A petition has been filed with the FCC to permit translators to originate programming.
Translators were designed to filll in 'holes' where a radio signal would not reach because the terrain blocked the signal. Around 1980 the FCC was asked to change those rules. It seemed like a good idea. For example, Christian ministries could put up a translator in a spot with no local Christian radio service or the state university could put up a translator here or there to reach more of their state. The result was a mess...thousands and thousands of translators rebroadcasting distant non-local signals.
I believe translators should be allowed to originate programming. At least it should be encouraged. Why waste spectrum with programming that is on the air because the area might have a big financial contributor living there?
We have already seen relief for some AM daytime only stations, now allowed to operate translators. They certainly originate programming. (I think the first was the AM station in the Nashville area that was being beat up at night by a Cuban station that received a translator that could operate from sunset to sunrise...something that happened years ago).
If traslators could opt for local programming who would win? The answer is varied: Translator owners could see a cash windfall selling underperforming stations. Local communities without local radio could have a local station. There would undoubtedly be many who would change from one flavor of satellite Christian programming to another, but some would really get local radio for their towns, albeit an upgraded version of LPFM. The FCC's mandate would be furthered. (Have you ever noticed how many rural areas have numerous distant non-local, especially Christian and NPR translators but no local radio service because it is not economically viable? Would this change if translators could do local programming?)
So much must be determined. Can a translator on a commercial FM frequency operated by a non-profit be allowed to become commercial? If no, why? If yes, why? What are the benefits of either choice.
Next, the question is whether the translators, if allowed to convert to local programming could be commercial stations. Why not? Why should they remain non-commercial? Where does your thinking stand in regard to for profit AM stations having commercial translators? If they can be commercial, then why not locally programmed translators?
Next, can a non-commercial, non-profit owned translator on a frequency between 92 and 108 FM sell to an AM station and that AM station be permitted to operate as a commercial radio service on this translator? Maybe a lawyer or industry watchdog will know if this has happened already. Must that non-commercial translator remain non-commercial and non-profit? If so why? If not, why not? Have you considered cases where non-profit non-commercial FM station in the commercial band sold to commercial broadcasters who converted the frequency to a for profit, commercial status? It has been done. As this is the case, why not with transators?
If translators can convert to local programming and are still restricted to 30 seconds an hour to acknowledge contributors, should we not have these specifics modified to benefit each sort of community? Let me explain. If a station operates 24/7/365, it can by current rules, take 30 seconds an hour for funding. This is 12 minutes a day or 4,380 minutes a year. Why not rewrite the rules by making the sentence say "an annual total not to exceed 30 seconds for each broadcast hour". In other words, you can run a maximum of 4,380 minutes a year if you're on the air 24/7/365. If you are a seasonal town that's dead between Labor Day and Memorial Day, you could run those announcements mostly during those months the town derives almost all of its income. Supporters want a benefit. Do not kid yourself. A bank that paid for a town's cheerleaders to go to Florida to compete in a national competition wrote the check because of the financial gains it would receive by the goodwill gesture...they saw a benefit! As a result, the kindly dentist that supports the local translator wants to be acknowledged when his office is open, not at 3 in the morning or Sunday afternoon. He wants the added benefit in addition to his charity, if he can get it.
My personal opinion is we spend too much time trying to break the legs of some radio services before it begins. The arguments are always about change not economic realities facing stations. Sometimes these aguments win and service is blown out the door as the operator spends all their time trying to find creative legal ways to raise funding versus worrying about how they can serve the community better. In almost every case, service suffers as those grand plans remain financially impossible. I remember when a Hershey bar was a dime...guess what, times have changed. Get used to it. Many times people think if you do something very well you should not ever be allowed to be compesated for your good job. Maybe you should take half pay for your hard work at your 9 to 5 job. Should a station be destined to utter poverty for providing a quality service? Not everybody is greedy. If I work hard to serve my community should I be relegated to living in a travel trailer and eating Ramen noodles the rest of my life or might I have a home as nice as yours and be able to take the wife out for a steak dinner here or there, or afford health insurance or a reliable car? Why am I evil for just wanting an a-typical lifestyle if I am heading a non-profit radio station? Would you pay that price? If you wouldn't, why force it on those in the business with an inner desire to serve their communities via radio?
Some will argue a non-commercial translator in the commercial band should stay non-commercial even if it is allowed to originate programming. Some will say the 30 seconds an hour rule should remain. I can understand the point but I ask you what is the motivation to create costs when compensation could be the same by not originating local programming? If you can 'sell' 30 seconds an hour hooked up to satellite, why bother doing anything else? How could you pay for the play by play guys doing high school sports or cover the cost of remote equipment to air school board and city council meetings or cover community events if you cannot increase your funding? Why would you even try when your revenue potential (quantity) remains the same? Would it not be more logical to spend all your time trying to find funding after you get off from your 9 to 5 job. And anyway, if you have to work fulltime to afford to have a translator, why bother? Why put yourself through that? But, if you might be able to make an average living, fulfill your inner needs and provide a service to the community and not spend every minute trying to manipulate incredibly restrictive rules to find a way to fund it all, what could a locally programmed translator become to a community? Could it become a place for local news, emergency information, slices of life in the community and a force for economic vitality for an area where the Mom and Pop business is threatened? I think it could, but please don't break my legs and tell me to walk and expect me to run a marathon. What would be so bad about a commercial if the community got a local radio service? Is the commercial so evil and distasteful that you'd rather sacrifice local radio service by tossing it out with the baby and the bath water? If you think so, I challege you to answer if you were ever in radio and specifically if you ever had to make a budget at any of those radio stations and meet it. If you have and had to be face to face with the business community, I accept your opinion as legitimate, otherwise I must assume your opinion comes without such experience. I can say a few communities are cohesive enough to make a non-profit, non-commercial station work, but in most places that is not the case unless the entity has decades of service and contributions behind them. For the most part a community must be taught to function this way and the learning curve is typically much longer than the financial resources extend.
I think now is the time for action on this. Poor economic times mean many non-profits will want to trim poorly producing holdings. I think it should be easy for the FCC to justify since it jives with their mandate and this comes on the heels of allowing AM translators. I even think the idea of a non-profit non-comm translator in the commercial band being allowed to become commercial is a no-brainer as the FCC has allowed the sale of full power non-commercial FMs in the commercial band to transfer to for profit companies and become commercial frequencies.
I close my book now and await your responses, looking to learn and be enlightened.
Translators were designed to filll in 'holes' where a radio signal would not reach because the terrain blocked the signal. Around 1980 the FCC was asked to change those rules. It seemed like a good idea. For example, Christian ministries could put up a translator in a spot with no local Christian radio service or the state university could put up a translator here or there to reach more of their state. The result was a mess...thousands and thousands of translators rebroadcasting distant non-local signals.
I believe translators should be allowed to originate programming. At least it should be encouraged. Why waste spectrum with programming that is on the air because the area might have a big financial contributor living there?
We have already seen relief for some AM daytime only stations, now allowed to operate translators. They certainly originate programming. (I think the first was the AM station in the Nashville area that was being beat up at night by a Cuban station that received a translator that could operate from sunset to sunrise...something that happened years ago).
If traslators could opt for local programming who would win? The answer is varied: Translator owners could see a cash windfall selling underperforming stations. Local communities without local radio could have a local station. There would undoubtedly be many who would change from one flavor of satellite Christian programming to another, but some would really get local radio for their towns, albeit an upgraded version of LPFM. The FCC's mandate would be furthered. (Have you ever noticed how many rural areas have numerous distant non-local, especially Christian and NPR translators but no local radio service because it is not economically viable? Would this change if translators could do local programming?)
So much must be determined. Can a translator on a commercial FM frequency operated by a non-profit be allowed to become commercial? If no, why? If yes, why? What are the benefits of either choice.
Next, the question is whether the translators, if allowed to convert to local programming could be commercial stations. Why not? Why should they remain non-commercial? Where does your thinking stand in regard to for profit AM stations having commercial translators? If they can be commercial, then why not locally programmed translators?
Next, can a non-commercial, non-profit owned translator on a frequency between 92 and 108 FM sell to an AM station and that AM station be permitted to operate as a commercial radio service on this translator? Maybe a lawyer or industry watchdog will know if this has happened already. Must that non-commercial translator remain non-commercial and non-profit? If so why? If not, why not? Have you considered cases where non-profit non-commercial FM station in the commercial band sold to commercial broadcasters who converted the frequency to a for profit, commercial status? It has been done. As this is the case, why not with transators?
If translators can convert to local programming and are still restricted to 30 seconds an hour to acknowledge contributors, should we not have these specifics modified to benefit each sort of community? Let me explain. If a station operates 24/7/365, it can by current rules, take 30 seconds an hour for funding. This is 12 minutes a day or 4,380 minutes a year. Why not rewrite the rules by making the sentence say "an annual total not to exceed 30 seconds for each broadcast hour". In other words, you can run a maximum of 4,380 minutes a year if you're on the air 24/7/365. If you are a seasonal town that's dead between Labor Day and Memorial Day, you could run those announcements mostly during those months the town derives almost all of its income. Supporters want a benefit. Do not kid yourself. A bank that paid for a town's cheerleaders to go to Florida to compete in a national competition wrote the check because of the financial gains it would receive by the goodwill gesture...they saw a benefit! As a result, the kindly dentist that supports the local translator wants to be acknowledged when his office is open, not at 3 in the morning or Sunday afternoon. He wants the added benefit in addition to his charity, if he can get it.
My personal opinion is we spend too much time trying to break the legs of some radio services before it begins. The arguments are always about change not economic realities facing stations. Sometimes these aguments win and service is blown out the door as the operator spends all their time trying to find creative legal ways to raise funding versus worrying about how they can serve the community better. In almost every case, service suffers as those grand plans remain financially impossible. I remember when a Hershey bar was a dime...guess what, times have changed. Get used to it. Many times people think if you do something very well you should not ever be allowed to be compesated for your good job. Maybe you should take half pay for your hard work at your 9 to 5 job. Should a station be destined to utter poverty for providing a quality service? Not everybody is greedy. If I work hard to serve my community should I be relegated to living in a travel trailer and eating Ramen noodles the rest of my life or might I have a home as nice as yours and be able to take the wife out for a steak dinner here or there, or afford health insurance or a reliable car? Why am I evil for just wanting an a-typical lifestyle if I am heading a non-profit radio station? Would you pay that price? If you wouldn't, why force it on those in the business with an inner desire to serve their communities via radio?
Some will argue a non-commercial translator in the commercial band should stay non-commercial even if it is allowed to originate programming. Some will say the 30 seconds an hour rule should remain. I can understand the point but I ask you what is the motivation to create costs when compensation could be the same by not originating local programming? If you can 'sell' 30 seconds an hour hooked up to satellite, why bother doing anything else? How could you pay for the play by play guys doing high school sports or cover the cost of remote equipment to air school board and city council meetings or cover community events if you cannot increase your funding? Why would you even try when your revenue potential (quantity) remains the same? Would it not be more logical to spend all your time trying to find funding after you get off from your 9 to 5 job. And anyway, if you have to work fulltime to afford to have a translator, why bother? Why put yourself through that? But, if you might be able to make an average living, fulfill your inner needs and provide a service to the community and not spend every minute trying to manipulate incredibly restrictive rules to find a way to fund it all, what could a locally programmed translator become to a community? Could it become a place for local news, emergency information, slices of life in the community and a force for economic vitality for an area where the Mom and Pop business is threatened? I think it could, but please don't break my legs and tell me to walk and expect me to run a marathon. What would be so bad about a commercial if the community got a local radio service? Is the commercial so evil and distasteful that you'd rather sacrifice local radio service by tossing it out with the baby and the bath water? If you think so, I challege you to answer if you were ever in radio and specifically if you ever had to make a budget at any of those radio stations and meet it. If you have and had to be face to face with the business community, I accept your opinion as legitimate, otherwise I must assume your opinion comes without such experience. I can say a few communities are cohesive enough to make a non-profit, non-commercial station work, but in most places that is not the case unless the entity has decades of service and contributions behind them. For the most part a community must be taught to function this way and the learning curve is typically much longer than the financial resources extend.
I think now is the time for action on this. Poor economic times mean many non-profits will want to trim poorly producing holdings. I think it should be easy for the FCC to justify since it jives with their mandate and this comes on the heels of allowing AM translators. I even think the idea of a non-profit non-comm translator in the commercial band being allowed to become commercial is a no-brainer as the FCC has allowed the sale of full power non-commercial FMs in the commercial band to transfer to for profit companies and become commercial frequencies.
I close my book now and await your responses, looking to learn and be enlightened.
