On my 100th post, I just to ask a question about LPFM stations using FM translators to boost coverage. Since FM translators are allowed to have more power and also a higher HAAT limit than LPFM stations, could a LPFM station use a FM translator on another frequency in order to adequately cover a larger market?
-
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
Can FM translators be used to boost the coverage of an LPFM station?
- Thread starter olmjax
- Start date
A quick look at the rules would not indicate any reason why this can't be done.
1. Ownership of FM translators is discussed at 47 CFR 74.1231 and 1232. There are restrictions on where translators can be located and who can own them if the primary station is commercial (e.g.--can't get support from or be owned by primary if translator's coverage is outside commercial station service area). If the primary station is non-commercial--and LPFM's are by definition non-com's--then the only restrictions (without getting too deep in the weeds) is that the translator must pick-up the primary off-air. Hence it would appear that either the inside group (the organization owning an LPFM) or an outside non-affiliated group or individual could own a translator that relayed an LPFM outside of the 60 dbu coverage area (on average: about 3~4 miles).
2. The LPFM rules at 73.801 et seq. provide for a service where the owners have no other broadcast interests, and, for the most part, live in the community of license or nearby. Only one LPFM to ownership group (individuals can't own LPFM's). Translators, however, are not considered broadcast stations in other parts of the rules, so would not appear to count against this ownership cap.
3. The biggest problem will be finding a translator. Existing translators are becoming valuable since they can be used to extend AM coverage. Recent prices have extended into 6 figures. There are only a handful of pending CP apps in most areas--which may also be solve once built for this purpose. A new translator window doesn't appear on the horizon.
1. Ownership of FM translators is discussed at 47 CFR 74.1231 and 1232. There are restrictions on where translators can be located and who can own them if the primary station is commercial (e.g.--can't get support from or be owned by primary if translator's coverage is outside commercial station service area). If the primary station is non-commercial--and LPFM's are by definition non-com's--then the only restrictions (without getting too deep in the weeds) is that the translator must pick-up the primary off-air. Hence it would appear that either the inside group (the organization owning an LPFM) or an outside non-affiliated group or individual could own a translator that relayed an LPFM outside of the 60 dbu coverage area (on average: about 3~4 miles).
2. The LPFM rules at 73.801 et seq. provide for a service where the owners have no other broadcast interests, and, for the most part, live in the community of license or nearby. Only one LPFM to ownership group (individuals can't own LPFM's). Translators, however, are not considered broadcast stations in other parts of the rules, so would not appear to count against this ownership cap.
3. The biggest problem will be finding a translator. Existing translators are becoming valuable since they can be used to extend AM coverage. Recent prices have extended into 6 figures. There are only a handful of pending CP apps in most areas--which may also be solve once built for this purpose. A new translator window doesn't appear on the horizon.
There had been a ruling where an LPFM could not own a translator but that a translator could air an LPFM under the rules alredy in place. More recently, a LPFM can have up to two translators with some fairly strict rules on how that is done in regard to the LPFM signal.
The big question is how some stations pull off that I've seen: an LPFM with translators 40-50-60 miles from the station, having stringed together multiple translators to cover a rated market.. Certainly they're leasing these translators but how they pull it off is my question. Might that be the same way the ministries create nationwide networks?
Why LPFMs were not elevated to translator power and height restrictions is a good question for the FCC. In their eyes, LPFMs are equal to translators, both secondary in status.
The big question is how some stations pull off that I've seen: an LPFM with translators 40-50-60 miles from the station, having stringed together multiple translators to cover a rated market.. Certainly they're leasing these translators but how they pull it off is my question. Might that be the same way the ministries create nationwide networks?
Why LPFMs were not elevated to translator power and height restrictions is a good question for the FCC. In their eyes, LPFMs are equal to translators, both secondary in status.
bturner said:
Translators for LPFM stations are supposed to receive the signal "Direct Off Air." In other words, there is supposed to be an FM tuner picking up the originating station, or the signal of one of its other translators, at the translator site. It is OK to daisy chain the translators. As for actually making it work, until BW Broadcast came out with their very amazing translator receiver, the RBRX-1, the only hope was a tuner like a Fanfare along with a really good antenna and an expensive box of RF filters from Microwave Filter Company. Usually, you had to settle for mono operation, because running stereo raised the noise floor to unacceptable levels. The Sony HD tuner is a big improvement over its analog counterparts, but has the disadvantage of reverting to 530 AM if it ever power cycled. A very stable UPS is a must with that tuner and still you will have to make an occasional trip to turn it back on.
The BW Broadcast receiver uses the same chip set as the Sony, but allows for a number of tweaks that can make a very marginal signal quite listenable. It also has a built in stereo generator, which is useful in reconstructing your stereo signal. It works. This receiver, coupled with a very good antenna, like the ones Kathrine - Scala builds, makes for some miracle reception success stories. Getting it to work reliably takes some engineering and a generous infusion of cash.
Even with all this electronic wizardry, there is a limit to how far this can work. Unless there is absolutely no co-channel interference, I'd say 40 miles is really stretching the point. The farthest I've ever tried was relaying a 250 watt translator 27 miles. Both the receive and transmit antennas were about 200' above ground level. Under normal conditions, this worked quite well, but in periods of severe tropospheric ducting, all bets are off. It seems to me that the public would be better served by allowing the translator to receive it's signal by any mean available, under the condition that it is possible to receive the originating station off air under normal circumstances. I'd rather have something that is reliable. But that's just the engineer in me. Unfortunately, that might open it up to abuse by some, establishing giant networks of IP based translators, in a similar manner as satellite based networks have already established. I'm sure that is what the FCC wants to avoid, but surely, there is a rational and fair way to do this that would also be reliable.
As for why the FCC doesn't treat LPFM exactly the same as translators, that is a really good question. In fact, why the FCC doesn't allow translators to originate local programming is a good question too. The Commission seems to be very interested in promoting localism in radio, and that would be an easy way to do it. Since they let AM stations and HD sub-channels run on analog FM translators, they have in effect created a commercial LPFM service. Interestingly, translators for AM stations don't have to receive the originating signal off air, and can continue broadcasting for up to 24 hours after the AM has signed off. To me, that sounds like a translator originating programming.
It would be helpful if everyone worked under the same set of rules, but that would probably be way to logical.
I gather the station I'm thinking of is daisy chaining translators but translator to translator. The translator furtherest from the LPFM is about 55-60 miles from the LPFM. The is at least one if not two translators along this 55-60 mile path.
I think the translator idea has been abused by some who have chosen to build nationwide networks. I'd like to see the FCC get back to the intended purpose of the translator, perhaps giving said owners 5 years or so to either sell them off or go local (ie: local presence, et. al.). It would be a nice windfall for the owners if they chose to sell and a win-win for the FCC agenda of local programming and enhanced minority ownership. I'd love to see local programming on translators.
LPFM, if the same status as a translator, deserves all the power and coverage of a translator, assuming that entire coverage area can be had without interference. It seems very against the FCC agenda to keep translators as they are or to disadvantage LPFMs. Common sense tells me the FCC can save time and ability to function by adopting existing rules where they fit to a specific radio service versus writing a whole different set of rules for a certain type of radio service.
I'm saving your post Chuck, as I hope to be trying to fit a couple of translators in at some point, assuming I get my LPFM in the filing window. At 100 watts I'll be lucky to get 75% of my small area.
I think the translator idea has been abused by some who have chosen to build nationwide networks. I'd like to see the FCC get back to the intended purpose of the translator, perhaps giving said owners 5 years or so to either sell them off or go local (ie: local presence, et. al.). It would be a nice windfall for the owners if they chose to sell and a win-win for the FCC agenda of local programming and enhanced minority ownership. I'd love to see local programming on translators.
LPFM, if the same status as a translator, deserves all the power and coverage of a translator, assuming that entire coverage area can be had without interference. It seems very against the FCC agenda to keep translators as they are or to disadvantage LPFMs. Common sense tells me the FCC can save time and ability to function by adopting existing rules where they fit to a specific radio service versus writing a whole different set of rules for a certain type of radio service.
I'm saving your post Chuck, as I hope to be trying to fit a couple of translators in at some point, assuming I get my LPFM in the filing window. At 100 watts I'll be lucky to get 75% of my small area.
bturner said:
Here are some of the FCC policy suggestions I had regarding LPFMs and FM translators: (Original posting date, April 22, 2012):
1) LPFMs should have the same technical rules and regulations as FM Translators, which means they will have the same limit in terms of ERP (250 watts) and they won't have a limit on HAAT just like the current FM translator rules. However, LPFM will remain local, non-commercial, and community-oriented entities just as they are right now.
2) When the next LPFM filing window opens up, the FCC should allow applications for frequencies that are currently a part of TV Channel 6 and are available on most of today's radios (87.5, 87.7, and 87.9 MHz)
3) For analog LPTV stations that are licensed as TV Channel 6 but primarily operate as radio stations on 87.75 MHz, they should be allowed to apply in the next LPFM filing window so they can continue to operate when the analog TV stations cease broadcasting as they transition to digital broadcasting. However, they must apply as non-commercial stations just like the other LPFM applicants and the new station must be within the technical parameters the FCC currently has put in place for FM translators, which is a maximum ERP of 250 watts with no limit on antenna height.
4) LPFMs should be allowed to acquire FM translators in order to convert them to Low Power FM stations and vice versa. However, there is just one caveat, the LPFM station is not allowed to broadcast on a FM translator until the FCC approves the sale transaction and they have been granted the appropriate call letters designated for low power FM stations (i.e.: WXXX-LP or KXXX-LP). The same rules will apply if a company wants to buy a LPFM station and convert it into a translator.
Since both services are considered "secondary services" according to the FCC, they should be allowed to co-exist without any complications or problems but the FCC should give first priority because they provide local programming and serve the local community more effectively than distant FM translators, some of which rebroadcast stations from thousands of miles away.
[/quote]
I agree with the post above.
I see no reason why the same rules on power and HAAT do not apply to LPFM as they are the same secondary service as translators. Fill the hole with up to 250 watts and HAAT that works. Why have areas where nothing will fit because there is no class of station that can fit the space left over. It seems a waste to leave a Swiss cheese effect.
The real big issue to me is how LPFM, that is local, is the loser in coverage against the more frequently than not distant translator with no local programming whatsoever. How can the FCC have such a policy that goes against what their agenda actually is. I suspect the owners of those that have the national networks thanks to translators have a louder voice than the stand alone LPFM.
I think the FCC can resolve the issue of increasing minority ownership and local service through establishing again the true intent of the translator and how one qualifies for a translator. I have no issues with AM stations having an FM translator if they have extremely low nighttime power (under 250 watts), receive interference from foreign stations (like the Nashville station that got a translator on FM that operated only after sunset years ago because of Cuban interference) or no nighttime authority whatsoever.
Some complain LPFMs are sometimes run as personal I-pods of the operator's choice but when I compare even these stations to full power music stations, except for commercials and self promotion I see no difference. Others complain LPFM are largely a satellite service with legal IDs...true but how is that different from the small market FM that connects to satellite-fed formats and sells commercials? Keep in mind I am a proponent of local radio and personally feel it a waste of the FM band to do an I-pod or all satellite format unless your level of financial support is so low it is required to maintain operation.
The concept of LPFM is great on paper. It's sort of like gas mileage on a car: your results may vary. It is very difficult to go with a certain set of rules for the whole nation. If you look at population densities, 100 watts means more in New England than it does in Wyoming, West Texas and many other spots where population densities are sometimes less than one person per square mile for some counties. In some of those areas, the radio dial is blank. In New England 100 watts might hit 30,000+ but in West Texas that might be 300...maybe 1,000 if you're lucky.
Speaking of local service, some have a hard time understanding how an area might receive 50 radio stations but have no local service. I know of a town 45 miles from a major city that complains they don't know what is going on in town except the weekly paper and they are never the focus of attention when severe weather hits their area. An LPFM could resolve this. Amazingly they have a station that used to be local but moved to try for the major market.
I see no reason why the same rules on power and HAAT do not apply to LPFM as they are the same secondary service as translators. Fill the hole with up to 250 watts and HAAT that works. Why have areas where nothing will fit because there is no class of station that can fit the space left over. It seems a waste to leave a Swiss cheese effect.
The real big issue to me is how LPFM, that is local, is the loser in coverage against the more frequently than not distant translator with no local programming whatsoever. How can the FCC have such a policy that goes against what their agenda actually is. I suspect the owners of those that have the national networks thanks to translators have a louder voice than the stand alone LPFM.
I think the FCC can resolve the issue of increasing minority ownership and local service through establishing again the true intent of the translator and how one qualifies for a translator. I have no issues with AM stations having an FM translator if they have extremely low nighttime power (under 250 watts), receive interference from foreign stations (like the Nashville station that got a translator on FM that operated only after sunset years ago because of Cuban interference) or no nighttime authority whatsoever.
Some complain LPFMs are sometimes run as personal I-pods of the operator's choice but when I compare even these stations to full power music stations, except for commercials and self promotion I see no difference. Others complain LPFM are largely a satellite service with legal IDs...true but how is that different from the small market FM that connects to satellite-fed formats and sells commercials? Keep in mind I am a proponent of local radio and personally feel it a waste of the FM band to do an I-pod or all satellite format unless your level of financial support is so low it is required to maintain operation.
The concept of LPFM is great on paper. It's sort of like gas mileage on a car: your results may vary. It is very difficult to go with a certain set of rules for the whole nation. If you look at population densities, 100 watts means more in New England than it does in Wyoming, West Texas and many other spots where population densities are sometimes less than one person per square mile for some counties. In some of those areas, the radio dial is blank. In New England 100 watts might hit 30,000+ but in West Texas that might be 300...maybe 1,000 if you're lucky.
Speaking of local service, some have a hard time understanding how an area might receive 50 radio stations but have no local service. I know of a town 45 miles from a major city that complains they don't know what is going on in town except the weekly paper and they are never the focus of attention when severe weather hits their area. An LPFM could resolve this. Amazingly they have a station that used to be local but moved to try for the major market.
bturner said:
Having worked at a "suburban" station, was there enough financial / advertising / listener support to keep station 'locally focused"? If the locals folks in the town are listening to the big city stations and the local station can not get results it might not work financially. I have sold local newscasts to a local banks. How many local banks or deep pocket advertisers are the town? Does this area have a lot of "big box" stores? Unless your station shows up in the Arbitron you can forget any revenue from most mass retailers.
I do not blame any radio station owner who can sell his / her's station as a move in and be financially "set for life". Capitalism sometimes "hurts" smaller groups for the biggest groups. The big city (group) won this time. The FCC still maintains the City of License rules and your town should be "covered" EAS wise by whatever station has a city of license in your area. At least that how the FCC looks at it.
Absolutely true. In fact I find the bedroom communities as general wastelands for advertising dollars. It seems many of those stations cannot even benefit from the commute because their signal many times does not reach from point A to point B and there are so many choices on the dial it is tough for the bedroom community to produce a large enough percentage of the audience to successfully sell for the local merchants.
This community, however, has a very distinct identity and 'culture' if you will, that gives it a certain appeal to a segment of the population wanting small town charm and convenience of being close to the big city. There's no big box stores or chains in town. The business community is purely mom and pop.
When the station that moved was a locally operated station it did quite well. As a brokered foreign language station now I doubt it bills much more than it did at its peak but it sure makes more profit because of it can be run pretty much by a computer and a designated person to watch over it. From an economic standpoint, it is a positive for the owner but a loss for the county as far as local service. A LPFM can walk in and cover the small county and do well with local focused programming. I suspect the people will rally behind such a station.
This community, however, has a very distinct identity and 'culture' if you will, that gives it a certain appeal to a segment of the population wanting small town charm and convenience of being close to the big city. There's no big box stores or chains in town. The business community is purely mom and pop.
When the station that moved was a locally operated station it did quite well. As a brokered foreign language station now I doubt it bills much more than it did at its peak but it sure makes more profit because of it can be run pretty much by a computer and a designated person to watch over it. From an economic standpoint, it is a positive for the owner but a loss for the county as far as local service. A LPFM can walk in and cover the small county and do well with local focused programming. I suspect the people will rally behind such a station.
Even in an area as media saturated as the Dallas Ft.Worth area there are many large population (100K+) suburban markets that do not have a local radio service per say. In Collin and Grayson County an area covered by 49 TV signals, 56 FM signals and 39 AM signals, you are hard pressed to find ANY local coverage for towns such as McKinney, Sherman, Allen, Plano, Frisco etc. Yes there are signals that cover the area BUT programming is geared towards Dallas. Even television weather tends to drop north Collin County and believe it or not, that 50 mile distance is a major one in the winter months where we may have four to six inches of snow or ice compared to a "dusting" in Dallas. Once upon a time there were six FM and 4 or 5 AM stations covering this part of north Texas and ALL of them have moved COL to Dallas or suburbs closer to Dallas. The only remaining "local" signals are 2 or 3 SAT/VT FM's and ONE 250w AM daytimer...
Ain't progress grand....
Ain't progress grand....
[/QUOTE]
Ain't gonna happen. Venture Technologies tried to do it. But here is the FCC's take on mixing analog audio with a DTV signal on ch.6:
http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/a...ixes-bid-to-allow-analog-fm-audio-from-digita
And I think it can be inferred from the article that the FCC intends to keep ch. 6 for television broadcasting--not to expand the FM band.
- Status