Its happened in a few cities now, Translators have been used to simulcast HD2 channels, basically resulting in a new radio station. This has been done in Atlanta and Detroit, and will be used soon to bring either Smooth Jazz or Country to Manhattan. Any Thoughts on this new trend? Could we see big companies selling LMAing there HD2's so smaller companies can use those HD2s to simulcast on translators?
-
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
New Trend, Translator+HD2 Channel=New Radio Station?
- Thread starter travisl5678
- Start date
Another model of this is all the AM stations with deficient or no nighttime coverage getting translators--there will soon be two of these just northwest of here (Durham, NC) in Danville, Virginia-both marketed as FM stations with the 250-watt max translator power.
Whether translating an AM or an FM HD subchannel, it's a unique way to get on the air when full-power FM frequencies are unavailable, and perhaps a good business model if you're targeting a rather densely populated and/or geographically compact area--it's somewhat similar to the analog VHF channel 6 LPTVs being marketed as 87.7 FMs, but less of a loophole and thus a more-stable investment.
Whether translating an AM or an FM HD subchannel, it's a unique way to get on the air when full-power FM frequencies are unavailable, and perhaps a good business model if you're targeting a rather densely populated and/or geographically compact area--it's somewhat similar to the analog VHF channel 6 LPTVs being marketed as 87.7 FMs, but less of a loophole and thus a more-stable investment.
Leasing agreements are already taking place. Way-FM has entered into a few of them.
Can someone please explain the rationale in how the FCC licenses translators?
If I understand correctly, a translator is supposed to help fill a coverage gap for a radio station having signal issues in part of its market. If that's true then why not license the translator directly to the affected radio station once they demonstrate a need for it, instead of handing out licenses to third parties whose only goal is to lease them to the highest bidders no matter how sketchy the need?
One NYC-area translator owner managed to get his station licensed to 106.5 transmitting 2 miles away from full-power adjacent-channel 106.7 on the Empire State building. What was it rebroadcasting? 106.7. Sure it was just a stepping stone to another frequency in NYC but how does the FCC even sign off on something like that? Now this guy owns a new FM station, er translator, on a more open frequency in the heart of Manhattan and all he had to do was play shell games to get there instead of going through the usual application process for a new radio station.
In Detroit I understand translator owner Tim Martz is planning to put his station on the same frequency as 93.9 CIDR right across the river in Windsor, presumably for the sole purpose of interfering with it at the behest of some competing Detroit station owner. Is this really the way the airwaves are meant to be licensed in this country?
It seems to me most translators just add clutter to an already crowded FM band and interfere with nearby signals without much redeeming value. More often than not they ultimately seem to go to bible thumpers running canned paid programming, and very few of them seem to be used for what I thought was the actual intent for a translator.
If I understand correctly, a translator is supposed to help fill a coverage gap for a radio station having signal issues in part of its market. If that's true then why not license the translator directly to the affected radio station once they demonstrate a need for it, instead of handing out licenses to third parties whose only goal is to lease them to the highest bidders no matter how sketchy the need?
One NYC-area translator owner managed to get his station licensed to 106.5 transmitting 2 miles away from full-power adjacent-channel 106.7 on the Empire State building. What was it rebroadcasting? 106.7. Sure it was just a stepping stone to another frequency in NYC but how does the FCC even sign off on something like that? Now this guy owns a new FM station, er translator, on a more open frequency in the heart of Manhattan and all he had to do was play shell games to get there instead of going through the usual application process for a new radio station.
In Detroit I understand translator owner Tim Martz is planning to put his station on the same frequency as 93.9 CIDR right across the river in Windsor, presumably for the sole purpose of interfering with it at the behest of some competing Detroit station owner. Is this really the way the airwaves are meant to be licensed in this country?
It seems to me most translators just add clutter to an already crowded FM band and interfere with nearby signals without much redeeming value. More often than not they ultimately seem to go to bible thumpers running canned paid programming, and very few of them seem to be used for what I thought was the actual intent for a translator.
Theater of My Mind said:
Translators were initially a means to extend TV signals into places too far from primary transmitters to get reception. TV translators usually belonged to local residents within the translator coverage area.
In some ways it would make more sense to require translators not be licensed to the primary station. It would make it more likely a translator would only exist if the local residents wanted the service.
Looks to me as if the theory was that due to the great difference in power between 106.5 and 106.7, any interference caused by 106.5 to 106.7 would not reach any populated place.
That choice of frequency was required by another bit of FCC strangeness. A translator may apply for a "minor change" in technical facilities at any time. A "minor change" is one where the new and old facilities are mutually-exclusive -- cannot both be authorized at the same time without interfering with each other. The new site must be close enough to the old one that there would be interference (a move from NYC to Pittsburgh on the same frequency would not be mutually-exclusive), and the frequencies must also be close enough that interference would result. (a frequency change from 107.1 to 105.5 would not be mutually-exclusive as the two channels would not interfere with each other)
If you want to make a change that's *not* mutually-exclusive with the existing facility -- that's a "major" change. A major change must wait for a filing window.
This translator was initially authorized on 107.1 in Brooklyn. For some reason (probably interference to a station in NJ) they had to change frequency if they wanted to operate from their current site.
106.3 is not mutually-exclusive with 107.1. If the station wanted to move directly from 107.1 to 106.3, it would be a "major change" which would have to wait for a filing window.
The last filing window was held in 2003.
(i.e. if this station wanted to move directly from 107.1 to 106.3, they might well have to wait eight years or more.... also, the 106.3 frequency would be up for grabs, they would have to compete with applicants for completely new stations on 106.3 and other translators wishing to move to that frequency.)
Frequencies mutually-exclusive with 107.1 are 96.3, 96.5, and anything between 106.5-107.7. Frequencies mutually-exclusive with 106.3 are 95.5, 95.7, and anything between 105.7-106.9. This station had to choose a new frequency that fell into both categories -- 106.5, 106.7, or 106.9. 106.7 would be off-limits due to WLTW. Why they didn't choose 106.9 I don't know -- could be it had the same interference issues with NJ, could be 106.9 was just as good as 106.5 & they just picked 106.5 out of a hat.
From a legal standpoint, signals stop at the border... U.S. stations cannot interfere with reception of Canadian stations *in Canada*, and Canadian stations cannot interfere with reception of U.S. stations *in the U.S.*. From a legal standpoint, CIDR doesn't exist in Detroit... Canada is probably taking greater advantage of this than we are, with three powerful stations in Vancouver on first adjacent frequencies to stations in Bellingham, Washington 40 miles away. (92.9 US/93.1 Canada; 104.1 US/104.3 Canada; 106.5 US/106.3 Canada)
Seems a dumb thing to do though. CIDR is going to cause massive interference *to* any Detroit-based translator on the same frequency.
I have to concur the purpose of the translator service has been derailed.
If I were "dictator of the FCC" and didn't have to answer to political considerations and Acts of Congress.. I would:
- Require that translators which extend a primary station's predicted coverage be controlled & financed by persons residing within the translator's predicted coverage.
- Establish identical technical regulations for LPFM and translators. It is IMHO absurd that the use of a second-adjacent frequency is legal for a translator but not for a LPFM. There is NO technical difference between the two types of station, NO difference in interference potential.
- Prohibit AM stations from using FM translators that extend their predicted nighttime coverage. (right now an AM station cannot use an FM translator that extends its *daytime* coverage, but as long as the translator doesn't exceed the daytime coverage it can greatly extend the *nighttime* signal) Daytime and highly-directional-at-night AM operators knew what they were getting into & shouldn't be allowed to extend their coverage at the expense of FM and LPFM operators.
- Require translators relaying digital signals to relay them in the same mode as the primary station. Your HD2 can't be received reliably in downtown office buildings? Put up a digital translator & relay it in digital.
Political considerations will ensure none of this ever happens.
If my memory is correct, a translator's interference contour is 100 dBu. That 100 dBu contour must intersect the protected 60 dBu contour of an already-licensed station in a populated area for the FCC to deny the license. Therefore, translators are pretty easy to slip in to many places.
PTBoardOp94 said:
Yep.
I've seen a couple of translator applications where the applicant has shown the 100dBu interfering contour of the translator doesn't reach the ground. I've seen other cases where it does, but it doesn't extend past the property on which the tower is located. According to the calculator on the FCC website, the 100dBu interfering contour of a 10-watt translator at 100m HAAT extends only 220m; unless there's someone living within a few hundred feet of the tower, there will be no predicted interference.
What stations has Way FM leased?
PTBoardOp94 said:
100.3 in Miami (in exchange for a CC HD3) and 102.3 in Portland (in exchange for a CC HD2) They could make new translators out of both of those
w9wi said:
You had me up until this point. A lot of AM nighttime directionals were constructed before the growth of the cities they serve. It's not that they picked a bad pattern on purpose, but many of them had to balance protecting co-channels in other cities with serving the then-existing population.
It's not fair to penalize the station owner because the suburban sprawl took off in random directions.
By the logic you employ, Memphis' WDIA couldn't put a translator up that serves the Collierville area, even though it's only 10 miles east of the TX site in a massive null. But it COULD put a translator up in Crenshaw, Mississippi, 50 miles to the south, where it has a massive nighttime lobe (and daytime service, obviously).
That doesn't make any sense. The whole TN-285 corridor probably didn't even exist as anything but farmland when WDIA's current night pattern was established to protect WAPI in Birmingham.
The alternative for these radio operators would most likely to flip an existing FM to a simulcast if they couldn't acquire a translator, which means one less music/talk/sport choice on the dial. I'd rather have them on a 250 translator with limited coverage of a core area than taking away "my favorite station".
I agree with Zach, w9wi. Why do you want to deny AM operators the opportunity to improve coverage, especially at night? The FM translator policies now in effect are allowing AM services to continue. It's the only bright spot for AM left, especially now that numerous operators are being obliterated by IBOC noise from out-of-market stations. Your position is tantamount to burying what's left of AM radio.
AM-on-FM translators can't "extend coverage at the expense of FM and LPFM operators." If they did, the Commission wouldn't license them. By definition an FM translator can't impact higher-class facilities. So there's no harm there.
AM-on-FM translators can't "extend coverage at the expense of FM and LPFM operators." If they did, the Commission wouldn't license them. By definition an FM translator can't impact higher-class facilities. So there's no harm there.
- Status