FM Translators killing AM stations

[ChiefEngineer]

I am frightened at the sheer stupidity in our business. Several recent translator adds to AM frequencies have caused station owners to dismantle their signals. They apparently think a translator is better than their former AM frequency.

Owensboro KY WVJS is dismantling protected night service and dropping to a low power level at night and a fraction of the former day signal. The array hasn't been maintained in years.

WSVX Shelbyville,In was 1 kw day and 250 night w 3 towers. One tower was so ill maintained it fell. Soon tower 3 of 3 came down leaving the middle tower. New CP is for 250 day non DA and non protected at night.

The whole idea was to enhance AM service and assist stations with no night signal. What is happening is that stations are relieving themselves, and their community of license of any night service.

This is happening all over the US. The FCC hasn't taken a stand on the epidemic. Is it a case of the tail wagging the dog? They created the translator availability so daytime AM stations would benefit. Now all we will ahve if this continues is daytime AM...with the real interest, an FM translator.

Thoughts?

 

[PTBoardOp94]

They apparently think a translator is better than their former AM frequency.

Can anyone explain why the 150 W on FM probably is NOT better than the 260 W on AM 1520 for WSVX? Seems to me like the move to the FX is a no-brainer for class C and D AM broadcasters.

 

[Kmagrill]

There have been and doubtless will always be short-sighted owners out there that fail to understand that their signal is the economic engine that drives their business. However, to allow the daytime AM signal to permanently degrade because they have a translator is stupid on its face. The reason is that the coverage of the translator is (among other factors) dependent upon the daytime coverage of the AM signal. I am working with an AM station now that sold their original tower site with a 2 tower DA and was considering not building the second tower at the new location, thus reducing their power from 1kW to 600W. When I pointed out that they would have to give up one of their translators covering a populous area of the market because the 2mV signal would no longer reach it, they reconsidered. So, there's a case where a translator may have convinced the owners to do the right thing.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Are these translators for AM stations "protected" and/or primary service. I'm not sure what terms the FCC rules use. If a nearby FM station decides to upgrade, can they force one of these translators to go silent because the "real" FM has primary rights?

If I downgrade my AM station as described in these posts, am I guaranteed that the translator will not be silenced in the future?

 

[Kmagrill]

Translators are not protected, though they are not easily displaced. Still, there is a chance that they will be displaced. This happened recently in Detroit when a translator was accused of causing interference to a station outside of the station's 54dBu contour and was ordered off the air. Additionally, aside form interference constraints, the 1mV contour of a translator cannot exceed the 2mV of the licensed primary AM station. Any AM station that allows its 2mV signal to degrade is simultaneously limiting the coverage of their FM translator to the same poor coverage as the AM station. Some owners have not understood the rules or not thought through the consequences of reducing their AM coverage. For most stations such a move has short term gains, but at a terrible long term price. It's a really bad marketing and economic move.

On the other hand, I've seen some translators proposing 250W at 300 meters AAT. Clearly, those owners are planning to maximize their translator and match the FM coverage with a robust AM coverage. That's the start of a formula for success.

 

[w9wi]

For many of these operations, the translator is indeed the primary signal -- the AM is maintained only because the FCC requires it. There's one on 1260 about 30 miles west of here, for example, that uses the slogan "101.5 One FM". I don't know the operators -- I don't know their mindset -- but I'm betting the only reason the AM is on the air at all is because the FCC requires the translator to have a primary.

In this case, the AM is a Class D operation. There is no place the nighttime AM signal goes where the FM signal doesn't cover better. And thus, there's really no point in maintaining the AM signal at all beyond the point necessary to provide a decent 2mV zone for the FM. The population density beyond the FM's coverage is too low to cover the expense; in any case, nobody's going to listen to the AM signal out there, as it's off the air as far as they're concerned before they get off work this time of year. (sunset being around 4:30)

Due to high interference levels the same situation is likely to apply with most Class C AMs. And Class B's as well, because often the night powers are too low to overcome interference -- population shifts often lead to desirable populations living in the pattern nulls -- and since nearly all Class B's are directional at night, the expense of maintaining an array that was probably built in the 1940s or 1950s means there needs to be a pretty big population outside the translator's coverage to make the AM signal worthwhile.

Now, there *is* that thing about being potentially displaced. That's a pretty big wild card. Though if you're facing the need for array repairs that exceed the value of the station, going Class D and taking your chances probably makes sense.

The other thing I think is going to come up eventually... Someone is going to test the FCC. They're going to lose the lease on their AM site & take out an STA to operate at reduced power off someone else's tower. Or they're going to have a tower collapse or transmitter fire or something like that, and the AM is going to be off the air for months. And they're going to leave the translator on at full power & hope the FCC doesn't find out.

If the Commission doesn't respond forcefully, you're going to start seeing many of these operations turn off the AM altogether.

 

[chriscollins]

We purchased an AM station, that had a 4 tower directional night array. The owners wouldn't sell the land and towers, because that land is in an area that has had a population explosion and the first thing they wanted to do was develop residential housing on the land.

We had a very hard time trying to find a good spot to build it out at. Over time (it had been on the air for 50 years or more), every location where we could have done a simple night time directional array had already been developed into something.

We eventually found a spot, but from that location, we have a great day signal, but a fraction of it's former night time signal. We were able to use a single tower and be non directional. There was a very minimal gain from trying to do an array for night time.

That sucks. I have no doubt that if they had sold us the original land, we would have kept the 4 tower directional (and updated the ground system).

I will say that we built it 'right' and it has a spectacular ground array. It gets out far better (at a lower power) than it's predecessor did in daytime.

We care about what our AM's sound like... No translators available around here, but even if we got one, we wouldn't let our primary signal go to crap.

I figure this is happening in places where the stations are not generating enough money to pay the expenses, so compromises are being made. Depending on the market size, I get that.

 

[WNTIRadio]

There's an AM that has 2 translators in the county where I live. They had been slowly declining but still holding up as a stand alone AM. After the 2 translators came on and covered the county, day and night, the majority of the audience shifted there because 1) the was a night signal in many places where there wasn't one before and 2) the sound quality was greatly improved.

Why kill yourself trying to maintain a 4 tower array for a crappy night signal if nobody can hear it anyway, and the majority of your audience is on the FM side? Especially if you're paying a lease on land and you could easily use 1 tower, ND from your own studio site? You tell me, or more so, tell it to the station owner that's just scraping by in this economy with a stand alone AM and could save the cost of a salary (yep there's live people on air) by eliminating the lease payments and maintenance on a 4 tower DA.

I maintain other AM stations that don't have translators and on those I am doing everything to squeeze every inch out of the night patterns. I love AM, but also can see the handwriting on the wall. If the same programming is available on FM and AM, 90% of the audience is going to shift over to the FM. Especially if it is truly LOCAL programming, as is the case with the AM with 2 translators.

I see it as a good thing if owners crank down their nighttime signals if they have translators that offer the same coverage. It will open up the band for those that don't have a translator and want to have nighttime service. The translators won't interfere with another station 700 miles away. I don't see how having less nighttime interference is a bad thing. Especially if it's 250 watts highly directional that gets clobbered by another stations skywave less than 5 miles from the Tx.

 

[MisterGort]

It all just shows how bad the AM band has become. And IF - the AM owners do not DEMAND that the FCC re-allot the lower VHF TV Channels and move any AM daytimer or AM station operating with LESS than 1 KW -- fulltime -- over to the new FM Band - It will be on the heads of the AM station owners. The only group that can demand such spectrum -- are the AM station owners. NOT the Public or some good hearted engineering firm. Its a "NO BRAINER". Any AM station with 500 watts DAY and say - 72 watts at night -- would better serve the public and make more CASH -- if it was operating as a Full class A FM. --------- Allocate a NEW class AA FM. 1 KW at 50 meters HAAT ( + 164 feet) Almost all small stations use a tower less than 200 feet tall. Get BUSINESS going again. Easy to build - and get on the air from the AM tower. Then get rid of all of the Night Time low power, pre-sunrise, post sunset, and low power TIS stations. Clear up and clean up the AM broadcast band -- before it gets too bad to even save. God is not dead -- just the AM Broadcast band.

 

[local oscillator]

The issue of translators is becoming more and more contentious, for sure. There are widely differing views on what is or isn't an appropriate use of a translator. I hope that at some point the Commission steps in to control the situation before it gets totally out of hand, but I'm not holding my breath. In fact, a recent decision of theirs has made the situation worse. In my opinion, the oldest use of translators -- fill-in by primary FM stations inside their service contours -- is the most appropriate. I think the use of translators for fill-in by AM primary stations inside their service contours is a close second. I silenced a 50-year-old 500 watt daytimer several years ago; it might still be alive today had the translator option been available at the time. A definite downside: The secondary status of a translator means living life on the edge for AMs who put all their eggs in that basket; translators are displaced and silenced all the time. I'm opposed to translators that repeat distant signals. The side-door national networks that do this (mostly religious organizations) preclude the more appropriate fill-in uses and even LPFM; they are the primary cause of the "AMization of the FM band." Finally, the latest translator scourge, repeating HD2 & HD3 channels is the worst. This attempt to create new analog "stations" (many in major markets) with facilities equivalent to full power Class A FMs in areas where true Class As would never be possible is reprehensible. How the Commission can continue to ignore the laws of physics by maintaining different interference standards among the various FM services is beyond comprehension.

 

[Kmagrill]

... This attempt to create new analog "stations" (many in major markets) with facilities equivalent to full power Class A FMs in areas where true Class As would never be possible is reprehensible. How the Commission can continue to ignore the laws of physics by maintaining different interference standards among the various FM services is beyond comprehension.

If you feel that way, perhaps you should have commented on RM-11643 which would do away with spacings for commercial FM stations and replace them with contour calculations.

 

[chriscollins]

I see it as a good thing if owners crank down their nighttime signals if they have translators that offer the same coverage. It will open up the band for those that don't have a translator and want to have nighttime service. The translators won't interfere with another station 700 miles away. I don't see how having less nighttime interference is a bad thing. Especially if it's 250 watts highly directional that gets clobbered by another stations skywave less than 5 miles from the Tx.

Exactly. We would love to be more than 26 watts at night.

 

[local oscillator]

... This attempt to create new analog "stations" (many in major markets) with facilities equivalent to full power Class A FMs in areas where true Class As would never be possible is reprehensible. How the Commission can continue to ignore the laws of physics by maintaining different interference standards among the various FM services is beyond comprehension.

If you feel that way, perhaps you should have commented on RM-11643 which would do away with spacings for commercial FM stations and replace them with contour calculations.

Kmagrill, I think you misunderstood me. I would like translator interference standards tightened, not loosened.

 

[Kmagrill]

If you feel that way, perhaps you should have commented on RM-11643 which would do away with spacings for commercial FM stations and replace them with contour calculations.

Kmagrill, I think you misunderstood me. I would like translator interference standards tightened, not loosened.

I realized that your comment can be taken either way. I'm just pointing out that, pro or con, the FCC is considering making the standards considerably more uniform (and arguably looser) and the matter was open for public comment as recently as September. On the merits of the discussion, I would point out that the spacing rules are late comers, adopted in 1964 to promote regional stations and to reduce the workload on the FCC. Prior to that, all FM stations were placed by contour methods. Translators (and reserved band stations) retained the contour methods by virtue of the fact that they were not part of the commercial rules changes at that time. Therefore, the counter point would be that if the FCC is ignoring the laws of physics, they chose to do that with respect to commercial FM stations, not the translators nor the educational band stations. TV and AM also placed based on various contour methods. Commercial broadcasting (and poor LPFMs) have spacing rules that persist for some strange reason.

 

[local oscillator]

I realized that your comment can be taken either way. I'm just pointing out that, pro or con, the FCC is considering making the standards considerably more uniform (and arguably looser) and the matter was open for public comment as recently as September. On the merits of the discussion, I would point out that the spacing rules are late comers, adopted in 1964 to promote regional stations and to reduce the workload on the FCC. Prior to that, all FM stations were placed by contour methods. Translators (and reserved band stations) retained the contour methods by virtue of the fact that they were not part of the commercial rules changes at that time. Therefore, the counter point would be that if the FCC is ignoring the laws of physics, they chose to do that with respect to commercial FM stations, not the translators nor the educational band stations. TV and AM also placed based on various contour methods. Commercial broadcasting (and poor LPFMs) have spacing rules that persist for some strange reason.

I am aware of the history, and perhaps I should have commented in RM-11643. To further clarify, I would prefer that the standards be uniform and tighter. In my area the reserved portion of the band has been "AMized," and the non-reserved portion is becoming so due to what I think of as "translator cancer." The use of D/U ratios in the vertical plane to locate translators at or near stations on second adjacent channels is particularly troubling. At the time, RM-11643 didn't send up a red flag for me; it should have. Allowing commercial stations to pull all the tricks that translators do, in my opinion, isn't a positive thing. Nonetheless, limiting translators to fill-in use only, and limiting their facilities to something significantly less than those of a full power Class A -- maybe LPFM's 100w at 30m -- would stop the abuse and cure the "cancer."

 

[Kmagrill]

I am aware of the history, and perhaps I should have commented in RM-11643. To further clarify, I would prefer that the standards be uniform and tighter. In my area the reserved portion of the band has been "AMized," and the non-reserved portion is becoming so due to what I think of as "translator cancer." The use of D/U ratios in the vertical plane to locate translators at or near stations on second adjacent channels is particularly troubling. At the time, RM-11643 didn't send up a red flag for me; it should have. Allowing commercial stations to pull all the tricks that translators do, in my opinion, isn't a positive thing. Nonetheless, limiting translators to fill-in use only, and limiting their facilities to something significantly less than those of a full power Class A -- maybe LPFM's 100w at 30m -- would stop the abuse and cure the "cancer."

Well, the subject is quite a bit more complex, IMHO. I can think of many legitimate uses for translators beyond the limitations that you might impose. I worked with an FM station in a rural western state that used translators in various communities to help diversify programming in the smaller towns. I also have no objections to groups wishing to create regional coverage, keeping in mind that such coverage has to always be direct off-the-air reception. Also, I've been told that the FCC is considering (eventually) increasing LPFM power to 250W since they don't feel like translators have had a particularly negative impact on broadcasting. I can tell you that would be a huge relief to many LPFM operators in towns of any size greater than 50,000 where they can't quite reach the suburbs.

Well, everyone is going to have some opinion on this subject and it's likely that the best we can do is acknowledge that there are valid points of view on both sides of the subject and let the FCC sort it out. The original comment had to do with AM operators using translators as a substitute for keeping their AM facilities in good repair. I think we can mostly agree that this tactic is short-sighted, at best.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

The use of D/U ratios in the vertical plane to locate translators at or near stations on second adjacent channels is particularly troubling.

That's the one piece of the puzzle I find least troubling. When these rules were written (50 years ago?), radios that would separate second adjacents from desired signals were almost unheard of. Now a radio that won't do the same is almost unheard of. Those little ceramic IF filters that came out 40 years ago totally changed receiver reality IMHO. Nowadays, getting stuff on first adjacents is often possible--as long as IBOC isn't present., in which case no amount of selectivity can help.

 

[w9wi]

Agreed.

In the immediate post-war allocations, the FCC actually allowed use of 2nd-adjacents by full-power stations in the same city. It didn't seem to take them long to find that wasn't working.

I might guess the problem was more frequency drift than IF selectivity, but that's only a guess.

Today, 2nd-adjacents are widely used for low-power stations in Canada. 3rd-adjacents are used for full-power stations. I don't know of any complaints -- and we're talking about the country's largest markets, where there are a lot of listeners (and $$) at stake.

_________________________________________________

The satellite translator thing bothers me. I would strongly support a simple change to the rules:

- A translator fed by means other than OTA pickup and located such that its coverage extends to significant populations outside the primary station's service contours must be controlled by persons residing within the translator's service area or a unit of state or local government responsible for that service area.

You could still have a Family Radio "satellator" serving Podunk Hollow, 200 miles from the nearest Family Radio main station -- but only if enough Podunk Hollow residents wanted the programming badly enough to pay for the equipment. And you wouldn't have the situation where Podunk Hollow residents would be prepared to support a local LPFM -- but can't start one because someone in Mississippi 700 miles away has decided they should be listening to his station.

_________________________________________________

A story I've probably trotted out too often (but it's true)...

Driving into Meridian, Mississippi one Saturday afternoon. (There's a large ridge just south of Meridian, so from the Interstate you can't tell what's going on in the skies south of town) Listening to a program on the local NPR station on 88.1; the program ends, I'm not interested in the next program, so I hit scan.

The radio stops on a station transmitting EAS data bursts, and then the alert tone. The alert tone ends, and the announcer says "The National Weather Service has issued a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for...

... Marin and Sonoma Counties in Northern California."

It's a satellite-fed translator of KEAR, San Francisco.

If there actually *was* a severe thunderstorm on the other side of that ridge, do you think that translator would have carried an EAS alert for Lauderdale County, Mississippi?

 

[chriscollins]

Wow, W9WL... I travel to Meridian frequently. I consult a station there (programming, not technical).

 

[Kmagrill]

_________________________________________________

The satellite translator thing bothers me. I would strongly support a simple change to the rules:

- A translator fed by means other than OTA pickup and located such that its coverage extends to significant populations outside the primary station's service contours must be controlled by persons residing within the translator's service area or a unit of state or local government responsible for that service area.

You could still have a Family Radio "satellator" serving Podunk Hollow, 200 miles from the nearest Family Radio main station -- but only if enough Podunk Hollow residents wanted the programming badly enough to pay for the equipment. And you wouldn't have the situation where Podunk Hollow residents would be prepared to support a local LPFM -- but can't start one because someone in Mississippi 700 miles away has decided they should be listening to his station.

_________________________________________________

A story I've probably trotted out too often (but it's true)...

Driving into Meridian, Mississippi one Saturday afternoon. (There's a large ridge just south of Meridian, so from the Interstate you can't tell what's going on in the skies south of town) Listening to a program on the local NPR station on 88.1; the program ends, I'm not interested in the next program, so I hit scan.

The radio stops on a station transmitting EAS data bursts, and then the alert tone. The alert tone ends, and the announcer says "The National Weather Service has issued a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for...

... Marin and Sonoma Counties in Northern California."

It's a satellite-fed translator of KEAR, San Francisco.

If there actually *was* a severe thunderstorm on the other side of that ridge, do you think that translator would have carried an EAS alert for Lauderdale County, Mississippi?

Satellators can only exist in the non-com band. In the commercial band, it's either OTA or fill-in service. Since satellators are pretty limited, they don't bother me and I can see value in organizations, religious or secular, being able to have a national or regional footprint without having to spend hundreds of millions to get it.

On the KEAR sorts of problems, the satellite link to the translators should either be fed before the EAS or the EAS should only trigger on national alerts. They probably didn't stop to consider the effect of transmitting local weather alerts over their satellite system. If they had one EAS for the satellite feed set to only trigger for national emergencies and another EAS for their local feed, it would have solved that problem. I bet the programmer would be unhappy to hear about that situation. Of course, the only way to do local alerts is to have a local encoder, which may actually be illegal on a translator since translators can only rebroadcast, not originate. Rebroadcasting the NWS or a commercial EAS primary in the reserved band is technically a violation, except in an actual emergency involving life or property.