IIRC the FCC was to to issue another set of "rules" for the LPFM and translators. This was suppose to allow "hundreds" of LPFM by doing away with some of the adjacent channel protection that C's (and I assume B's) have. Has this happened? If so is there a simple English version of the rules?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
AM translators + LPFM's
- Thread starter secondchoice
- Start date
Secondchoice:
As a "sent to the beach" after 24 years broadcaster, I have been following this as a potential LPFM applicant. It is looking like this:
The FCC has not yet codified the rules. It does appear that they will deal with the applications
from the Great Translator Invasion of 2003 first.
Any translator party with more than 50 applications will have to decide which 50 they want; the remainder will be dismissed. It gets more complicated, but there are some markets where it appears that an LPFM could possibly "bump" a translator, but only in cases of new applications, not so much with the 2003 leftovers.
Here's a little more from the Nexus website:
http://lpfmradio.org/lpfm-radio-news/
My interest in LPFM is described in detail on the "LPFM and donors" page at http://www.bigdcountry.com. I'm what I consider professionally lost at this point
and never found a satisfactory alternative after radio.
As a "sent to the beach" after 24 years broadcaster, I have been following this as a potential LPFM applicant. It is looking like this:
The FCC has not yet codified the rules. It does appear that they will deal with the applications
from the Great Translator Invasion of 2003 first.
Any translator party with more than 50 applications will have to decide which 50 they want; the remainder will be dismissed. It gets more complicated, but there are some markets where it appears that an LPFM could possibly "bump" a translator, but only in cases of new applications, not so much with the 2003 leftovers.
Here's a little more from the Nexus website:
http://lpfmradio.org/lpfm-radio-news/
My interest in LPFM is described in detail on the "LPFM and donors" page at http://www.bigdcountry.com. I'm what I consider professionally lost at this point
and never found a satisfactory alternative after radio.
The title you have the thread probably is slightly "off center". The translator applications left over from 2003 have nothing to do with AM stations.*** I think applications filed at that time were for resending FM signals only. A big part of them were by people who own large networks of religious stations. Part of the applications may have been filed by speculators thinking that when they got their Construction Permits, there would be a line of people standing at their door with check-books in hand, asking: "How big should I make the check? I want your CP."
I get the idea that the FCC (with some industry persuasion) is not very amused by the avalanche of applicants who do not even pretend to serve any kind of traditional for of "serving the public need".
Alan is right. We are all still waiting for the FCC to first sift and sort the old pending translator applications and to present the next set of rules for LPFM.
***I don't remember what year it was that the FCC started allowing AM stations to have an FM translator, but it was much later than 2003. And for all we know, they might come up with a new set of rules for AM translators, but I don't know of any official notification on that. It just seems to me that while they are re-inventing the use of low-wattage FM outlets, they just as well get logical on AM translators as well.
I get the idea that the FCC (with some industry persuasion) is not very amused by the avalanche of applicants who do not even pretend to serve any kind of traditional for of "serving the public need".
Alan is right. We are all still waiting for the FCC to first sift and sort the old pending translator applications and to present the next set of rules for LPFM.
***I don't remember what year it was that the FCC started allowing AM stations to have an FM translator, but it was much later than 2003. And for all we know, they might come up with a new set of rules for AM translators, but I don't know of any official notification on that. It just seems to me that while they are re-inventing the use of low-wattage FM outlets, they just as well get logical on AM translators as well.
TomT said:Embedded somewhere in the various ideas being discussed is a proposal to remove the restriction on new translators being used for AM stations. Presently, the translator must be on the air & licensed before mid-2009 to be eligible for AM translator use.
That strikes me a good proposal. There are some operators of existing AM stations who should be given an opportunity to access the hours and coverage that a translator would add to their limited AM coverage and hours.
IMHO the fair thing (like that really matters) would be for existing class D's and later C's be allowed to acquire a FM translator if there is coverage of the COL, then turn in the AM license after a year (keeping the AM call letters), then that FM be "protected" " like a short spaced class FM station. I guess the new class would be A1, kinda like B1 only 250watts instead of 25K but the tower height limits would be class A. Unless there is a terrain problem all commercial translators (not counting the new A1's) will have a 10 year "window" to acquire a D* and turn it into an A1 (which will be grandfathered on ownership rules) or sell it to a LPFM operator. This should get rid of a lot of class D's and some C's too.
*The one year of running both AM and FM would be waived just buy a dying class D or C. If they choose they can run their HD 2 or 3 on the A1.
Granted some rural areas that can not support a commercial station, will lose their station, but any financially viable class D or C will survive and possibly get to up grade their signal as once some of the D's are gone.
*The one year of running both AM and FM would be waived just buy a dying class D or C. If they choose they can run their HD 2 or 3 on the A1.
Granted some rural areas that can not support a commercial station, will lose their station, but any financially viable class D or C will survive and possibly get to up grade their signal as once some of the D's are gone.
Just another thought. These A1's could not be sold for 7 years unless: part of an estate, station trade or Bankruptcy Trustee.
TomT said:Embedded somewhere in the various ideas being discussed is a proposal to remove the restriction on new translators being used for AM stations. Presently, the translator must be on the air & licensed before mid-2009 to be eligible for AM translator use.
Now even a translator from the 2003 filing window will be able to rebroadcast an AM,,the FCC dropped that limitation
andydallas said:Now even a translator from the 2003 filing window will be able to rebroadcast an AM,,the FCC dropped that limitation
Can you provide some documention or reference for that? I dont recall seeing it, and trust me, I have been looking! Thanks.
I don't remember when they changed it, but it was some time ago,,,I deal in translators all day every day,,,if you look it up some places you will find the old rules, but keep digging and you will find where they threw that out...the FCC is under pressure to help AM's, so they want translators to be available..Peter Doyle even encouraged stations to find groups with 2003 applications in their market at the radio show,
Sec. 74.1232 (d) ".......... In addition, any FM translator providing service to an AM fill-in area must have been authorized by a license or construction permit in effect as of May 1, 2009, or pursuant to an application that was pending as of May 1, 2009. ......"
So the pending translator applications filed in that last translator filing window could be used, (if ultimately granted) for an AM rebroadcast. Last amendment date listed for the rule was April 2012.
So the pending translator applications filed in that last translator filing window could be used, (if ultimately granted) for an AM rebroadcast. Last amendment date listed for the rule was April 2012.
This thread coupled with the one originated by David Eduardo about Mexico eliminating a lot of AM stations as FM becomes the "bread and butter" broadcast medium makes an interesting combination.
When this discussion comes up, I along with others sometimes comment that "just snuffing out" AM stations is not fair to the people who currently own them. What about this as a next step in spectrum management: I suspect there are a number of station owners who have both AM and FM and the reason they keep dragging the AM along is their fear that if they take it dark, some fool will apply and re-establish it if and when we have the next AM Application Window. Why not do what the Department of Agriculture has done for farmers... only there may not be the need to make government payments. Allow AM owners to LAND BANK their AM station. Take it dark... under an agreement with the government that no one else can activate this frequency or any frequency two channels on either side of it withing XX number of miles in the future.
One issue that would need to be thought through would be where there is an AM and an FM serving the same market but under separate ownership. There should be pre-established policy about the FM buying the AM for the purpose of taking it silent.
When this discussion comes up, I along with others sometimes comment that "just snuffing out" AM stations is not fair to the people who currently own them. What about this as a next step in spectrum management: I suspect there are a number of station owners who have both AM and FM and the reason they keep dragging the AM along is their fear that if they take it dark, some fool will apply and re-establish it if and when we have the next AM Application Window. Why not do what the Department of Agriculture has done for farmers... only there may not be the need to make government payments. Allow AM owners to LAND BANK their AM station. Take it dark... under an agreement with the government that no one else can activate this frequency or any frequency two channels on either side of it withing XX number of miles in the future.
One issue that would need to be thought through would be where there is an AM and an FM serving the same market but under separate ownership. There should be pre-established policy about the FM buying the AM for the purpose of taking it silent.
TomZ said:Should the need arise, AM receivers are easily built if there's a source for cat whiskers or blue blades and headphones.
I grew up along the Mexican border and you can imagine how strong some of those all-night P.I. broadcasts came in. The joke back then was: "You don't need a radio receiver... just plug your headphones into your bed springs." (Some of you may not remember old-fashioned open-to-the-air bed springs with no cover or padding.)
Come to think of it, depending on the way your bed was oriented in the room, in some cases the headphones were optional! You could hear XERF all night long... whether you wanted to or not.
yes, the CP's that will be issued for the 2003 translator applications can rebroadcast AM (as long as the 60 dBu of the translator stays within the lesser of the 2 mV/m of the AM's daytime signal and 25 miles from the AM's tower site.
They finally issued the caps last week, going to 70, with only 50 of those in the top 156 markets, and they upped it to 3 per market.
The funny thing about the Mexican border, even with many stations still running way over power, if a translator is within 50 miles of the Mexican Border, it is limited to 50 watts!
andy
They finally issued the caps last week, going to 70, with only 50 of those in the top 156 markets, and they upped it to 3 per market.
The funny thing about the Mexican border, even with many stations still running way over power, if a translator is within 50 miles of the Mexican Border, it is limited to 50 watts!
andy
domd said:Anyone out there on this discussion board who would be able to educate
and advise me on putting an LPFM station application together?
Here are a couple of web site that might help:
http://www.lpfm.com/
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-broadcast-radio-stations-lpfm
http://lpfmstore.com/low-power-fm-radio-an-lpfm-applicants-guide/
1. First, read the new rules coming out...most of the above sources are based on the old rules. They will appear in the daily digest at FCC.gov
2. You can find your coordinates for your site at http://www.trails.com/maps.aspx (the old topo-zone). These will be nad 83 datum, FCC uses older nad 27--minor differences, converted on FCC site.
3. FCC has a channel finder program here:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-lpfm-channel-finder
4. Another way to do it is to print off the minimum spacing rules (as modified from the rule making--will be 73.807), then use the FM preliminary study program at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/FMprelimSTUDY.html
for a frequency you think might be open. One limiting factor on siting are existing translators, these rules are somewhat hard to follow since the minimum separations are determined by the coverage of the translator, which is determined by the power/antenna height.
REC networks will be updating their programs, these are more flexible since they show areas where there might be a channel around your location or city, not just at a certain point. Figure coverage at 5 miles out at most from the antenna site--so what may be an open channel may not be that useful if it is too far from town or blocked by hills.
Once you have a possible channel, be aware that you must form an organization that will be applying. Suspect the applicant priorities won't change--educational institutions are likely to have priority over established non-profits over newly formed organizations. Also likely that non-profits will still need most board members from the community where the station will be licensed. We'll see.
2. You can find your coordinates for your site at http://www.trails.com/maps.aspx (the old topo-zone). These will be nad 83 datum, FCC uses older nad 27--minor differences, converted on FCC site.
3. FCC has a channel finder program here:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-lpfm-channel-finder
4. Another way to do it is to print off the minimum spacing rules (as modified from the rule making--will be 73.807), then use the FM preliminary study program at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/FMprelimSTUDY.html
for a frequency you think might be open. One limiting factor on siting are existing translators, these rules are somewhat hard to follow since the minimum separations are determined by the coverage of the translator, which is determined by the power/antenna height.
REC networks will be updating their programs, these are more flexible since they show areas where there might be a channel around your location or city, not just at a certain point. Figure coverage at 5 miles out at most from the antenna site--so what may be an open channel may not be that useful if it is too far from town or blocked by hills.
Once you have a possible channel, be aware that you must form an organization that will be applying. Suspect the applicant priorities won't change--educational institutions are likely to have priority over established non-profits over newly formed organizations. Also likely that non-profits will still need most board members from the community where the station will be licensed. We'll see.
Here's a link to the new rules:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/lpfm-fifth-order-reconsideration-and-sixth-report-and-order
http://www.fcc.gov/document/lpfm-fifth-order-reconsideration-and-sixth-report-and-order
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.