FM Translators killing AM stations

[local oscillator]

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.

The "direct off-the-air" concept is also being twisted by translator network operators. In my area, they will squeeze in a 100w Class A satellite-fed station into the reserved band, then daisy-chain dozens of non-reserved band translators across the region, each claiming to receive the signal of the previous link in the chain off-air. My guess is they are all satellite-fed.

I think that our differing points of view on translators is a result of our experiences in the industry and the regions of the country in which we live. Translators are a completely different sort of thing in the sparsely populated west compared to the densely populated east (where I am). In some parts of the country, translators are seen as useful tools to bring programming to sparsely populated or terrain-shielded areas. In other parts, translators are seen as commercial, competitive, major-market stations. There are several in Atlanta, for example: http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=W250BC&service=FX&status=L&hours=U. In my area, AM fill-in is the ONLY reason for a translator that makes any sense at all. In my area the terrain is relatively flat; there are no terrain issues. There are literally 60 stations on the FM dial and half that many on AM. A directional antenna could probably double that number. Diversity of programming is through the roof without ever even mentioning satellite and internet radio. My concern is that this constant push to put some small signal on every perceived fragment of spectrum will hurt the long term viability of the band. And I haven't even mentioned the IBOC issues! The FCC clearly favors the internet over over-the-air broadcasting; they are no doubt content to let us continue to foul our own nest.

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.

Agreed.


Bob, I agree that the advent of ceramic filters was a game-changing event for selectivity. At that time, 3rd-adjacent separations could have been reduced -- but not eliminated.

To your last point, in most congested areas IBOC is present on every other channel up and down the non-reserved band, and depending on the area, possibly worse in the reserved band -- depending on the number of stations that received grants (tax dollars) to purchase and install IBOC equipment. The broadcasting industry keeps asking the FCC, time after time, for approval to drive another nail into the FM coffin, and they are more than happy to oblige.


w9wi, I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe that the Canadians do have a 3rd-adjacent separation requirement, and the "low-power" stations of which you speak are limited to 50w.

 

[w9wi]

w9wi, I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe that the Canadians do have a 3rd-adjacent separation requirement, and the "low-power" stations of which you speak are limited to 50w.

I don't see any sign of a 3rd-adjacent separation requirement:

- Edmonton: stations on 101.7/102.3/102.9 on the same tower. (and all three running 100kw)
- Winnipeg: stations on 104.1/100kw and 104.7/10kw on different towers.*

These are not the only examples. There are 3rd-adjacents in at least Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Toronto, and Montreal along with the other cities mentioned.

With regard to second-adjacents, I was thinking 250 watts, but it turns out I was being pessimistic. In Toronto, there are two stations on the same building; one on 98.7 running 1kw (at nearly 300m, Class B1), the other on 99.1 running 98kw. There's a 1kw station on 105.1 and a 250-watt station on 105.5 at different sites within the city.


* so there are (heavily-populated) places where the signals are *not* of similar strength. In the U.S., DTV stations can use adjacent channels either if they're far enough apart, *or if they're close enough together* to guarantee similar signals.

 

[local oscillator]

w9wi, I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe that the Canadians do have a 3rd-adjacent separation requirement, and the "low-power" stations of which you speak are limited to 50w.

I don't see any sign of a 3rd-adjacent separation requirement:

- Edmonton: stations on 101.7/102.3/102.9 on the same tower. (and all three running 100kw)
- Winnipeg: stations on 104.1/100kw and 104.7/10kw on different towers.*

These are not the only examples. There are 3rd-adjacents in at least Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Toronto, and Montreal along with the other cities mentioned.

With regard to second-adjacents, I was thinking 250 watts, but it turns out I was being pessimistic. In Toronto, there are two stations on the same building; one on 98.7 running 1kw (at nearly 300m, Class B1), the other on 99.1 running 98kw. There's a 1kw station on 105.1 and a 250-watt station on 105.5 at different sites within the city.


* so there are (heavily-populated) places where the signals are *not* of similar strength. In the U.S., DTV stations can use adjacent channels either if they're far enough apart, *or if they're close enough together* to guarantee similar signals.

I know we're getting way off-topic here, but . . . It's really odd that Canadians are so concerned about protecting their stations from US third-adjacents (see FCC Part 73.207(b)(2)) yet totally ignoring their own! Whatever. Canadians do some unusual things to squeeze in signals; I'm familiar with a case of them using antenna polarity to shoehorn one in (Toronto), and a case of placing a full-bore commercial Class C1 in the reserved band (Windsor). At least they've had the common sense (so far) to avoid the IBOC mess.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

For the stations that lost tower sites, the use of a translator is not noted as an issue. When something with 5 kw in Owensboro with a protected full power night signal downgrades because the translator is now wagging the dog and not the other way around, this is the problem.
It won't take the FCC long to see the translator is the originating station. Some would say "duh" but DC hasn't figured this out. Instead of propping up AM stations this is an indicator the battle is lost. Those that make the Rules will see this for what it is.

 

[w9wi]

There's no such thing as a "reserved band" in Canada. There does appear to be a bit of a tendency to try to keep commercial stations above 92, but the station in Windsor is nowhere near the only commercial station below 92 in Canada. They also seem to have a concept of a "semi-commercial" station -- one that's allowed to sell advertising but not as much advertising as fully commercial stations.

Earlier this year, the CRTC decided to allow IBOC in Canada. To my knowledge the grand total of Canadian stations choosing to use it is zero. (it was requested by the major commercial operator in Windsor, which feared they might need IBOC to compete with U.S. stations. They've obviously since concluded no HD is not a problem.)

The CBC experimented with it on three stations in the Toronto area a few years back. (and there's a commercial station in northern Ontario that claims to be running HD radio but there are significant doubts as to the accuracy of that claim)

Assuming symmetric rules... the greatest distance at which a 3rd-adjacent would require protection is 113km - roughly 70 miles. Any Canadian station more distant than that from the 3rd-adjacent U.S. station would have nothing to worry about.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

Since all stations that would be affected by 3rd adjacents, or any distance restrictions for that matter, are near the border, you can often just protect the 54 dBu land area in Canada (58 dBu for Class C) served by the Canadian station or allotment. Where domestic service protection is higher, that is all that needs to be protected in the United States (or Canada). Also, interference ratios and interference areas can be determined to further decease spacing under the treaty. This is what conversely allowed nearly every second adjacent in Essex County to be alloted or used in Canada. There are now almost as many full power Canadian stations or Construction Permits serving Essex County as there are in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, which has ten times the population.

I think that downgrading any Class B to Class D is a bad idea, unless there is a clear FCC regulation already in place to expand not just allotments, but an expanded band of new full power FM channels for AM STATIONS to migrate to, NOT TRANSLATORS. The impetus for FM simulcasts and translators IS household electronic interference and IBOC interference. In my area, there are quite a number of AM signals that used to be listenable but are now lost to IBOC adjacent channel interference.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

The other issue is that many US AM stations could increase power except for vacated and never used vacant AM allotments in Canada, allotments that are unlikely to be used again. This often results in stations needing additional towers to protect the unused and unlikely to be used Canadian AM allotments. Along with FCC, FAA, and Local Zoning restrictions that favor the use of broadside, short tower arrays that fade excessively, this results in extremely narrow major lobes that cut off much of the potential market area, particularly at night.

 

[w9wi]

Agreed that noise/interference is making AM a pretty difficult place to listen, and thus to operate a successful station.

But I don't think any FM expanded band is going to help. If the FCC were to decide tomorrow to allocate 76-88MHz to an FM X-band reserved for existing Class D AM operators, and a fully operational FM transmission facility magically appeared, for free, for each Class D AM -- it would still take ten years for enough X-band receivers to be in the hands of listeners to make a significant difference.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

I woudn't favor a migration plan that only allowed Class D AMs.

There might need to be a transition plan like digital TV and the expanded AM band where both are allowed to operate for a certain number of years before one has to be shut off.

There are quite of few 54-88 MHz receivers out there, the TV sound receivers, and some FMs that can be switched to receive some of those frequencies that you mentioned. Also, remember FM converters for AM car radios? And UHF Converters for VHF only TVs? This would be even easier.

 

[KeithE4]

There are quite of few 54-88 MHz receivers out there, the TV sound receivers, and some FMs that can be switched to receive some of those frequencies that you mentioned.

If switching to an expanded FM band only involved a firmware upgrade, such as in a smartphone, then it would work. But if the device (radio, MP3 player, etc.) needs to be physically opened for any reason, then it's a non-starter.

Also, remember FM converters for AM car radios? And UHF Converters for VHF only TVs? This would be even easier.

I had one of those FM converters in the '70s. Worked fairly well but were a pain to tune. UHF converters were an unmitigated disaster - clunky, hard to tune, and as sensitive as a two-by-four. Nobody's going to hang a converter box on a radio, either in the car or at home.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Also, remember FM converters for AM car radios? And UHF Converters for VHF only TVs? This would be even easier.

Yes, theoretically do-able for a teckie. But as a practical matter.... for John Q Public? Fa-git-about-it! Back in the 1970s getting into the back side of your radio car to grab the antenna connector, etc was a piece-of-cake... particularly if you knew Goober down at the gas station in Mayberry.

I buy a new car every 10 years... whether I need it or not. My latest one? It will be a cold day in hell when I try to find the backside of my radio in that one. And I'm not a techno-timid person. Back in 1974 I installed a cassette player in the glove box of a Monte Carlo that had a relay system that disconnected the power and the speakers from the car radio when a tape was inserted into the cassette player so it could have the speakers.

Mr. Jobs has spoiled the American listener. If their audio device doesn't come from the Apple factory in fully mature form, they don't touch it.

There was a time when the methods of extracting some revenue from Main Street advertisers made some unorthodox and experimental forms of broadcasting a possibility. I don't think today's investors are interested in buying into some new expanded FM frequency for which there might be some receivers 3, 5 or ten years from now. Take a look at how well HD radio has penetrated down to Joe Sixpack. If we were in court, this is where I would "rest my case".

 

[semoochie]

If ceramic filters have removed all of this second adjacent interference, why can't they just assign co-located Class A stations to those second adjacencies, for AM stations that wish to remain in business? It isn't a perfect solution but is better than a translator and there wouldn't be a long waiting period to see results!

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

If ceramic filters have removed all of this second adjacent interference, why can't they just assign co-located Class A stations to those second adjacencies, for AM stations that wish to remain in business? It isn't a perfect solution but is better than a translator and there wouldn't be a long waiting period to see results!

The simple answer is no. Most Metropolitan Areas with a full complement of stations every 0.8 MHz have stations 40-65 miles away 0.4 MHz spaced that serve parts of the Metro Area. Consider the situation in Detroit with the translator on 104.7 with Class B WIOT complaining and having it shut down. Many others are following this closely and considering similar action.

Most car radios now have stereo audio inputs that an FM X-Band Radio could use.

Why aren't the same people here complaining about reduction of over the air digital TV service areas? The industry pushed converters. Have they just given it up as a lost cause? I knew a man who didn't have cable and lost all TV service except CBET Channel 9. He got a converter and then CBET was gone. He got no digital channels at all on his indoor antenna with the converter, despite being only 10 miles from the Southfield antenna farm. He was lost to TV service. Does the industry not care about the loss of viewers? My point is that in the case of TV, converters were pushed. Didn't work well because of mainly using UHF and the digital signal. But Analog converters would work much better, being on VHF and FM Analog.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

If ceramic filters have removed all of this second adjacent interference, why can't they just assign co-located Class A stations to those second adjacencies, for AM stations that wish to remain in business? It isn't a perfect solution but is better than a translator and there wouldn't be a long waiting period to see results!

Does the industry not care about the loss of viewers?

I'm amazed that this isn't brought up more often. And it's two pronged...in many cases, there isn't enough signal to lock in whereas before people in marginal areas ciykd at least watch a snowy picture. Why they didn't give everyone the same power they had in analog escapes me. The other issue is interference. They are placing full power omni VHF Hi Band DTV's at 111 miles and unless you're within 35 miles of one of them, some days you'll get one, some days the other & some days--neither. I don't care what anyone says, this was not studied well enough in the real world before being initiated.

Back to the topic...is it worthwhile to take on a 250 watt FM signal that covers 15 miles in exchange for reducing interference for hundreds of miles on AM at night? When enough of it happens to allow the AM survivors to substantially upgrade, it may well result in a win-win for everyone.

 

[flakunkel]

As has been documented (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/business/media/22spectrumside.html?_r=2) the government digital TV mandate was part of a plan to replace broadcast TV with the Internet. The flaws in the digital TV broadcast system are intentional. I believe the current spectrum management policies with regard to radio represent the same sort of policy decision.

 

[Schroedingers Cat]

From the time I heard that the digital channels would be mainly UHF, and hearing what power levels they were discussing, I knew it wouldn't have the range of VHF analog in particular and even UHF analog. People were telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. When I first foolishly bought a digital converter box, I discovered that I was correct. I couldn't get a UHF digital station 30 miles away with either a set mounted bowtie or four bay bowtie in the attic with a preamp. The analog signals were quite clear, Grade B picture quality at least.

 

[w9wi]

There might need to be a transition plan like digital TV and the expanded AM band where both are allowed to operate for a certain number of years before one has to be shut off.

There are quite of few 54-88 MHz receivers out there, the TV sound receivers, and some FMs that can be switched to receive some of those frequencies that you mentioned. Also, remember FM converters for AM car radios? And UHF Converters for VHF only TVs? This would be even easier.

An awful lot of AM stations won't last long enough for the 54-88MHz receiver penetration to reach the point where it saves them.

The number of 54-88MHz receivers already out there is essentially negligible. TV sound receivers comprise, what, *maybe* 2% of all radios? In the important automobile receiver sector, the figure is essentially zero. The proportion of receivers that can be switched to tune 54-88 (or at least 76-88) isn't any better. The number of converters in existence is precisely zero.

 

[WNTIRadio]

We don't need to go as low as 54mHz. 76-88 would do fine, and the vast majority of radios made in or near Japan can receive that band already. Probably as simple for the manufacturers to either update firmware or even a jumper or pair of pins shorted to open that band up.

I'll grant you that people won't go through the trouble to open up their radios etc., but why not make every new radio sold able to tune down to 76.

 

[semoochie]

The FCC put the kibosh on it anyway so it doesn't really matter.

 

[w9wi]

I'll grant you that people won't go through the trouble to open up their radios etc., but why not make every new radio sold able to tune down to 76.

Because by the time enough listeners buy these new radios to make a sellable audience, any AM stations hoping to benefit will have gone bust.

The value of the FM translator solution is that the receivers are already in listeners' hands. Put up a translator, and your listenership increases now, not in ten years.