Translator Question - Class D AM Stations.

Here's a question I haven't seen addressed and I haven't found it in the rules. Here's the situation I'd like an answer to...'

A third party owns a translator which has written authority to translate an AM daytimer. Translator owner translates a AM station 100% when it is on the air.


Let's jump to a normal broadcast day. It's nighttime. We all know if the AM station signs off, it can continue to broadcast on FM. Could the translator owner (Who actually owns the FM) be allowed to "originate" the programming on the AM (Which would not broadcast on AM but would be allowed on FM?) Would the AM stations permission be required to "originate" their after hours programming by the translator operator? Thoughts? This may come up and I have a client who wants to know how to proceed with the commission.

Clouseau

clouseau said:

Here's a question I haven't seen addressed and I haven't found it in the rules. Here's the situation I'd like an answer to...'

A third party owns a translator which has written authority to translate an AM daytimer. Translator owner translates a AM station 100% when it is on the air.


Let's jump to a normal broadcast day. It's nighttime. We all know if the AM station signs off, it can continue to broadcast on FM. Could the translator owner (Who actually owns the FM) be allowed to "originate" the programming on the AM (Which would not broadcast on AM but would be allowed on FM?) Would the AM stations permission be required to "originate" their after hours programming by the translator operator?

Click to expand...

It depends on the situation. There are translators considered "community translators", that occupy a channel in a community less, or not served by a local radio station. Those translators operate stand-alone. It's common for the licensee's of community translators to broker the airtime of their translator to another station, AM or FM. It's just programming at that point. The licensee of the translator is responsible for what goes over the air.

The other form of translator is used for filling in the signal within the 60dB contour of an existing FM station. As I understand the rules, the full-power FM, can't broker the programming of that translator, because it's intended to carry the parent station. That said, there have been instances where FM stations have "sold" or given up a fill-in translator, so it can be moved-into another community for use by an AM, or whatever. It depends whether that channel has been allocated for use in the move-in area.

There was an interesting case of a station called Jukebox Radio that was nabbed by the FCC for a violation of translator rules. It seems the translators were, in essence, carried by a distant station which they 'translated'. As confusing as this sounds, imagine a small town station on the edge of a major metro and that station owns two translators in the major city. The programming was geared for the major metro even though the small town station really had little or no presence there. This was evident by commercials and on air patter. The FCC called it the opposite of the intent of the translator.

Can an owner of a FM translator originate programming on the station they translate? As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent that but I wonder if the FCC might want to inquire. If the FCC tried to do anything it might be on the basis of the licensee actually having control of the station the FCC licensed to them. LMAs and such are in the public file, so the FCC would peruse such. I gather the FCC intends the translator to be a 'help' to the full power station rather than the full power station taking a backseat to the translator. I can see how it could happen in several ways. Let's say an AM has a LMA with an AM station and the LMA company buys a translator to run the AM station on the FM translator. It would seem that is perfectly legal but I'd question how the FCC would feel about such a scenario.

I know in my market, folks are LMAing HD channels then acquiring translators to broadcast the HD channel.

The Jukebox radio situation was interesting. I believe the issue with it was that there was a financial connection with a non owned, non fill in translator. I think the issue boils down to whether the Daytimer actually has control of their own "Programming" when they are not on the air, since they COULD program the translator at night. This is another one of those situations the commission didn't really think all the way through. Kind of like if a translator installs HD and then should have the ability to rent out the HD channel. The prohibition against local origination should prevent the translator owner from programming it, but in theory it should be rentable. Test these rules at your own peril, but it's interesting to postulate. While you can translate an HD channel, you can NOT translate an SCA. I've verified this with Jim Bradshaw and the rational is that SCA is not supposed to be available to the general public. Too bad. FMXtra/Vucast actually works better than HD, but they're a no-no.

clouseau said:

While you can translate an HD channel, you can NOT translate an SCA. I've verified this with Jim Bradshaw and the rational is that SCA is not supposed to be available to the general public. Too bad. FMXtra/Vucast actually works better than HD, but they're a no-no.

Click to expand...

I had the same conversation with Jim Bradshaw. I think he is actually on thin ice on that decree, but I certainly don't have the where-with-all to challenge it. I'm pretty sure that the big broadcasters like I-Heart, etc. Like it that way.

b-turner said:

I know in my market, folks are LMAing HD channels then acquiring translators to broadcast the HD channel.

Click to expand...

About five years ago, I investigated doing something like that in Cañon City. Problem was that other than the local FM, the only other FMs that had 60 dBu FCC contour signals into Cañon were the big FMs serving Colorado Springs and Pueblo on Cheyenne Mountain. In reality, the Cheyenne Mt. signals are a multi-path mess in Cañon. The FM in the Springs that owned the Cañon City translator was willing to entertain the idea, but what killed it for me was the $2000/month fee the Cheyenne Mountain tower site wanted for each HD signal.