• 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

Translators

F

Field_strength

As you know, it's common these days for an FM translator to re-broadcast the HD2 or HD3 subchannel (programming other than the main programming feed) of a nearby station.

I'm wondering if anyone as ever heard of a translator being used to rebroadcast the subcarrier audio of an FM station? It would be pretty much the same thing as rebroadcasting an HD subchannel, just using an older, analog technology. Of course, the audio quality wouldn't be great.

Has anyone heard of this being done, or can you think of any reason why it SHOULDN'T be tried?
 
Field_strength said:
Has anyone heard of this being done, or can you think of any reason why it SHOULDN'T be tried?
Click to expand...
I've asked the FCC this question, since I'd like to do it. I was told "absolutely not." The reason given was "HD Radio is a public broadcast intended for general reception." The same person said "SCA Service, by it's nature, is intended for private use, an therefore is not actual "broadcasting." It may not be retransmitted on a translator.

I have taken some liberty with the actual quote, but that is the gist of the situation. I do have copies of the email though. I'm just too lazy to find it.

The bottom line is "don't do it," or work to get the rules changed, which might be a good idea....
 
Besides the obvious that it would sound like crap, the FCC doesn't consider SCA to be "listenable by the general public". You have to buy a special SCA receiver to hear them. It's similar to a TV translator running a cable station in that respect, it's not readily available "over the air" so it doesn't count as a viable source. Honestly, receiving an AM off the air on a translator would probably sound better than using an SCA.

I would LOVE to use FMExtra on a primary with a few translators, but again, so far the FCC doesn't consider that to be "listenable by the general public". HD radio, even though there are few receivers in the hands of non-industry and non-radio geeks, is considered a regular, tunable over the air service. Thus, it's eligible to be translated.
 
Wait! It wouldn't sound like crap. If we could rebroadcast a digital sca like the late great FMExtra which the digital Rules seemed to accept as a digital product.

At the time a Staff member noted this there were more sca radios out than HD radios.

How does Am sound on a translator? Good. Because the service is using alternative delivery.
 
Yeah, I have an AM here that is double hop STL-ing their translators. Even with the audio off the 9100 (there was no budget for an FM processor) sounds halfway decent. For talk, it's not really that noticeable.

It would be pretty much the same thing as rebroadcasting an HD subchannel, just using an older, analog technology. Of course, the audio quality wouldn't be great.
Click to expand...

The original poster was referring to an analog SCA, that would sound like crap. I agree with being able to use FMExtra, I could solve a few clients' problems with that. But FMExtra doesn't have the lobbyists and the NAB in their back pocket like Ibiquity does. So I have a feeling it's going to be a long wait.
 
Chuck said:
I've asked the FCC this question, since I'd like to do it. I was told "absolutely not." The reason given was "HD Radio is a public broadcast intended for general reception." The same person said "SCA Service, by it's nature, is intended for private use, an therefore is not actual "broadcasting." It may not be retransmitted on a translator.

The bottom line is "don't do it," or work to get the rules changed, which might be a good idea....
Click to expand...

I've heard the same line from the FCC.

If anyone here wants to file a rulemaking to get this rule changed, I suggest that you cite the widespread availability of RDS, a data SCA which has been intended for reception by the general public since the '80s. There are probably several times more RDS receivers in regular use today as there are HD receivers.

If broadcasters can offer a 57 kHz RDS data stream for general reception, what's wrong with sending data (i.e. FMXtra) or NBFM voice on 67 kHz, 92 kHz (or another channel in that range) for public use?
 
Field_strength said:
Has anyone heard of this being done, or can you think of any reason why it SHOULDN'T be tried?
Click to expand...

I just want to use my commercial station's translator to rebroadcast my Part 15 station!

How do you think they would feel about that?...

Oh, nevermind... Anything that's REALLY fun is always illegal!
 
Play Freebird said:
If broadcasters can offer a 57 kHz RDS data stream for general reception, what's wrong with sending data (i.e. FMXtra) or NBFM voice on 67 kHz, 92 kHz (or another channel in that range) for public use?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with it, but the FCC does. I specifically asked Jim Bradshaw at the FCC about FMeXtra. At the time, the Aruba receiver was available to the public. The answer was "not only no, but Hell No." Draw your own conclusions.
 
While I didn't mention his name before it seems he got the same question from many persons.
 
ChiefEngineer said:
While I didn't mention his name before it seems he got the same question from many persons.
Click to expand...

I have no bone to pick with anyone. He is just the person who replied to my inquiry. If I had been given a "green light," I would have purchased the FMeXtra equipment. I can think of all kinds of things to do with the technology.
 
Agreed. If you read the ori9ginal digital edict that approved IBOC it was "open" to any digital technology that helped broadcasters. It noted that it encouraged technology that broadcasters could use to serve the public. It would seem this is one of those. Sadly, the digital papers from the FCC are not well read by the FCC.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom