Does anyone know when the next open window for filing new FM translator applications will be?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Next Great Translator Invasion
- Thread starter Engineering
- Start date
Sounds fun! We need some more super translators at the wells Fargo building.
Astros2023
Banned
I see no vacant channels on the FM Dial in the Houston Metro Area.
I would apply for 105.3 and 104.5 since translators are not protected. maybe in katy
102.5 is quite open!
But it would be nice if the illegal translators got taken away from the current operators and given to people who would keep them legal.
It won't be for another year or so after the LPFM window
hey @ContinuousWave maybe you can use a translator with the 1300 when you get it back.
0
011nerve
Guest
With 2000 watts?
I heard 10 years ago one of them was running 1000 watts into a 4 bay antenna, K272EK... Hope they're not doing that now.
In San Antonio?
I would be more than satisfied if they were taken away from the current owners and used for the purpose intended, rather than profit centers being leased to the highest bidder, and fed from HD subcarriers on the same band, which is a waste of spectrum. If abuses such as this were eliminated, there would be no incentive to have overpowered translators licensed to bogus religious organizations.
0
011nerve
Guest
Yes. They were apparently working with a shady engineer according to my info source.
It may be a few years before the next window for new FM translators. REC Networks has filed a Petition for Rulemaking which has been designated as RM-11952 in order to create policies for upcoming FM translator filing windows that address the abuses that took place in the 2003 Auction 83 window. It also calls for the next filing window for new translators to be in the 88.1~91.9 reserved band, which has not had a filing window since the point system was put into place over 20 years ago. REC will oppose the opening of any FM translator filing windows until the FCC addresses RM-11952.
Absent any well-needed reforms to the FM translators rules and FCC policies, the same staff that handles FM translator filing windows also handle other filing windows, such as the LPFM filing window that is about to start. The amount of time it will take for the FCC to complete the post-window activities for LPFM will depend on the number of applications filed and more importantly, the number of groups of mutually exclusive applications. In the 2013 Generation 2 LPFM Window, there were over 400 groups of MX applications, which was divided into three settlement windows. It took the FCC about a year and a half to get through these settlement windows. There were challenges to the FCC's decisions that were handled until just over 4 years after the close of the window.
Also, for commercial facilities where auctions are utilized, the FCC currently does not have the authority to hold auctions due to a lapse caused by Congress. Even if there was no LPFM window coming up, there can't be any commercial translator windows until Congress reinstates the FCC's auction authority.
Absent any well-needed reforms to the FM translators rules and FCC policies, the same staff that handles FM translator filing windows also handle other filing windows, such as the LPFM filing window that is about to start. The amount of time it will take for the FCC to complete the post-window activities for LPFM will depend on the number of applications filed and more importantly, the number of groups of mutually exclusive applications. In the 2013 Generation 2 LPFM Window, there were over 400 groups of MX applications, which was divided into three settlement windows. It took the FCC about a year and a half to get through these settlement windows. There were challenges to the FCC's decisions that were handled until just over 4 years after the close of the window.
Also, for commercial facilities where auctions are utilized, the FCC currently does not have the authority to hold auctions due to a lapse caused by Congress. Even if there was no LPFM window coming up, there can't be any commercial translator windows until Congress reinstates the FCC's auction authority.
0
011nerve
Guest
I wouldn't push another filing window unless the FM band is expanded. So many major cities have all channels used up.
It would seem the FM band in Houston is full, but I expect there will be future attempts to shoehorn additional translators with ridiculously directional patterns at various locations.
The expanded FM band ship has probably sailed, and the time to have started planning for that was 30 years ago to add 76-88 MHz for AM transitions, signal upgrades as well as a few new stations. The switchover could have been coordinated with televisionās digital transition. Missed opportunity.
SEEMS A BIT UNFAIR when some AM's need urgently the help a translator would provide, and you would be holding this back.
AM stations had THREE opportunities to get translators just a few years ago. Also, if you read the petition for rulemaking, you will see what REC's positions are.
Application caps are intended to prevent large filers such as we saw in 2003. This will encourage more smaller owners who only need one or two translators to apply in the window and increase their chances of a grant. Which means more translators going to AM broadcasters and less going to EMF and speculators in Twin Falls, ID. The average AM broadcaster is not going to need 51 translators in a filing window.
When determining spectrum disparity in urban areas to determine spectrum limited vs. spectrum available markets, FM translators being used to carry AM stations are weighed in a manner that will favor towards the assignment of translators over channel points in markets grid areas that have been identified as spectrum available based on disparity factor (footprint of LPFMs + LPFM opportunities vs. footprint of translator coverage).
Astros2023
Banned
Unfair? I call it inability to pivot quickly. AM radio owners were skeptical about the potential FM Transalators had. AM Radio owners couldnāt see past its previous success to see the change on the horizon and then once it did it was too slow to react.
Some of the big group owners had no vision and didn't apply for translators in markets that they deemed undesirable. They shot themselves in the foot for when they want to sell those "undesirable" AMs off, as the value of a station without a translator is small. Sometimes, it's the better AM facilities too, without translators, due to all the translator frequencies being gone by their time to apply. Better AM facilities should be preserved, otherwise, you have a bunch of high dial, high NIF, often Class Ds with minuscule night service getting the translators at the better facilities expense.
Last edited:
Itās one case where 250 watts is more valuable than 10000 watts
- Status