OK. Then what do YOU want to do.

[clouseau]

I also propose that these new "refugee" stations have priority over existing translators. IOW, they can apply for and displace them. Like full power TV and LPTV. After the first round of migration, we could allow translator operators who were displaced to move anywhere in their area as an LPTV-Like "Displacement application." Even most of THEM won't get the axe.

Since you are the owner of some translators, I'm fairly amazed that you would be happy with this part of the plan. Here I'll have to differ with you, since I'm not a big fan of any form of confiscation. That goes for anybody, not just translator operators.

Chuck, Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm certainly not "Anti-translator". However, IN THEIR CURRENT FORM, they often times do not make a lot of sense. I know you use yours responsibly and we do here. Ours are run 100% legally as I suspect your's are as well. But you and I both know that many are not. I still can not see the benefit of "Straight Mandatory translation". Never have. If Subpart L, Class "D" fm's are going to exist, then let them operate as real radio stations. This is where LPFM went terribly wrong IMHO. K-Love couldn't do any local service even if they wanted to. Perhaps translators could be allowed to become the equivalant of LPTV Class A status provided they met the requirements (Local origination, Public File, Staffing, EAS, ETC) I question if EMF and their ilk actually COULD meet those requirements. Heaven knows Trinity was certainly not able to get most of THEIR LPTV's to Class "A". I can only imagine "Staffing" for over 1000 translators. It'll never happen.

Even though they are a secondary service, I'd prefer an approach where station owners aren’t forced to do anything. If a translator operator wants to voluntarily sell their station so another station may use the frequency, that is an entirely different story. In fact, there are a lot of translators that could be improved by switching them to some form of local programming. Then there are others that actually contribute something positive to the communities they serve.

Agreed. I guess my point is that being secondary, I was just being upfrom about what might happen to some of them. I'm not changing their service, just building in the neighborhood. Note I did have a "Displacement plan" for them. I would support a "Class A-0 conversion window for them, though. Assuming they jump through all the hoops. I woudl also want a ownership cap on number oof A-0's you could own. How about a nationawide limit of 10, with that liit being increased by one for each A station which converts. So EMF would be able to convert 10 of their Translator's to A-0 after meeting all the hoops. Plus if they wanted to convert 2 AM stations they own, their national limit would be 12. The rest of the translators would remain as they are and be subject to displacement AS THEY ARE NOW UNDER THE EXISTING RULES. Perhaps a showing of "No other available channel" should be required to displace the translator.

That said, I think utilizing second adjacents should be a "no-brainer." 500 watts at 500 feet would work well in many instances. The reports of "unacceptable interference" are largely over-exaggerations, especially on today's car radios.

Exactly. And I'm not convinced we can actually get political support for increasing the size of the broadcasting bands. I think we all know how eager you'd be to migrate below 88.1.

Me either.

Clouseau

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Idiocy.

This proposal is akin to dealing with the escalating costs of health care by the tidy expedient of putting all the sick and old people into a lottery - with the losers being marched (or wheeled) in front of a firing squad.

Only nitwits with no stake in the outcome, who can safely watch and pontificate from the sidelines, propose such nonsense.

Thanks...good to know I wasn't the only one who thought that idea was hare-brained.

 

[clouseau]

Idiocy.

This proposal is akin to dealing with the escalating costs of health care by the tidy expedient of putting all the sick and old people into a lottery - with the losers being marched (or wheeled) in front of a firing squad.

Only nitwits with no stake in the outcome, who can safely watch and pontificate from the sidelines, propose such nonsense.

I agree. The "Lottery of Death" is pretty far out there and shouldn't even be considered. Maybe there's another way to do it. Ooops, gotta run. The crystal in my palm just started flashing red. Hmmmmm.

Clouseau

 

[Chuck]

Chuck, Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm certainly not "Anti-translator". However, IN THEIR CURRENT FORM, they often times do not make a lot of sense.
<snip>
Perhaps translators could be allowed to become the equivalant of LPTV Class A status provided they met the requirements (Local origination, Public File, Staffing, EAS, ETC) I question if EMF and their ilk actually COULD meet those requirements. Heaven knows Trinity was certainly not able to get most of THEIR LPTV's to Class "A". I can only imagine "Staffing" for over 1000 translators. It'll never happen.

Even though I'm not a big fan of the EMF's of the world, they did what they did within the rules as they existed when they applied. Just like Clear Channel became a huge conglomerate of 1200+ stations, someone in our government allowed them to do so. I have a problem with taking away what has been granted, even if it is for the "greater good."

I would support a "Class A-0 conversion window for them, though. Assuming they jump through all the hoops. I woudl also want a ownership cap on number oof A-0's you could own. How about a nationawide limit of 10, with that liit being increased by one for each A station which converts. So EMF would be able to convert 10 of their Translator's to A-0 after meeting all the hoops. Plus if they wanted to convert 2 AM stations they own, their national limit would be 12. The rest of the translators would remain as they are and be subject to displacement AS THEY ARE NOW UNDER THE EXISTING RULES. Perhaps a showing of "No other available channel" should be required to displace the translator.

I'd have no problem with a nation-wide limit of ten. I'd even be more draconian and say that any new translator must be located within 125 miles of the originating station. But I would only apply those standards to new stations. Existing ones should be grandfathered. Not all translator networks are made up of people who are in the business of selling religion. Some state wide networks are extensions of Public Radio or university operated stations. Others are networks of various broadcast organizations that really are aimed at the public good. You know the saying about "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water."

Exactly. And I'm not convinced we can actually get political support for increasing the size of the broadcasting bands. I think we all know how eager you'd be to migrate below 88.1.

Me either.

Clouseau

I certainly would not be happy about a forced move below 88.1, but a voluntary one, especially for a new station, is a different story. It would depend on the circumstances.

The only way I see out of the entire overcrowding dilemma is to annex channels 5 & 6. It is certainly the simplest. Since HD and even FMeXtra requires the user to purchase a new radio, this seems like an ideal time to push or such a change. Right now the cost would be as minimal as it will ever get. Broadcasters should put aside their differences and push hard for this change. Change. Isn't that what everyone seems to have voted for?

 

[jegrant]

As close as I'm now seeing various Class A's being shoehorned in, I vote for the expanded use of second-adjacent FM as Clouseau has explained above.

I also think it would be a total no-brainer to start requiring manufacturers to build FM sets to go all the way down to 76 MHz as in Japan. This is the easiest, lowest cost, least burden on business and consumer alike method to improve FM. And it only requires moving a very select few TV stations (perhaps none, if TV is simply given a "no new applications, no power increases either" rule; they would eventually move voluntarily).

I would highly support restrictions on translators, at least in the "new" low FM band. I like the idea of a 125 mile maximum distance unless located in the same state as the originating station; but I have an additional twist: if the "originating" station is actually operating pursuant to a main studio waiver, then the station would not count as the translator's originating station. This means that a network based in, say, Wisconsin would be unable to place a small Class A with a main studio waiver in Lost Desert Town, AZ solely to count translators in Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff as "local" by meeting the 125 mile / same state test. Also, main studio waivers should not be permitted, or at least not handed out like candy, for stations in the new FM band.