FCC proposing to alllow AM stations to use FM translators

[Force Commander]

The FCC is looking for comments on how to implement changes in the translator rules to allow AM stations to use FM translators. It now looks like this will happen. While this is great news for AM stations the devil sometimes can be in the details. I am impressed that the FCC appears to be asking many questions and wishes broadcasters to comment on a variety of ways this can be put in place. Below is the FCC rule making filing.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attach match/FCC-07-144A1.pdf

Make sure you thoroughly read the entire text as the FCC is asking many questions for comments. I encourage you to provide comment, but try to answer all the questions. It is not often that the FCC looks to the broadcasters themselves to help shape their own future.

Links to a few articles on the subject.

http://www.rwonline.com/pages/s.0100/t.7936. html

http://radiomagonline.com/news/fcc-issues0np rm-translators/

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topi c=78668.msg581188

Lastly a group fighting for AM stations.

www.amdaytimers.org

[Hoosier Daddy]

The FCC is looking for comments on how to implement changes in the translator rules to allow AM stations to use FM translators. It now looks like this will happen.

No shit, Sherlock. Where have you been the last five years.

It is not often that the FCC looks to the broadcasters themselves to help shape their own future.

Now that's funny!

Please ... stop now ... I'm ... laughing ... so hard ... my ... my ... sides ... my sides ... are hurting ...



The FCC handed over control of the public airwaves 10 years ago to the Merry Band of Bastards at the NAB. Incumbent radio and TV station owners have written their own rules and laws for over a decade now, everyone else be damned.

[Force Commander]

The FCC is looking for comments on how to implement changes in the translator rules to allow AM stations to use FM translators. It now looks like this will happen.

No shit, Sherlock. Where have you been the last five years.

Not that I want to start a flame war but the NAB proposal on this just came out last year and that is the proposal the FCC is considering.

http://www.amdaytimers.org/NAB_RM11338.pdf

Other past petitions have been denied. This is the first time the FCC has EVER decided to move forward. Please correct me if you know otherwise.

It is not often that the FCC looks to the broadcasters themselves to help shape their own future.

Now that's funny!

Please ... stop now ... I'm ... laughing ... so hard ... my ... my ... sides ... my sides ... are hurting ...



I admit your ridicule here is justified. What I was trying to say is that with them asking us for comment at this level it is certainly worth a try to jump in and hopefully make a difference.

The FCC handed over control of the public airwaves 10 years ago to the Merry Band of Bastards at the NAB. Incumbent radio and TV station owners have written their own rules and laws for over a decade now, everyone else be damned.

Are you against this proposal? If so why? If (and I do mean if) there is sufficent bandwidth in your area what is the harm to try to help some of the smaller struggling AM's. Most likely this will only be in place in small and medium markets because of FM congestion in the larger markets. Please share you thoughts.

As far as "No shit, Sherlock." "the Merry Band of Bastards at the NAB" what was the point of that? I don't feel anymore intelligent about this post after reading your colorful wording.

[Hoosier Daddy]

As far as "No shit, Sherlock." "the Merry Band of Bastards at the NAB" what was the point of that? I don't feel anymore intelligent about this post after reading your colorful wording.

You know how I feel about it.

[Force Commander]

If you wouldn't mind, please explain why. I can't see a negative about allowing this at least as the NAB proposed to go through. I am aware the reasons they submitted this appears not so much to help AM's as it is to appease the FCC to help stations owned by women and minorities (majority of which are AM's) increase in value. But in the end if it helps AM and doesn't hurt FM I can't see the objection. I really would like to know why you are against this proposal. Maybe you see something that I currently do not.

"Translators are a Pox on the FM radio dial." That line on your signature might explain your concerns in a general sense. Are you mad about the non-comms and their cramming the FM band with junk broadcast from hundreds of miles away, or something else?

[Hoosier Daddy]

I take it from your post you are an existing broadcaster, probably with an AM station (or several) that would benefit from this ruling.

My biggest problem with the whole translator issue is the way the FCC handled the Low Power FM issue a number of years ago. The FCC gave huge overriding concessions to the NAB's complaints about LPFM -- and most of the NAB's arguments were technically flawed to the point of being an outright lie.

One of the most obvious examples of doublespeak involves translators. The NAB screams bloody murder about 10 and 100 watt LPFM stations even existing, then they want expanded abilities to secure FM translators with weakened adjacent channel protections!

And, of course, the FCC delivered.

Look at March 17, 2003 -- the day of the "Great Translator Invasion". After neutering LPFM to a non-commercial service with 3rd adjacent channel protection requirements DEMANDED by the NAB, and after opening only one group of LPFM filing windows in 2001 (which, six years later, has still not been fully completed), the FCC opens a window to commercial applicants RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LPFM CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCESS, licensing thousands of FM translators and effectively closing hundreds of "holes" where LPFM stations could have existed.

Many applications were filed by the religious translator mills, and many more were filed by incumbent broadcasters hoping to lock up their markets by owning an FM Translator Construction Permit they never intended to use.

Coincidence? Not on your life.

So, what you have is ...

1. A low power FM movement crippled by being a non-commercial service, making it much more difficult to make money, hire a small staff, purchase or pay off debt on equipment, or do anything else related to running a small business and turning a profit. All done at the request of the NAB when they couldn't kill LPFM outright.

2. A low power FM service forced to live with 3rd adjacent restrictions intented for full power broadcast outlets. This effectively eliminated the possibility of licensing LPFM stations in or near larger markets where even a non-commercial operation could have been a financial success. Now, here's something interesting about those restrictions: They don't apply to translators. At Tower Site "A", you can't license a 100 watt LPFM station but you can license a 100 watt translator on the same frequency. What the fuck? You can thank the NAB for that one too.

3. An intentional "dragging of the feet" on LPFM licensing by the FCC. The FCC began issuing Construction Permits in 2001. In August 2007, they're still still not done closing that first LPFM application window. The intention is to "freeze out" as many LPFM applicants as possible. In the neanwhile, thousands of FM translator apps have been granted, many in places where LPFM was prohibited. Huntington WV is a perfect example of this.

Now they want to hand out FM translator licenses to AM daytimers. The same NAB that screamed bloody murder about LPFM causing "interference" and "clutter" now offers robust support to FM translators that will do essentially the same thing as an LPFM station would do.

Of course, the AM daytimers are part of the "club" ... so they're OK.

For the record, I am not an LPFM licensee nor did I ever file an application. I always wanted to own a radio station like several of the owners I had worked for in my 10+ years of fulltime broadcasting, and I was very interested when the discussion started about creating a Low Power FM radio service.

There are LPFM assignments available in my immediate area if the FCC would ever open another filing window, which appears unlikely. I did consider building a station when the LPFM movement began, but, after watching everything that happened, I realized the only way it would work is if I ran the station 24/7 as a hobby on a voluntary basis and had no employees. That's frightening and crazy and not at all what I wanted.

Watching the whole thing unfold taught me some valuable lessons about our government, money, power, and how the wealthy play their under the table games to keep (and build on) what they have. It was utterly sickening.

Don't believe for a minute that the FCC represents the public interest. LPFM generated more public input supporting the creation of the service than any other FCC proposal to date. The Federal Communications Commission the lackey of the NAB, Motorola, the cell phone companies, the telcos, Cable TV conglomerates, and other multi-Billion dollar business enterprises. The National Association of Broadcasters is nothing more than the mafia-like bully and protector of incumbent broadcasters.

Does this help clarify my position?

[Arp2]

Good grief, HD! What kind of way is that to welcome a new poster to the board?? Geez!

Uh....welcome, Force Commander. You'll get used to HD if you stick around long enough. He's a guy who voluntarily lives in a small and economically-shrinking area and then gripes that there aren't umpteen stations he can pick up which are all catering to his every wish. That being the case, he's taken up a position advocating some sort of government control over the programming of all existing stations and the addition of whatever number of government-owned or -sanctioned stations it would take in every region to give him the "bow down before our unions and government officials or suffer their wrath" talk and miscellaneous music mixes that strike his fancy. He stews in anger and explodes like this on a somewhat regular basis. We're sorry.

That disclaimer being made, though, in welcoming you to the board, I'd like to suggest that you learn how the "quote" button(s) work (the replying-within-a-quote thing is awful hard to follow, especially as things progress...which they probably will) and that you watch for breaks and spaces in links you wish to post (almost all of the above are broken).

But, for the record, while I'm not against translators on the whole, I'm against such new clutter on the FM dial. If you buy an AM daytimer, you get an AM daytimer. It shouldn't then come as any surprise that you're an AM and a daytimer and are not on FM and go off when it's not daytime.

[Force Commander]

I take it from your post you are an existing broadcaster, probably with an AM station (or several) that would benefit from this ruling.

Correct, I currently manage 3 AM and am exploring ownership.

My biggest problem with the whole translator issue is the way the FCC handled the Low Power FM issue a number of years ago. The FCC gave huge overriding concessions to the NAB's complaints about LPFM -- and most of the NAB's arguments were technically flawed to the point of being an outright lie.

True again.

One of the most obvious examples of doublespeak involves translators. The NAB screams bloody murder about 10 and 100 watt LPFM stations even existing, then they want expanded abilities to secure FM translators with weakened adjacent channel protections!

And, of course, the FCC delivered.

Right again.

Look at March 17, 2003 -- the day of the "Great Translator Invasion". After neutering LPFM to a non-commercial service with 3rd adjacent channel protection requirements DEMANDED by the NAB, and after opening only one group of LPFM filing windows in 2001 (which, six years later, has still not been fully completed), the FCC opens a window to commercial applicants RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LPFM CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCESS, licensing thousands of FM translators and effectively closing hundreds of "holes" where LPFM stations could have existed.

Many applications were filed by the religious translator mills, and many more were filed by incumbent broadcasters hoping to lock up their markets by owning an FM Translator Construction Permit they never intended to use.

Coincidence? Not on your life.

What happened in the Great Translator Invasion was (and still is) the biggest travesty to ever grace the broadcast industry.

So, what you have is ...

1. A low power FM movement crippled by being a non-commercial service, making it much more difficult to make money, hire a small staff, purchase or pay off debt on equipment, or do anything else related to running a small business and turning a profit. All done at the request of the NAB when they couldn't kill LPFM outright.

True, but this is a great opportunity for the LPFM movement to jump in and comment on this since they are affected greatly. If you have read the discussion (including what the FCC themselves say in the rule making inquiry) comments, you see many LPFM interest have discussed how both AM and LPFM can work together to stop the out of market translator polifiration. I know you feeling with the FCC and share most of them myself. However what can it hurt to try to make this better now? Including making LPFM commercial and allowing 1,000 watts where it can fit as originally proposed.

2. A low power FM service forced to live with 3rd adjacent restrictions intended for full power broadcast outlets. This effectively eliminated the possibility of licensing LPFM stations in or near larger markets where even a non-commercial operation could have been a financial success. Now, here's something interesting about those restrictions: They don't apply to translators. At Tower Site "A", you can't license a 100 watt LPFM station but you can license a 100 watt translator on the same frequency. What the fuck? You can thank the NAB for that one too.

Correct again

3. An intentional "dragging of the feet" on LPFM licensing by the FCC. The FCC began issuing Construction Permits in 2001. In August 2007, they're still still not done closing that first LPFM application window. The intention is to "freeze out" as many LPFM applicants as possible. In the meanwhile, thousands of FM translator apps have been granted, many in places where LPFM was prohibited. Huntington WV is a perfect example of this.

I am glad your saying it. I don't think most broadcasters who are being honest will argue these positions, I sure don't.

Now they want to hand out FM translator licenses to AM daytimers. The same NAB that screamed bloody murder about LPFM causing "interference" and "clutter" now offers robust support to FM translators that will do essentially the same thing as an LPFM station would do.

Of course, the AM daytimers are part of the "club" ... so they're OK.

They are being hypocrites, as I earlier mentioned. However these AM's are (in some cases) in desperate shape. We have to make sure stations in smaller markets can still exist. I am convinced a new owner can only get started with a small non-rated AM. It is the only station that can still be purchased without breaking the bank (well kind of). We of course should also fix the LPFM situation for certain, I say at the same time. It would be a much smoother transition for all of us.

For the record, I am not an LPFM licensee nor did I ever file an application. I always wanted to own a radio station like several of the owners I had worked for in my 10+ years of fulltime broadcasting, and I was very interested when the discussion started about creating a Low Power FM radio service.

Still interested? AM is the way to start, let's talk my friend!

There are LPFM assignments available in my immediate area if the FCC would ever open another filing window, which appears unlikely. I did consider building a station when the LPFM movement began, but, after watching everything that happened, I realized the only way it would work is if I ran the station 24/7 as a hobby on a voluntary basis and had no employees. That's frightening and crazy and not at all what I wanted.

Can't blame you passing on it. I looked at it to at the time and found it wanting.

Watching the whole thing unfold taught me some valuable lessons about our government, money, power, and how the wealthy play their under the table games to keep (and build on) what they have. It was utterly sickening.

Yep.

Don't believe for a minute that the FCC represents the public interest. LPFM generated more public input supporting the creation of the service than any other FCC proposal to date. The Federal Communications Commission the lackey of the NAB, Motorola, the cell phone companies, the telcos, Cable TV conglomerates, and other multi-Billion dollar business enterprises. The National Association of Broadcasters is nothing more than the mafia-like bully and protector of incumbent broadcasters.

Does this help clarify my position?

It does, however I say we have to fight from within. Get to know your congressman's office staff. Pay them a visit and educate them about this. I guarantee you they don't know much of anything about this. You would be surprised what a difference that will make. I know from experience. Hang in there and let's keep this moving (for everybody).

[Force Commander]

Good grief, HD! What kind of way is that to welcome a new poster to the board?? Geez!

Uh....welcome, Force Commander. You'll get used to HD if you stick around long enough. He's a guy who voluntarily lives in a small and economically-shrinking area and then gripes that there aren't umpteen stations he can pick up which are all catering to his every wish. That being the case, he's taken up a position advocating some sort of government control over the programming of all existing stations and the addition of whatever number of government-owned or -sanctioned stations it would take in every region to give him the "bow down before our unions and government officials or suffer their wrath" talk and miscellaneous music mixes that strike his fancy. He stews in anger and explodes like this on a somewhat regular basis. We're sorry.

That disclaimer being made, though, in welcoming you to the board, I'd like to suggest that you learn how the "quote" button(s) work (the replying-within-a-quote thing is awful hard to follow, especially as things progress...which they probably will) and that you watch for breaks and spaces in links you wish to post (almost all of the above are broken).

But, for the record, while I'm not against translators on the whole, I'm against such new clutter on the FM dial. If you buy an AM daytimer, you get an AM daytimer. It shouldn't then come as any surprise that you're an AM and a daytimer and are not on FM and go off when it's not daytime.

Sorry about fouling up the quotes. I'll try not to muck it up next time. As far as translators for AM. I am convinced this is the first step toward moving the AM broadcasters to FM at some point, perhaps expanding the FM channel allotments as they did with the expanded AM band several years ago. I think at this point it is just a matter of being a part of the game on how this happens, not if it will. We'll see though.

[genlock]

Kick all TV from channels 5 and 6 and open that band to digital radio.
Require all radios sold to be compatable.
Limit power/antenna ht on these stations to 10kw erp @300 ft.
Offer these frequencies to daytimers first as a trade for their AM frequency.
After that is complete offer the frequencies to other AM'ers.
Find some way to limit stations from American family and the like.
Require studios in the city of license. Require news/sports/weather and public service.
By digital I mean DRM, not IBOC.
Since it is digital, you can incorporate content flags and allow more content freedom than now.
After all the AM'ers have had their shot, open applicatins for other broadcasters.
Then re-allocate frequencies and power on the old AM band, digital, of course.
No more daytimers, IBAC, limit directional arrays to coastal and other reasonable issues.
50 kw seems like a nice limit for am, 10 kw minimum.
Find an EAS system that works.
Maybe open a superpower broadcast service on LF between 200 to 500 kcs. Digital.
any other ideas?

[Cameron]

any other ideas?

Uh...Genlock for FCC Commissioner?

The Commission is so short-sided. What Genlock mentioned will:
1) Improve the quality of all services involved.
2) Re-allocate the bands in a more logical manner.
3) Increase FCC revenues by the volume of licensing-fees resulting from these re-allocations and associated fillings.

[genlock]

A few more.
Allocate 5 channels for translators/lpfm.
The same 5 channels nationwide. Thatway the translators only interfere with themselves. Power limit 10 watts transmitter out/100 watts erp. Digital. Omni. H/V.
After all is done re-farm the present fm band. Digital.
Limits on ownership (total number of stations/stations in market)
Strict technical enforcement of technical parameters. including compression/limiting. Min/max modulation.
Eliminate public file requirements. all that stuff is faked anyway or just an exercise in clerking.
Let non commercial broadcasters keep what they have but no more freebies. Let them compete with everybody else for new allocations.
Reduce remote control requirements for those stations with state of the art transmitters to simple on/off switch and tower light indicator.
any more?

[Arp2]

Power limit 10 watts transmitter out/100 watts erp.

Wouldn't that be a 20-25-bay antenna?

...be gettin' expensive...and draggin' the ground.....

[genlock]

Or a yagi to cover a community form the rim.
Or a combination of yagi and omni to cover an odd shaped area.
Or to reduce interference.
Or several yagi antennas to cover multiple communities in your area.

Ok, maybe 100 watts erp 50 watts transmitter out.
Whatever.

[Hoosier Daddy]

You'll get used to HD if you stick around long enough. He's a guy who voluntarily lives in a small and economically-shrinking area and then gripes that there aren't umpteen stations he can pick up which are all catering to his every wish. That being the case, he's taken up a position advocating some sort of government control over the programming of all existing stations and the addition of whatever number of government-owned or -sanctioned stations it would take in every region to give him the "bow down before our unions and government officials or suffer their wrath" talk and miscellaneous music mixes that strike his fancy. He stews in anger and explodes like this on a somewhat regular basis. We're sorry.

Umm ... if you'll read what I wrote, you'll see I never said ANYTHING mentioned above.

What you'll learn about Arp is that he's our Resident Know-It-All. Arp fancies himself as the board's uber-arrogant Simon Cowell, routinely reading everyone their pedigree as if it were his personal calling from God.

Arp also takes lessons from Karl Rove. He takes the most neoconservative stand possible, then digs in his heels and won't give an inch. No one else is right about anything. Arp cannot learn anything from anyone else (unless it's someone with a duplicate opinion of his own) because he's always right 100% of the time.

Arp likes to create and then force feed your opinion in your mouth and into your computer screen before you can speak for yourself. He likes to categorize you, tar and feather you, label you, and marginalize you to suit his own position because it helps him "win" the argument. When he's down and out -- watch out -- 'cause he'll slice and dice your grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Arp likes to frame every debate and he has a small group of followers here that worship his every post. That, of course, only feeds the insatiable ego.

You'll get used to it.

Oh yeah, by the way, welcome!

I didn't realize until after our initial volley that this was your first post. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the reasons for my irritation with translators and with the NAB. It's really a hot button with me. I watched the whole LPFM movement up close from the beginning to now. It was an utter travesty of justice and fairness.

[AmpedNow]

Genlock is right on with what should be done... The current allocations--particularly on AM--that were made may years ago were made at a time when digital radio wasn't even a concept, much less planned for.

So now we have two very crowded bands that already have interference issues that will get much worse in coming years.

If the FCC is hell bent on making IBOC the digital standard, then the AM band will likely have to be revamped, or migrated to an expanded FM band at some point in time. There are threads in here where this was discussed several months ago.

When WBT was testing their nighttime IBOC pattern last week, I did notice some serious sideband hashing on 1100 and 1120. When adjacent signals are strong, you don't hear much. But when the usual skywave fading happens and the signal weakens, then you really notice the hashing, and it's loud. I honestly don't know if the present band will survive this.

The real problem is that even if all of Genlock's proposals went forward starting tomorrow, the FCC moves so slow that none of us will live long enough to see its completion. And by then, it will be way too late.

Who knows what kind of digital broadcast formats will be developed in the next 10-20 years...

[Hoosier Daddy]

I have always supported expanding the FM band. The super easy way to have accomplished this would have been to reclaim TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM broadcast use when the new *free* digital channels were handed out.

Even now, there are less than 10 television stations that will use Digital Channel 6. These stations could be offered an extended construction time and a new digital channel. Channel 6 (82-88 MHz) could be divided up nicely for new FM allotments.

But it all comes back to this: Incumbent FM broadcasters don't want an expanded band. They like being the only Jazz station or Oldies station or Active Rocker on the dial in a particular community. A bigger FM dial means more competition. Can't have that.

This daytimer AM petition will likely be approved by the FCC. It has all the "right" people supporting it. Dissenters will be humored then deep sixed. In one ear and out the other. After all, the NAB has spoken.

Existing broadcast groups that own AM stations can breathe new life into their existing (AM) formats by moving to static free FM 24 hours a day. Once the AM'ers have moved to FM, you'll probably see another petition to increase their RF power by expanding the band, with spots created for all the incumbent players and almost everyone else locked out. You'll see some tit-for-tat back scratching, like the NAB supporting NPR's quest to have a 50 kW sat fed blowtorch at every 800 student community college across the globe. The Godcasters might push for each 'radio ministry' to have their own exclusive nationwide channel. The (AM to FM) "translators" will become full blown Class Bs. And maybe they'll turn a few existing Class As into Class Bs and Cs while they're at it.

Better service to the community of license, don't you know!

The AM band, now minus the smaller signals, will essentally become a national longwave service with a handful of unattended clear channel Master Blasters offering syndicated programming. Nationwide ESPN. Nationwide ESPN2. Nationwide ESPN-U. The O' Reilly Channel. All Limbaugh, All The Time. The 700 Club Coast to Coast. About the only local content you'll hear would be a bunch of grandfathered 10 watt Travellers Information "Tune AM 1610 for Traffic and Road Reports" stations.

Maybe by then, the internet will have taken over ...

[Force Commander]

You know we really solved most of the tech problems in the current AM and FM bands in this thread. Shame we can't get the FCC to see the same. I doubt seriously anyone on the commission could pass a lower level ham exam!

[lastone]

I doubt seriously anyone on the commission could pass a lower level ham exam!

After I worked hard to pass the FCC First Radiotelephone with Radar they all but eliminated the requirement to have such a thing. As far as I can tell, there isn't even a web page to see if the license I have held for 30+ years is still good. Them pass a Ham test?!! The most any of the "regulators" know about radio is where to find the station door when they run for other political offices!

Is the FCC even necessary now days? Other than make money for the government, what purpose do they serve today?

[Force Commander]

I doubt seriously anyone on the commission could pass a lower level ham exam!

After I worked hard to pass the FCC First Radiotelephone with Radar they all but eliminated the requirement to have such a thing. As far as I can tell, there isn't even a web page to see if the license I have held for 30+ years is still good. Them pass a Ham test?!! The most any of the "regulators" know about radio is where to find the station door when they run for other political offices!

Is the FCC even necessary now days? Other than make money for the government, what purpose do they serve today?

I think besides regulating frequencies, keeping stations from raising power and interfering with one another the FCC really is at best a pain to the industry. At worst a roadblock to success of the industry.

FYI, if you want to continue with certifications, the Society of Broadcast Engineers have pretty much taken those duties over. www.sbe.org