Question about FM translators

[secondchoice]

I forgot about the second auction to all AM clases

 

[BruceB]

There are AM's like WIZE in Springfield, Ohio who failed to file for a translator when the window was open. Now the frequency 97.5 has gone to an LPFM. Whoops. They missed the boat.

For some time WIZE was just repeating the programming of WONE Dayton. Which does not have an FM Translator either.
I can't remember if iHeart owned them during the FM Translator application window or not.

 

[Radio-Bored-Op]

By rule the AM needs to operate within its licensed parameters at all times.

 

[Radio-Bored-Op]

By rule the AM needs to operate within its licensed parameters at all times.

I seem to recall a recent FCC regulation,
to centralize studios and reduce cost.
( In other words, cater to big radio companies )

 

[radiofan2023]

I seem to recall a recent FCC regulation,
to centralize studios and reduce cost.
( In other words, cater to big radio companies )

I think you're talking about the repeal of the main studio rule:

FCC Eliminates Main Studio Rule

The Commission adopts an Order eliminating the rule that requires each AM, FM, and television broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license

www.fcc.gov

 

[secondchoice]

Don't translators just clog up they airwaves and make everything sound worse.

Yes and no. FM receivers tend to "lock in" on the strongest signal. So you could be driving in the "non protected area" of a regular FM station and all of a sudden a translator takes over. In Atlanta there is 100.5 that gets "tropoed" outside of the perimeter at least twice a month by WSSL in the Greenville market. Both are "real" stations. Adjacent channel stations are not good either for reception either. Curvature of the Earth, terrain, tropoducting, the "super fog" on the Gulf Coast, thermal inversions and tall man made structures can mess up reception too. I sure I forgot a few other issues. The DX folks have real experience with weak RF signals. Post over on that part of the site. They will know more.

 

[gr8oldies]

For some time WIZE was just repeating the programming of WONE Dayton. Which does not have an FM Translator either.
I can't remember if iHeart owned them during the FM Translator application window or not.

iHeart owned them at the time of the translator window.

 

[gr8oldies]

Yes and no. FM receivers tend to "lock in" on the strongest signal. So you could be driving in the "non protected area" of a regular FM station and all of a sudden a translator takes over. In Atlanta there is 100.5 that gets "tropoed" outside of the perimeter at least twice a month by WSSL in the Greenville market. Both are "real" stations. Adjacent channel stations are not good either for reception either. Curvature of the Earth, terrain, tropoducting, the "super fog" on the Gulf Coast, thermal inversions and tall man made structures can mess up reception too. I sure I forgot a few other issues. The DX folks have real experience with weak RF signals. Post over on that part of the site. They will know more.

Somebody plopped a translator on 101.5 in Knoxville, TN. Problem is one could drive around Knoxville and hear WQUT from Johnson City in all but the most deaf car radios. No matter how close to the actual translator you were, WQUT would still come through. After a couple of years, the translator was moved.

 

[Kelly A]

Okay, now you are ignoring history, Kelly, by using semantics.

Good Lord dude. Okay, let's go to the dictionary, shall we?

From Merriam Webster:
bid; bidden ˈbi-dᵊn
or bid also bade; bidding
Synonyms of bid
transitive verb : to offer (a price) whether for payment or acceptance
The contractor bid $10,000 less than his nearest competitor.
card games, to make a bid (see bid entry 2 sense 4) of or in (a suit at cards)
bid one spade.


—usually used in the phrase to bid defiance
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.—

: to issue an order to : tell
did as I was bid

So, where exactly did AM broadcasters meet the definition of "bidding" on translator frequencies when they or their representatives filed applications with the Commission for a translator frequency? There was no auction. There were no bids or bidding.

Let me jog your memory:

You don't need to jog my memory. I've probably forgotten more about the process than you've ever known.

I am sure we will all be open to a recanting on your part after you read it.

Recanting what? There is nothing to recant. By definition, there was no bidding on translator frequencies. Your pedantic tone is not appreciated.

Look K.M., just because you disagree with me about my stand on not giving AM broadcasters full-class stations and protections therein, don't take your frustrations out on me for replies to other contributors, which by definition, was correct anyway.
For some reason, I thought you of all people would be able to debate an issue reasonably. Guess I was wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Don't translators just clog up they airwaves and make everything sound worse.

No. In may cases the translators allow good local FM service in areas with no local A, B or C class FM.

In another thread, Fybush makes a real world point about how translators for unsustainable rural market AMs have allowed local service to continue and he has mentioned how translators have provide niche services to markets where a "bad" AM has gotten one and brought a viable format to an unnerved unserved segment.

What needs to happen is for the FCC and Congress to allow AMs to "sunset" themselves out of operation while preserving the translators as a fully licensed and protected lower grade of service.

 

[fybush]

FCC auction 83, complete with bids and bidding:

Auction 83: FM Translator

www.fcc.gov

FCC auction 100, complete with bids and bidding:

Auction 100: AM Revitalization / FM Translators (2nd window)

Auction Filing Window: January 25, 2018 – January 31, 2018

www.fcc.gov

 

[Michi]

What needs to happen is for the FCC and Congress to allow AMs to "sunset" themselves out of operation while preserving the translators as a fully licensed and protected lower grade of service.

That would violate the Local Community Radio Act and Section 307 of the Communications Act regarding fair distribution of services.

The ONLY true solution, which may not be practical in this entitled modern American tech culture, but would be the best way to handle it is to do like Japan and Brazil did, expand the FM band. Thousands of radio broadcasters have a higher public interest being in that spectrum than a handful of TV stations that no one even has antennas for anyway. They only exist down there in order to get cable carriage (which the traditional cable TV industry is dying too...), but then there's WPVI, which suffers from a bad case of "R.J. Fletcher Syndrome". (hint: watch the Weird Al movie "UHF" and listen to the statements that character makes about "UHF" stations and how superior VHF stations are... well, the tables have turned since the analog days...)

 

[K.M. Richards]

That would violate the Local Community Radio Act and Section 307 of the Communications Act regarding fair distribution of services.

Anything that is codified in Federal law can be undone if the political will exists to convince Congress to pass legislation to do so and convince POTUS to sign same.

In my opinion, the technology landscape has been changing so quickly and drastically in recent times that I no longer discount anything from happening if things like the LCRA or 307 are the roadblocks.

 

[davideduardo]

That would violate the Local Community Radio Act and Section 307 of the Communications Act regarding fair distribution of services.

That is why I specified "congressional approval" which can mean anything from a vote to a plebiscite.

The ONLY true solution, which may not be practical in this entitled modern American tech culture, but would be the best way to handle it is to do like Japan and Brazil did, expand the FM band.

And in Brazil it is not working out any too well. Nobody is buying the radios, as nobody there buys radios at all.

Thousands of radio broadcasters have a higher public interest being in that spectrum than a handful of TV stations that no one even has antennas for anyway. They only exist down there in order to get cable carriage (which the traditional cable TV industry is dying too...), but then there's WPVI, which suffers from a bad case of "R.J. Fletcher Syndrome". (hint: watch the Weird Al movie "UHF" and listen to the statements that character makes about "UHF" stations and how superior VHF stations are... well, the tables have turned since the analog days...)

But, with half of all radio listening in cars, you have a 20 year supply of vehicles that turn over at 5% or less a year that don't have that band and, in most cases, can not be programmed now to cover that band.

 

[gr8oldies]

That would violate the Local Community Radio Act and Section 307 of the Communications Act regarding fair distribution of services.

The ONLY true solution, which may not be practical in this entitled modern American tech culture, but would be the best way to handle it is to do like Japan and Brazil did, expand the FM band. Thousands of radio broadcasters have a higher public interest being in that spectrum than a handful of TV stations that no one even has antennas for anyway. They only exist down there in order to get cable carriage (which the traditional cable TV industry is dying too...), but then there's WPVI, which suffers from a bad case of "R.J. Fletcher Syndrome". (hint: watch the Weird Al movie "UHF" and listen to the statements that character makes about "UHF" stations and how superior VHF stations are... well, the tables have turned since the analog days...)

As we've discussed many times, no one is buying radios.

 

[K.M. Richards]

As we've discussed many times, no one is buying radios.

As David said. And at the risk of upsetting Michi, let's look at a closer to home situation.

Does anyone remember when the FCC first authorized AMs between 1610kHz and 1700kHz? It was 1997, and the initial grants were to existing AM stations that were authorized to simulcast on both their old and new frequencies for up to five years, after which one of the two licenses had to be taken silent. The station owners were to decide whether they wanted to keep the new frequency or the original one.

Came 2002 and the plan pretty much fell apart. Consumer acceptance was low ("what do you mean, I need a new radio to listen to my favorite station?") and as a result sales of radios with expanded band capability was sluggish at best. Stations started getting waivers to break the simulcast and keep both frequencies with separate programming, and with one exception (where the X-band station was donated to a minority operator) the FCC has maintained a policy of any such dual station ownership to be kept together. (Very similar to those FM translators tied to their parent AMs, huh?)

Of the 66 stations that received X-band CPs in 1997, 56 were still operating in 2006, according to an accounting by the trade publication Radio World. But that was out of a total of 4,758 licensed AMs at the time. As of 2015, there was a documented total of 25 pairs still actively in operation. 22 of the original 56 unconditionally surrendered their standard band licenses and remained in the Expanded Band; three conditionally surrendered their standard band licenses, and four standard band licenses were canceled. There has also been one unconditional surrender of an Expanded Band authorization and one conditional surrender, and one canceled license.

Those numbers are dismal, and even after more than a quarter of a century, those stations are exponentially outnumbered by AM/translator combinations. Most X-band stations carry ethnic programming, which may be the only incentive for anyone to buy a radio that tunes above 1600.

And Michi thinks we can just repurpose the television channel spectrum below 88MHz, move AMs there in (presumably) a similar such scheme, and everything will work out fine?

Sorry, but I can't foresee it working any better than 1997 did.

 

[K.M. Richards]

At this point, I would like to interject some ironic humor ...

but then there's WPVI, which suffers from a bad case of "R.J. Fletcher Syndrome". (hint: watch the Weird Al movie "UHF" and listen to the statements that character makes about "UHF" stations and how superior VHF stations are...

In that movie (my DVD copy of which has Mr. Yankovic's autograph on it), the UHF station was "channel 62".

Here in L.A., after the spectrum repack, the channel 62 license (KRCA) is channel sharing with KABC on channel 7.

 

[Michi]

Japan's conversion to WIDE-FM was a success because:

1. Broadcast franchise areas span the entire prefecture (which there is only 47) and in smaller prefectures, the franchise areas are multiple prefectures, there are far fewer stations.
2. Retail stores actually sold radios and was very supportive of the change.
3. Japan's equivalent of the NAB (JBA) was very aggressive in their marketing and promotion of WIDE-FM.
4. Because there was fewer television broadcast licensees, Japan, like most of the world except the US, Canada and Mexico completely ditched VHF for digital television thus freeing up a ton of spectrum.
5. Radio in Japan still a higher ratio of local originated speech to music. Because there are fewer stations, they are more well rounded and not narrowcasted into "formats" and on-air personalities (both local and national) still exist.
6. Radio is more live and local and less automated and is in touch with the local community.
7. Radio stations in Japan still promote music and the labels.
8. Spotify has a 24.1% market share in Japan where in the US, it is 30.5%. Still pretty high, but radio remains relevant there.

Yes, the WIDE-FM ship has sailed in the USA, but you can blame decades of regulations, strange interpretations of statutes, media consolidation, an unsupportive NAB because of conflicts of interest (radio and TV) and network O&Os with RJ Fletcher Syndrome. The Brazil model is closer to the American model and that's why we are seeing difficulty in acceptance down there.

Without the acceptance of new hardware for radio by the American consumer, whether it is WIDE-FM or HD Radio, the outlook does not look good for AM. The AM for All Vehicles Act will do nothing to help save AM as long as the "HD loophole" remains in the legislation (automakers can satisfy the law by installing AM radios that only pick up HD broadcasts while still excluding analog stations).

 

[PTBoardOp93]

Without the acceptance of new hardware for radio by the American consumer, whether it is WIDE-FM or HD Radio, the outlook does not look good for AM. The AM for All Vehicles Act will do nothing to help save AM as long as the "HD loophole" remains in the legislation

It will do nothing, because it will never be law.

 

[gr8oldies]

As David said. And at the risk of upsetting Michi, let's look at a closer to home situation.

Does anyone remember when the FCC first authorized AMs between 1610kHz and 1700kHz? It was 1997, and the initial grants were to existing AM stations that were authorized to simulcast on both their old and new frequencies for up to five years, after which one of the two licenses had to be taken silent. The station owners were to decide whether they wanted to keep the new frequency or the original one.

Came 2002 and the plan pretty much fell apart. Consumer acceptance was low ("what do you mean, I need a new radio to listen to my favorite station?") and as a result sales of radios with expanded band capability was sluggish at best. Stations started getting waivers to break the simulcast and keep both frequencies with separate programming, and with one exception (where the X-band station was donated to a minority operator) the FCC has maintained a policy of any such dual station ownership to be kept together. (Very similar to those FM translators tied to their parent AMs, huh?)

Of the 66 stations that received X-band CPs in 1997, 56 were still operating in 2006, according to an accounting by the trade publication Radio World. But that was out of a total of 4,758 licensed AMs at the time. As of 2015, there was a documented total of 25 pairs still actively in operation. 22 of the original 56 unconditionally surrendered their standard band licenses and remained in the Expanded Band; three conditionally surrendered their standard band licenses, and four standard band licenses were canceled. There has also been one unconditional surrender of an Expanded Band authorization and one conditional surrender, and one canceled license.

Those numbers are dismal, and even after more than a quarter of a century, those stations are exponentially outnumbered by AM/translator combinations. Most X-band stations carry ethnic programming, which may be the only incentive for anyone to buy a radio that tunes above 1600.

And Michi thinks we can just repurpose the television channel spectrum below 88MHz, move AMs there in (presumably) a similar such scheme, and everything will work out fine?

Sorry, but I can't foresee it working any better than 1997 did.

The only X-band success story I can think of is KCJJ, which is the exception that proves the rule.