NAB proposes to the FCC the use of FM translators by AM stations

[Deano]

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518400280

 

[ironbear]

I never thought I'd agree with the NAB on any issue regarding FM translators...but this is a reversal of their earlier position. However, I'd guess the real motivation may be a way of providing possible alternatives to small AM's suffering from IBOC. It helps the 'nighttime' argument.

 

[William_Yeager]

Will there be any spectrum left by the time this is enacted?

 

[Chuck]

It will be interesting to see how they propose to obtain their signal. Right now translators in the commercial band are supposed to receive their signal off the air. While I agree with the idea that the translator should be located where it is possible to receive the originating station, there are many instances where that is less than desirable. Since translators tend to be in low signal fringe areas, they are very susceptible to interference and even hijacking from tropospheric ducting, and even iPods or satellite radio receivers.

Receiving an AM station off the air and rebroadcasting it on FM is an extravagant use of bandwidth, plus the interference issues for AM are much worse than on FM. I suspect that they will have to allow alternate means of receiving the signal, such as STL, IP or Telco. That will open up an interesting can of worms.

Even though I see some problems, I think this could be the salvation of many small local AM stations. A 250 watt translator gives about the same kind of coverage as a 1000 watt local AM. Naturally, it sounds better too. Maybe they should just allow small AM's to convert to 250 watt FM's, but I have no idea where they would put them, especially if the FCC decides to remove the freeze from all the translator applications they currently have pending.

It's bad news for future possible LPFM applications, but it might be good news for local radio. Like almost everything in life, there are good and bad aspects to just about everything. If it flies, I san see the "trafficking" of translator applications really picking up. Every small AM station owner will want one. Maybe that is the point.... Always follow the money.

 

[dbdigital]

It will be interesting to see how they propose to obtain their signal. Right now translators in the commercial band are supposed to receive their signal off the air. While I agree with the idea that the translator should be located where it is possible to receive the originating station, there are many instances where that is less than desirable. Since translators tend to be in low signal fringe areas, they are very susceptible to interference and even hijacking from tropospheric ducting, and even iPods or satellite radio receivers.

Receiving an AM station off the air and rebroadcasting it on FM is an extravagant use of bandwidth, plus the interference issues for AM are much worse than on FM. I suspect that they will have to allow alternate means of receiving the signal, such as STL, IP or Telco. That will open up an interesting can of worms.

Even though I see some problems, I think this could be the salvation of many small local AM stations. A 250 watt translator gives about the same kind of coverage as a 1000 watt local AM. Naturally, it sounds better too. Maybe they should just allow small AM's to convert to 250 watt FM's, but I have no idea where they would put them, especially if the FCC decides to remove the freeze from all the translator applications they currently have pending.

It's bad news for future possible LPFM applications, but it might be good news for local radio. Like almost everything in life, there are good and bad aspects to just about everything. If it flies, I san see the "trafficking" of translator applications really picking up. Every small AM station owner will want one. Maybe that is the point.... Always follow the money.

Given the Senate's recent vote to expand LPFM, this could turn into a messy tug-o-war. The only solution is for the FCC to expand the FM spectrum. Kick off the few remaining Ch. 6 TV stations (I think there's only two left) and open the 87 MHz band. While they're at it, the FCC can open 1710 for LPAM.

As a side note, I know that some AM stations re-broadcast their signal on cable FM. KRML in Carmel, CA (the station made famous in the movie, "Play Misty For Me") occupies two Comcast FM channels.

But you don't hear much about cable FM anymore.

db

 

[Chuck]

Kick off the few remaining Ch. 6 TV stations (I think there's only two left) and open the 87 MHz band. While they're at it, the FCC can open 1710 for LPAM.
db

I don't have the exact number in front of me but there are a lot more than "one or two" Channel 6 TV stations in operation. I can think of several off hand and that's just a drop in the bucket. Of course, those stations should be broadcasting on their new digital (probably UHF) channel by now, so you'd think that could really open things up when they shut off the analog signal. That's not the case as things stand. Existing TV broadcasters are going to be allowed to revert to their original analog channel with a digital signal, once their analog is shut off.

Now you may ask why someone would want to do that? The simple answer is power savings. 100,000 watts ERP in the VHF bands covers about the same territory as 4-5 million watts ERP at higher UHF frequencies, all other things being equal. The power savings are remarkable.

Unless something changes, there will be digital TV on channel 6.

 

[Jeff_Davis]

I keep reading the suggestion that people use 1710 kHz for Part 15 and LPAM, but my radios stop at 1700. None of my radios actually tune up to 1710. I've checked them all, and they're all relatively new.

 

[dbdigital]

Kick off the few remaining Ch. 6 TV stations (I think there's only two left) and open the 87 MHz band. While they're at it, the FCC can open 1710 for LPAM.
db

I don't have the exact number in front of me but there are a lot more than "one or two" Channel 6 TV stations in operation. I can think of several off hand and that's just a drop in the bucket. Of course, those stations should be broadcasting on their new digital (probably UHF) channel by now, so you'd think that could really open things up when they shut off the analog signal. That's not the case as things stand. Existing TV broadcasters are going to be allowed to revert to their original analog channel with a digital signal, once their analog is shut off.

Now you may ask why someone would want to do that? The simple answer is power savings. 100,000 watts ERP in the VHF bands covers about the same territory as 4-5 million watts ERP at higher UHF frequencies, all other things being equal. The power savings are remarkable.

Unless something changes, there will be digital TV on channel 6.

Actually, there are six stations left who have opted to keep channel 6 for DTV with a seventh CP in Casper, WY. My point is that these stations should not be given the choice as to whether they want to stay on Channel 6 or not. After all, if the FCC is setting a new paradigm for the future of U.S. television, a digital one, then they should consider how the VHF/UHF bands are being utilized for this future. Besides, there are many reasons why a station on the VHF band would want to migrate to UHF for DTV. Due to the propagation characteritics of low band VHF TV channels (2-6), DTV is not desirable on these channels due to it's lack of tolerance to noise. DTV channel 6 stations would be required to protect non-commercial educational FM stations operating on 88-92 MHz (because of this requirement, the FCC did not allocate DTV Channel 6 to many communities).

The most important reason is that the 30 FM channels that could be created out of the Channel 6 spectrum could hold a potential of thousands of new commercial and non-commercial community broadcast stations versus a small number of full power and low power TV stations.

On another topic, my Sony GX50ES receiver tunes up to 1710 Khz as does the factory radio in my 97' Volvo. So some radios can receive 1710 and some can't.

db

 

[Chuck]

My point is that these stations should not be given the choice as to whether they want to stay on Channel 6 or not. After all, if the FCC is setting a new paradigm for the future of U.S. television, a digital one, then they should consider how the VHF/UHF bands are being utilized for this future. db

I agree with you. So how do you get the FCC to do something about it? Right now, they are on course to let those stations keep their channel 6 allocations.

 

[dbdigital]

My point is that these stations should not be given the choice as to whether they want to stay on Channel 6 or not. After all, if the FCC is setting a new paradigm for the future of U.S. television, a digital one, then they should consider how the VHF/UHF bands are being utilized for this future. db

I agree with you. So how do you get the FCC to do something about it? Right now, they are on course to let those stations keep their channel 6 allocations.

There isn't much one can do beyond writing one's Congress-person. NPR, The National Federation of Community Broadcasters (which has over 175 member stations) and other community radio groups also support moving all Ch. 6 stations to other channels and freeing up that portion of the spectrum for FM.

So we're not alone on this issue. Perhaps it might be a good idea to contact the NFCB and see what they suggest and what steps they are taking on the issue.

http://www.nfcb.org/index.jsp

db