• 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

WTKM POLKA PROGRAMMING

A translator generally has to exist within the station’s existing coverage to “fill in” any coverage gaps (i.e., blocked reception by mountains, river valleys, etc.). This concept has been extended to include the re-broadcast of HD sub-channels and AM signals using the same logic: the translator fills in coverage that within an existing coverage area, thereby making it easier to listen to the origin station.

A translator can only exist outside of a station’s existing coverage area if it belongs to a non-profit broadcaster. Enter religious broadcasting. And some creative public radio organizations (i.e., Minnesota Public Radio).

In either case, the audio source of a translator can be anything: satellite feed, internet feed, microwave transmission, etc.. It is very rare these days for an audio source to literally re-broadcast the origin’s FM signal, but it certainly still exists in some markets.

Back to the original post - WTKM is applying to move their FM translator to the antenna farm off Capitol in Milwaukee. This would put the translator on the very most outer portion of WTKM’s protected contour. But, I think it just makes the cut, so it should move forward.
 
amos1001 said:
Help me understand this, Paul. If you wanted a translator in Cheyenne it would have to be fed over the air. BUT what if there's no over-the-air reception (with full FM queting, anything less wouldn't be desirable) at the translator's transmitter?
Click to expand...
the. you can’t use the translator
 
A few notes on the history of FM translators. They've existed for barely 50 years, having started only in the 1970s.

They were originally limited to 10 watts (and only 1 watt east of the Mississippi), and were meant mainly to extend FM service into remote areas and small towns that didn't have any FM yet.

They could be commercial or non-commercial, and they were initially non-fill-in - which also matters because of something Paul didn't mention: a commercial non-fill-in translator that extends beyond the primary station's contour can NOT be owned, controlled or supported by the primary station's owner.

So even if KLMI wanted to be on a translator in Cheyenne, someone else would have to license the translator and pay for its expenses. And it would be limited to 10 watts.

In the rural West, that was often local translator associations, which might run an FM translator in addition to their TV signals. In Utah, KSL-FM (now KSFI) extended its signal across the state this way, daisy chaining from one translator to another.

In recent years the rules have changed a lot, opening the way for non-commercial translators to be fed by satellite, for FM stations to operate their own fill-in translators at up to 250 watts, to feed those signals with HD subchannels, and of course now to allow AM stations to be heard on FM translators.
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
translators in the commercial band, regardless of who owns them have to be fed over the air if they arent a fill in for whatever signal theyre rebrtoadcasting. if they are fill in, they can be fed any way...... and the translator must have an originating source am, fm or hd2/3.
Click to expand...

Non-commercial translators in the commercial band can still be naked in the sense that the company that owns the main station can also own the translator. As Scott mentions, that's prohibited for commercial licenses. It has to feed the translator off-air and has to follow height and power restrictions if it's not a fill-in translator, but operating a non-fill-in translator is much easier for non-commercial entities.
 
Kent said:
Non-commercial translators in the commercial band can still be naked in the sense that the company that owns the main station can also own the translator. As Scott mentions, that's prohibited for commercial licenses. It has to feed the translator off-air and has to follow height and power restrictions if it's not a fill-in translator, but operating a non-fill-in translator is much easier for non-commercial entities.
Click to expand...

Though theres plenty of examples ive seen over the years where a commercial band translator outside the 60 dbu is owned by someone connected to the station its rebroadcasting.. but the ownership is legally seperate as the person who owns the translator doesnt have any ownership stake in the full power but works thre.

There was at leastrone translator i knew of in Wisconsin owned by an engineer that was rebroadcasting a station the engineer worked for but didnt own
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
Though theres plenty of examples ive seen over the years where a commercial band translator outside the 60 dbu is owned by someone connected to the station its rebroadcasting.. but the ownership is legally seperate as the person who owns the translator doesnt have any ownership stake in the full power but works thre.

There was at leastrone translator i knew of in Wisconsin owned by an engineer that was rebroadcasting a station the engineer worked for but didnt own
Click to expand...
I bet his salary got bigger right after the translator started rebroadcasting his employer's station on "his" translator. That is real job security:

"Fire me and the translator goes with me."
 
secondchoice said:
I bet his salary got bigger right after the translator started rebroadcasting his employer's station on "his" translator. That is real job security:

"Fire me and the translator goes with me."
Click to expand...

Nope, at the time, that would havce, by the spirit of the law, not been legal. And knowing who the engineer is, he wouldve NEVER Said something like that... not that kinda guy
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
Nope, at the time, that would havce, by the spirit of the law, not been legal. And knowing who the engineer is, he wouldve NEVER Said something like that... not that kinda guy
Click to expand...
He is a nicer person than I am. Running a translator is not cheap. You have insurance, power bill, tower costs, FCC filings and engineering costs plus recouping of equipment costs.

Do they still have the 60 sec breakaway an hour for the translator owner to cover the costs?
 


Back
Top Bottom