Off Air Waiver for Translators

[RadioTroy]

Anybody hear of the FCC ever granting a waiver for a Non Comm Radio Station to be able to have their signal sent to a commercial translator by other means than off air?

 

[LA_Guy]

Not gonna happen!

The FCC has shot down plenty of these. This is a Pandora's box they simply will not open-and I agree with them! Can you imagine all the god squad translators if they did allow this? There'd be one every 200 kHz everywhere!

 

[ChiefEngineer]

Reach Communications has been doing this in FL for years.

Staff indicates the stations need to carry an air feed.

Many CSN stations are relaying an ISDN feed as well as Pensacola Christian College. This is a feed of an over the air signal.

 

[ngriffin]

I don't know about the CSN or WPCS stations, but the Tallahassee translator of WAFT 101.1 Valdosta, GA seems to be fed by Internet, based on the delay between the originating station and the translator audio. I noticed this a year or so ago, and haven't checked it lately, so that might have changed.

What many of the satellator networks will do to get around the restriction on satellite-fed commercial band translators is to set up a satellator in the non-commercial band a distance away from the intended target, and then have the commercial band translators relay it. FCC says that translators are not supposed to function solely to feed other translators, but I'm sure they can document a few listeners. An example that comes to mind is WJRF's Ncollet, MN translator on 88.9 that appears to feed their 102.7 translator in Mankato, about 10-15 miles away.

 

[TomT]

A lot of these translator relaying translator proposals look suspicious. 10~15 miles maybe, 20+, highly unlikely. Especially in areas with lots of stations. And anywhere near the coast! (Can we say "tropospheric" boys and girls?). Suspect the "relay" only exists on paper.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

EMF has a whole slew of translators here in Indiana and many appear to relay other translators. I have picked up some of these over 25 miles away.

 

[ngriffin]

There was a thread last summer on one of the Florida boards about some of the Reach FM translators in Florida and tropo. Most of them are very low power with high HAAT's to allow for daisy-chaining. Sounds like a perfect recipe for problems all summer long. Either the translator will pick up a distant station on the input, or a distant station will overpower the output.

I remember a number of years back the FCC and the operator of the 103.1 translator in Bergen County, NJ tangled over whether the translator was actually being fed by on-site studio, the full power station 80 miles away (WJUX), or another translator across the border in NY state. I don't remember the eventual outcome, and the translator now belongs to a religious group.

 

[Chuck]

There was a thread last summer on one of the Florida boards about some of the Reach FM translators in Florida and tropo. Most of them are very low power with high HAAT's to allow for daisy-chaining. Sounds like a perfect recipe for problems all summer long. Either the translator will pick up a distant station on the input, or a distant station will overpower the output.

I remember a number of years back the FCC and the operator of the 103.1 translator in Bergen County, NJ tangled over whether the translator was actually being fed by on-site studio, the full power station 80 miles away (WJUX), or another translator across the border in NY state. I don't remember the eventual outcome, and the translator now belongs to a religious group.

I believe that particular translator was actually originating programming aimed at NYC. The FCC shut it down. IIRC, Radio World ran a story about it a year or two ago.

If the FCC decides to allow AM stations to use FM translators, and my latest edition of Radio World predicts that is "as close to a slam dunk as you can come," then I think the FCC will have to allow alternate means to feed them. After all, it would be very difficult to feed it of the air when the mother station shuts down at sunset. Part of the plan as I understand it is to allow AM’s to continue broadcasting on the translator after the AM signs off. Funny, that sounds like Low Power FM to me, but I realize that NAB has an aversion to the name.

Further, since many AM's have cut their frequency response to 5 KHz or so to implement IBOC, they would sound dreadful on FM if fed off the air. Even if the originating station actually broadcast out to 9 KHz, they would still sound pretty low-fi on the FM band.

Many existing translators daisy chain off of other translators. For the stations at the end of the chain, the audio quality can get quite funky. Lets not forget that translators tend to self interfere. Because of very close proximity of the transmitting and receiving antennas, the transmitter's output tends to swamp the receiver's input, which can lead to noisy or very poor reception. Usually if the translator's transmitter is switched off, the receiver cleans up and delivers a satisfactory signal. This can be helped by using filters and careful antenna installation, but it still degrades the signal Add tropo problems and the introduction of intentional or accidental reception of RF devices like ipod modulators, and there are even more way for things to go very wrong.

The only way I've figured out to alleviate those particular problems is by using RDS to identify the proper originating signal. If the translator receiver sees the correct RDS information, then the thing broadcasts. If it doesn't see the correct RDS info, then it shuts off. Even this is not perfect, and results in a loss of radio service when it shuts down. If a translator is to actually serve the public, being reliably on the air is important.

These days it is fairly simple to establish alternate means of getting the signal to a translator. I would greatly favor changing the rules to allow alternate means of reception, under the provision that, under normal conditions, it is possible to receive the originating station at the translator location. If AM translator’s are approved, it might be a good opportunity for the Commission to re-examine things.

 

[countrylistener]

The FCC should consider allowing alternate feeding methods within a REASONABLE physical distance for an FM station. Basically if a person could get a flakey over-the-air signal at the location alternate feeds should be allowed. A little real-world planning and determining set distances could be set so that each class of station could have a certain max distance for the alternate feed. As stated by others earlier in this thread the staffers are fearful that GodChannels will over-run the entire band if they are allowed to network via other means. Putting some realistic restrictions on everyone wanting alternate feed methods that provide a GOOD service consistanly would be the right thing to do in 2008.

 

[Chuck]

The FCC should consider allowing alternate feeding methods within a REASONABLE physical distance for an FM station. Basically if a person could get a flakey over-the-air signal at the location alternate feeds should be allowed. A little real-world planning and determining set distances could be set so that each class of station could have a certain max distance for the alternate feed. As stated by others earlier in this thread the staffers are fearful that GodChannels will over-run the entire band if they are allowed to network via other means. Putting some realistic restrictions on everyone wanting alternate feed methods that provide a GOOD service consistanly would be the right thing to do in 2008.

That would be a fair and reasonable approach. I'm not sure I'd get my hopes up that they'd actually do something that made that much sense.

 

[TomT]

The proposal for FM translators for AM stations would set a distance limitation--the lesser of a fixed mileage from the AM transmitter or inside a certain contour.

So it would not be unreasonable to allow alternate means to feed the translator, e.g., an STL, such as is allowed for FM "fill-in" translators. I can also see these translators being co-located at the AM studio site, or on the AM tower. Especially for graveyard channel stations.

 

[nd2023]

I love it when translators get affected by tropo. Especially the religious ones. A Long Island 96.5 translator that translates low power 94.7 WLIX was instead translating 94.7 WMAS loud and clear all day due to tropo.

 

[slim101]

So it would not be unreasonable to allow alternate means to feed the translator, e.g., an STL, such as is allowed for FM "fill-in" translators.

Since the proposed rule change mandates the translator's 60 dbu contour completely inside the AM's 2mv/m daytime contour, ALL AM translators would be "fill in". Fill in translators can be fed by any means.

The FCC should consider allowing alternate feeding methods within a REASONABLE physical distance for an FM station. Basically if a person could get a flakey over-the-air signal at the location alternate feeds should be allowed.

Amen to that! With tropo, grandfathered overpower stations, overpower XM modulators and prolific pirates, its increasingly hard to provide a quality signal. Alternative feeds under these conditions should just be "good engineering practice".

I remember a number of years back the FCC and the operator of the 103.1 translator in Bergen County, NJ tangled over whether the translator was actually being fed by on-site studio, the full power station 80 miles away (WJUX), or another translator across the border in NY state.

Actually, eventually the ALJ ruled in favor of the translator operator. The FM branch had given him an opinion letter that OK'd what he was doing. The rule says that the translator operator can't take money from the primary station, but he had LMA'd the primary station, so he was giving them money.