• 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

am on fm translators

C

captex

15 house members are trying to urge the fcc to make it easier for am stations to broadcast on fm translators, this would over crowd the fm dial with lpfm translators, with religious broadcasters and full power stations. now am on fm translators.
 
When jras20 gets the news I'm afraid his blood pressure is gonna hit the roof..!

I've been watching the moves on this, and it's a bad, bad idea. If it's approved the NAB would probably demand protected status for the "AM on FM" variety (unlike the usual crop of FM translators and LPFM's, who have to go silent or find another frequency if interference becomes a problem). This is just another in a long line of patches like AM stereo, expanded band and "re-adjusted" pre- and post-sunset power levels that has disaster written all over it.
 
I wouldn't expect the Commission to loosen the interference criteria from what they are now. They might allow some increased power/height limits as are currently available for "fill-in FM translators.

That means there won't be a huge number of new translators on the air, just a different use for the existing ones.

The Commission and these congress-people are interested in maximizing the number of "local" voices on the radio as much as possible, which they should do based on 1st. amendment principals. More signals, mean more opinions, means more freedom of speech.

Unfortunately for jras20, this is all rotating around "localism", a current buzz word at the FCC. As we have seen from the IBOC debacle, DX'ers are not a huge consideration for the FCC, since they are not "local".
 
Hey guys check out the SC radio-info board it has already happened in a little town called Sumter SC... Since the AM does not have good night time coverage a translator on 105.9 has been put on the air... CC1
 
CrazeeCarroll1 said:
Hey guys check out the SC radio-info board it has already happened in a little town called Sumter SC... Since the AM does not have good night time coverage a translator on 105.9 has been put on the air... CC1
Click to expand...

The idea of allowing FM translators for AM stations has been around for several years, but prior to an NAB proposal last year it was generally viewed as a way to deal with specific interference problems. A number of AM stations in Florida were granted power increases years ago during the height of the Cuban interference problem, but WJNT 1180 in Pearl MS (a suburb of Jackson) was granted an STA for a 250-watt FM station to augment their night coverage. According to documents filed with the FCC a Cuban station on 1180 was estimated to be running 200,000 watts or more at the time, and a workable nighttime power increase for the AM station wasn't possible. WJNT-FM1 has remained on the air under special temporary authority for a number of years (despite a little problem with station personnel "forgetting" that the translator was only allowed to operate at night) but has had to change frequency twice because of new LPFM's in the area. A station on 1160 in the Nashville area was allowed to put an FM translator on the air, also because of overpowering interference from Cuba.

The FM translator for the station in Sumter is the second to be approved in South Carolina. Unlike the examples cited above, neither station was complaining of Cuban interference. WRHI 1340 in Rock Hill successfully argued that they needed the translator because the market had outgrown their coverage area. It can be noted that WDXY 1240 Sumter, like WRHI, operates on a local ("graveyard") channel, but literally thousands of U.S. AM stations could make a similar claim that their signals don't cover the market well. Then we have the issue of the WRHI application, which was approved by the FCC in a mere two days: www.broadcastlawblog.com/archives/fm-translators-and-lpfm-mcdowell-broadcasters-will-likely-be-pleased-by-fcc-action-on-fm-translators-for-am-stations-but-one-am-doesnt-wait.html

We were talking about the poor nighttime coverage for Austin AM stations the other day on this board. If the FCC allows exceptions like the ones in South Carolina, then every AM station in the Austin metro would deserve one, wouldn't they?
 
jd said:
When jras20 gets the news I'm afraid his blood pressure is gonna hit the roof..!

I've been watching the moves on this, and it's a bad, bad idea. If it's approved the NAB would probably demand protected status for the "AM on FM" variety (unlike the usual crop of FM translators and LPFM's, who have to go silent or find another frequency if interference becomes a problem). This is just another in a long line of patches like AM stereo, expanded band and "re-adjusted" pre- and post-sunset power levels that has disaster written all over it.
Click to expand...

:mad: :mad: ::) :mad:
 
Re: am on fm translators ***UPDATE***

Here you go, folks. The FCC has announced proposed rule making on the subject of FM translators for AM stations. So now the comment period begins, over what might appear to be a well-intentioned relief option but could be something that would stifle the FCC's supposed commitment to localism and diversity. Besides the obvious interference concerns, authorizing even more FM translators could effectively silence a number of the nation's low-power broadcasters.

More on the "AM on FM translators" proposed rule making from the FCC: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/openAttachment.do?link=FCC-07-144A1.txt

There's no way to know if they would be directly impacted by such a move, but currently authorized low-power FM stations in the Austin include KDRP-LP 99.9 Dripping Springs, KFGG-LP 101.9 Marble Falls and KXPW-LP 106.7 Georgetown.
 
mrtexmex2007 said:
Thats good I think. But I think that it would cheaper to have those am station in hd2 than on fm
Click to expand...

No, it's potentially a very bad idea. There has been talk about setting up a guaranteed 25-mile radius coverage area for any AM station using an FM translator, or using multiple translators. Those might or might not be on the same FM frequency. If you think the issue of translators cluttering up the band is bad now wait until hundreds, maybe thousands, of AM stations across the country battle for the right to go "FM" at night. Let's face it. With the exception of high-powered non-directional stations, the majority of AM's could probably claim to have less than adequate coverage at night.

I like your idea about using HD2, but it would probably be limited to larger metropolitan areas and would also run into problems involving ownership. Most stand-alone AM's would probably be out of luck since the FM's in the market would be unwilling to lease out an HD2 signal. (as for the rest of what you said, I don't know what that was all about...!)
 
I dont guess there is no reason to fight this, if the FCC is going to do it than they will. Funny they had a big fuss over XM recievers that put out to much power, but hell they are doing all of this new translator crap. Oh well. I guess DX'n is almost over for me in the city.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom