Question about FM translators

[Kelly A]

I wish it was that simple. If the commission came down hard on unethical operators there would be law suits.

That's not how it works. Just like the license to drive a motor vehicle, it can be revoked if you break enough rules. Radio station owners are licensees. Depending on the infraction and how many, the licensee can lose their ability to operate on a federally licensed frequency. It happens more than you know.
The problem is back in the early 2000s, the government cut back on the enforcement budget with the promise that spectrum auctions would offset fewer fines being levied. Of course, the auction thing didn't work out as they had hoped, and the number of FCC field offices remained low, as did the number of enforcement officers. As has been mentioned; usually action is taken when some slack, or sleazy licensee gets turned in by another station or member of the public.

 

[BruceB]

I wish it was that simple. If the commission came down hard on unethical operators there would be law suits. The FCC would have to actually have to do field work which most likely is "not in the budget". IIRC any fines go to the US Treasury. If there is no complaints no action will take place.

I understand what you're saying, but I also understand that in order to operate an AM radio station in this country, you must agree to comply with FCC regulations.If you're in blatant non compliance what would the basis of your lawsuit be.
"Yeah I violated the rules but I stand to lose money" will not stand up in federal court.

 

[K.M. Richards]

As for the FM translators belonging to AM stations that are not even on the air, their translators could be sold to other operators in the market that are maintaining their AM properties.

The difficulties that secondchoice mentioned notwithstanding, the only way a translator can be sold is by its owner (not the FCC) and only if it is not tied to an AM license that is surrendered or cancelled. You would have to look at every instance of a AM/translator combination to see what the legalities are for that specific station.

If a "non-tied" translator goes silent and its license surrendered, that does not automatically create an opening for a replacement, which would have to be a new application during a filing window for same.

 

[BruceB]

The difficulties that secondchoice mentioned notwithstanding, the only way a translator can be sold is by its owner (not the FCC) and only if it is not tied to an AM license that is surrendered or cancelled. You would have to look at every instance of a AM/translator combination to see what the legalities are for that specific station.

If a "non-tied" translator goes silent and its license surrendered, that does not automatically create an opening for a replacement, which would have to be a new application during a filing window for same.

K.M: In the case of an AM operator who loses his license on the AM, but he has an FM translator.he cannot operate the translator as an independent station.So, what are his options?Can he sell the translator to another AM operator in the market?Or must he just surrender the FM translator license to the FCC?

 

[K.M. Richards]

I was actually writing a clarification as you were posting, Bruce.

If an AM licensee with a non-tied translator does lose its license, there is nothing preventing him from using that translator with another co-owned AM or an HD subchannel of an FM as the originating station, or even to sell or lease it to another station owner in the market. But a translator tied to an AM license is automatically revoked when the parent station either surrenders its license or has it cancelled by the FCC.

However, in cases where a translator license is revoked by the FCC for operating during periods when the originating AM was not on the air, all of those possibilities become moot.

 

[Cold Coffee]

I think the FCC gave FM translators to AM's to save the business of the operators of AM stations. Many of these people have served their communities for decades. No, the FM translators won't save the AM band.

Right now a translator is only allowed to be on the air for 24 hours after the AM goes off. I think the rules need to be changed so that the FM translator can be on the air as long as the licensee holds an AM license even when the AM is off.

It's silly to have to maintain AM's on the air that have no listeners.

 

[BruceB]

I think the FCC gave FM translators to AM's to save the business of the operators of AM stations. Many of these people have served their communities for decades. No, the FM translators won't save the AM band.

Right now a translator is only allowed to be on the air for 24 hours after the AM goes off. I think the rules need to be changed so that the FM translator can be on the air as long as the licensee holds an AM license even when the AM is off.

It's silly to have to maintain AM's on the air that have no listeners.

Good point.If the FCC changed the rules to what you recommend, I wonder how many of these AM operators would continue to try to operate their AM.Or just go dark and hold the license.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Good point.If the FCC changed the rules to what you recommend, I wonder how many of these AM operators would continue to try to operate their AM.Or just go dark and hold the license.

That was my immediate thought. Let's look at a real example from earlier this year ... WJLX in Jasper AL.

A few months ago, it made headlines when its tower "mysteriously" disappeared overnight. After several people in the engineering community evaluated the situation, it appears that the transmitter itself was also nowhere to be found, the building at the tower location was in disrepair, and the electric utility company had removed the meter from same some time ago.

It now appears that WJLX may have been silent as far back as the summer of 2017. But its FM translator at 101.5 remained on the air anyway, and once people started asking questions the station manager hurriedly made arrangements with iHeart to use one of their HD subchannels in the market to feed the translator (luckily for him that translator was not tied to the AM license).

There is still a question if -- after close to 2,500 days of the translator operating on its own (investigations are still in progress) -- WJLX may have both licenses revoked.

What's to stop some "enterprising" station owner to try and get away with the same thing if the rules were even looser? What Flying Dutchman proposes -- "the FM translator can be on the air as long as the licensee holds an AM license" is practically inviting abuse ... it would be WJLX, legalized.

And to answer the last part of your question, any station that does not operate for one year has its license summarily revoked, so "going silent and holding the license" is not going to be a workaround.

---

Now, all that said, I do think the FCC is a little overzealous when they force a translator to go silent even when a STA (Special Temporary Authority) is granted for an AM that is off the air for technical reasons, and I would allow the translator to stay on the air for a reasonable amount of time, probably tied to the expiration date of the STA. But I would not modify the "one year or you're history" rule, nor would I allow AMs to decide on their own to operate the translator as a standalone station (unless some future FCC decision allowing those to be upgraded in status is enacted).

 

[Kelly A]

Now, all that said, I do think the FCC is a little overzealous when they force a translator to go silent even when a STA (Special Temporary Authority) is granted for an AM that is off the air for technical reasons, and I would allow the translator to stay on the air for a reasonable amount of time, probably tied to the expiration date of the STA. But I would not modify the "one year or you're history" rule, nor would I allow AMs to decide on their own to operate the translator as a standalone station (unless some future FCC decision allowing those to be upgraded in status is enacted).

I would agree except that there have been too many AM/tied FM translator licensees who have attempted-to or have gamed the system under the radar. WJLX is a notable example, because even at the time the story broke about the tower 'theft' their website never even mentioned the AM frequency.

Especially in these increasingly difficult times for finding advertisers to stand alone AMs with translators, owners are getting desperate. They don't want to pay a single dime to keep their AM transmitter running. If you give them an inch by allowing STA's to operate a tied translator without the AM operating, the Commission will be flooded with STA requests.

 

[Cold Coffee]

But, what's in the public interest? Revoking licenses or providing service to the people?

 

[secondchoice]

The only issue any AM operator should think about with the turning in their AM licences and keeping the translator on legally is these translators are not "protected" from "real" stations upgrades. If the FCC does away with 3rd channel spacing. They might be able to come up with allocations that would wipe out some translators. The Commission could reclassify the translators as A1 or FX 1 with existing interference accepted for whatever the station was paying for both the AM and translator's fees.

 

[Kelly A]

But, what's in the public interest? Revoking licenses or providing service to the people?

If you're breaking the rules, or intend to break the rules by operating a translator as the primary station without the AM, then you're breaking rules that legitimate licensees take seriously.
Besides, losing some fly-by-night AM operators doesn't mean the general public has nowhere else to turn.

 

[Kelly A]

The Commission could reclassify the translators as A1 or FX 1 with existing interference accepted for whatever the station was paying for both the AM and translator's fees.

But to what end? The Commission already gave qualified AMs a set of Walmart water wings in the form of FM translators. So some AM operators determine they can't swim with the other kids, or hold up their end of the deal by keeping an AM running, so they want the government to give them speedboats. To that, I say: Boo hoo.
It all goes back to the same old saying: No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Cold Coffee]

Kelly, I have never owned an AM. Never worked at one either. I built FM's instead. AM was on the decline when I was in high school in Ohio 50 years ago. But, I think what I propose is in the public interest, not mine. It will come to be in just a matter of time.

 

[Kelly A]

Kelly, I have never owned an AM. Never worked at one either. I built FM's instead. AM was on the decline when I was in high school in Ohio 50 years ago. But, I think what I propose is in the public interest, not mine. It will come to be in just a matter of time.

I hope you're wrong. In my mind; any station owner who is unwilling, or unable to keep up their end of the bargain by keeping an AM station alive to keep an FM translator running, doesn't deserve to be in the business.

 

[fybush]

There is no amount of regulation that can save a medium that the audience doesn't care about. It doesn't matter how much you try to mandate minimum audio quality or anything else - a signal like WRSB's 1600 or WCGR's 1550 has no audience and no value in 2024, and nothing you can do will change that. AM may not be completely dead yet, but it's dying.

Some of us here seem to think FCC rules were handed down on a stone tablet to Moses and are immutable. But that's simply not true, and has never been true in a century-plus of American broadcasting. Regulations change constantly in response to changing situations, and in response to political pressure.

We - very sensibly - allowed TV broadcasters to abandon the obsolete 1941-vintage analog standard to move to HD digital, because technology advanced and regulation evolved along with it.

As a broadcaster and as a broadcast consultant, I am less interested in the medium than in the service it provides. WRSB's translator provides the only commercial Spanish-language service to a market that's now about 12% Hispanic. WCGR's translators provide a unique music format to their part of the market.

It makes no economic sense to force those broadcasters (and they're good broadcasters) to continue to drag along the deadweight of aging AM facilities that have no audience and no value, just so someone can sit there and smugly declare "they're keeping up their end of the bargain." The rules don't exist just for the sake of being rules. The root of the FCC's regulatory authority rests in the section 307 "public interest, convenience and necessity" language - and we are very rapidly reaching the point, not just in the US but worldwide, where continuing to force AM operation is no longer in the public interest or necessity.

There will come a point, whether it's a year from now or five, when there's sufficient political and business pressure on the FCC to push through a rule change that allows the service that IS actually serving the "public interest, convenience and necessity," which is the FM translator, to survive without the continued drag of a dead AM as a formality. (And yes, I recognize it may take Congressional action to amend the LCRA in this case - but there's precedent for creating a new primary service out of what had been a secondary service in the form of all those class A LPTVs that were once unprotected secondary TV translators.)

I'll be advocating on behalf of my clients for a rule change like this when the opportunity presents itself, I'll be very interested to see what the counterargument looks like - is there really a constituency outside the message-board-authoritarian community that finds "public interest, convenience and necessity" in the forced expense of maintaining obsolete little AMs that have literally zero audience?

 

[Kelly A]

We - very sensibly - allowed TV broadcasters to abandon the obsolete 1941-vintage analog standard to move to HD digital, because technology advanced and regulation evolved along with it.

But what was the intent of pursuing it? Could it have been to eventually free up sought after spectrum for auction?
I had dinner one NAB with Bill Kennard who indicated that's exactly what the purpose was.
AM spectrum is useless for anything else.

It makes no economic sense to force those broadcasters (and they're good broadcasters) to continue to drag along the deadweight of aging AM facilities that have no audience and no value, just so someone can sit there and smugly declare "they're keeping up their end of the bargain."

So how many years have AM broadcasters seen this coming? Why is it the governments responsibility to pick them up and move them out of the way before being run over by a truck that they had miles of warning about?

 

[fybush]

In the US, yes, the DTV conversion came with a spectrum auction that unlocked a lot of value in the 600 and 700 MHz spectrum. But it would have happened regardless. The entire world converted to either ATSC or some flavor of DVB, whether or not there was an auction involved, because technology advanced and regulations followed suit.

And I think we're simply not going to agree about how regulators work. I don't think it's the government's "responsibility" to do anything in this case. I think it's in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" for regulations to follow marketplace reality, as they have for a century, pushed by broadcasters advocating for rule changes. If the public is still interested in the programming that a broadcaster provides, but not on the dead AM band on a useless facility like a 250-watt daytimer on 1550, it's not the government picking up WCGR and moving it out of the way. It's WCGR's owner seeing the truck coming and taking advantage of rules changes to invest in new FM facilities. For now, that requires carrying the deadweight of the useless AM. Why is it in the government's interest to force that expense if nobody's using that service?

 

[BruceB]

In the US, yes, the DTV conversion came with a spectrum auction that unlocked a lot of value in the 600 and 700 MHz spectrum. But it would have happened regardless. The entire world converted to either ATSC or some flavor of DVB, whether or not there was an auction involved, because technology advanced and regulations followed suit.

And I think we're simply not going to agree about how regulators work. I don't think it's the government's "responsibility" to do anything in this case. I think it's in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" for regulations to follow marketplace reality, as they have for a century, pushed by broadcasters advocating for rule changes. If the public is still interested in the programming that a broadcaster provides, but not on the dead AM band on a useless facility like a 250-watt daytimer on 1550, it's not the government picking up WCGR and moving it out of the way. It's WCGR's owner seeing the truck coming and taking advantage of rules changes to invest in new FM facilities. For now, that requires carrying the deadweight of the useless AM. Why is it in the government's interest to force that expense if nobody's using that service?

I suspect that it's more of a case of the FCC not being fully aware of the problem. I can't believe that they want to force owners of AM stations that are low-powered daytimers or an AM station with a 40-year-old transmitter that needs a major equipment upgrade to stay on the air. If these owners would band together and lobby the FCC and make them aware of the problem, I find it hard to believe that the commission would not allow them to go dark with the AM and keep their translators. What's the
Downside of doing that?
Yes it would require rull changes but so what? That's the point of a regulatory agency, to make changes to improve the service they regulate.

 

[RadioGuy1864]

It opens up a "can of worms" Let's take our friend Buddy as an example. He has 3 translators for WECK. 1 bound AM "re-vitalization" translator and 2 translators that were separately acquired. So does he get to originate 3 stations? 2 stations ? or do all 3 translators have to broadcast the same programming? Maybe the answer lies in the FCC permitting any type of AM signal being broadcast via renewing STA's just to keep the AM license active. Just a long-wire or some other type of low budget transmitting so that technically the AM still exists?