listen to an HD-FM "primary" subchannel. And: no ongoing annual licensing fees!

Now here's a question I haven't seen discussed anywhere. iBiquity demands that its licensees pay annual fees based upon revenue generated on the FM-HD subs. If the revenue comes solely from operation of the analog FM translator, does that qualify under iBiquity's license as "HD revenue?"

Might we smell some potential litigation brewing over this translator-related matter?

 

[radioskeptic]

In Feb. 17, in Reply # 3 on the thread "Cumulus/KC takes advantage of the only redeeming quality of HD," I said:

But this ruse is nothing new. See “Neat trick: Cumulus is using an HD-2 channel to feed an FM translator.” Go to http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/pdf/TRI08272008.pdf (bottom of page 2 of the PDF).

Yes, that was Tom Taylor's TRI for August 27, 2008!

And now he's has quite a few items on this dubious trend yesterday and today!

 

[KB1OKL]

In Feb. 17, in Reply # 3 on the thread "Cumulus/KC takes advantage of the only redeeming quality of HD," I said:

But this ruse is nothing new. See “Neat trick: Cumulus is using an HD-2 channel to feed an FM translator.” Go to http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/pdf/TRI08272008.pdf (bottom of page 2 of the PDF).

Yes, that was Tom Taylor's TRI for August 27, 2008!

And now he's has quite a few items on this dubious trend yesterday and today!

I wonder if the FCC is going to continue to play dead and ignore these flagrant rule violations of the ownership cap?

 

[radioskeptic]

In Reply #9, Nick said:

Technically the analog translator does fill in holes in the HD coverage area. There will always be holes in HD coverage areas.

The typical HD coverage area has so many holes it makes a piece of Swiss cheese look like a solid mass!

(And that's without even counting the intermittent holes that result from transitory interference from machinery and some other electronic devices.)

 

[local oscillator]

What's unusual about the two new translator "stations" in Detroit, "The Oasis" and "The Bone," is that they are not co-owned with their respective HD side-channels, WGPR-HD2 and WGPR-HD3. The translators, which have marginal technical facilities, are owned by Martz Communications, and WGPR is a standalone owned by the International Free and Accepted Modern Masons. I'm sure there is an agreement of some sort in place, but you've got to wonder how long the "host" Masons are going to tolerate the "parasites." I do give Martz points for thinking big; they are known for a couple of stations in Upstate New York that try to rimshot Montreal. Wonder if they've ever considered "Franken FMs?"

 

[travisl5678]

Hasn't Funny 102.5 really caught on in Kansas City?

 

[stacker]

The use of fill-in translators to create essentially a new voice in the market is a "neat trick." Kudos to those who found, then exploited the loophole.

Seriously, this is just one more case of "analog only" rules being applied to a situation that didn't exist before hybrid digital.

A station with a fill-in translator, should use it for just that. Rebroadcast the hybrid digital signal. That way the folks wanting to hear the HD-2, or 3 can decode and hear it.

Using a translator to add another analog voice to the market is wrong. But, my hat is off to the a-hole who found this loophole.

 

[radioskeptic]

There's also a thread about this on "The Business of Radio" discussion board:
"New Trend, Translator+HD2 Channel=New Radio Station?"

 

[musichead1029]

A station with a fill-in translator, should use it for just that. Rebroadcast the hybrid digital signal. That way the folks wanting to hear the HD-2, or 3 can decode and hear it.

Uh, I think the point is that few have HD radios. There's no audience there.

Using a translator to add another analog voice to the market is wrong.

Why is it wrong? It's a more efficient use of the FM band - assigning viable frequencies that weren't being used under a more restrictive political environment, and formatting them (in analog) to encourage maximum utility.

 

[Savage]

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. You will note that the big HD-2 translator stories these days involve major radio groups in major markets.

The ownership caps were put in place through arduous jockeying involving the Commission, the Justice Department, broadcast and community groups to preserve diversity of radio ownership and voices. The translator trick is an end-run around the rules. And it bestows special advantages on HD operators which have nothing to do with HD operation.

IOW: dishonesty from the HD contingent. More of the usual.