• 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

Columbia Journalism Review/FM Translator Abuse

R

Radiobub

Inactive
Inactive User
Here it is, folks. The long-awaited CJR article about how several parties have been abusing the latest translator auction, and re-selling them for a profit. This goes directly to FCC policy. There is a "freeze" on these new translator applications for a variety of reasons. It appears that up to 5,000 licenses have been "trafficked" (re-sold). FCC rules stipulate that if you apply for a translator, you must build it. But these guys did not. We feel a terrible injustice has been done here. The simplest measure here is to start over in a new auction. And this gives local communities time to wise-up to file applications that will truly serve their local communities and meet Section 307(b) mandates, as opposed to thousands of satillite-fed translators on multiple frequencies in the same area and all across America, such as with Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Idaho.

Enjoy the acticle.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/2/schulman.asp
 
Note that the article refers to satellite delivery, although almost all of the channels applied for in the window were commercial ("non-reserved") and therefore satellite delivery can't be used. Many of the translators proposed by these folks indicate they will rebroadcast stations that cannot possibly be recevied at the sites proposed.

Edgewater and Radio Assist were formed several months before the window was announced. They were checking on tower sites in December, for example, with Clear Channel's Vertical Real Estate division (in San Francisco, I believe).

They knew this window was coming.

Despite this, many of the sites were propsoed without any real permission from the site owners. One in my area is proposed to be installed on a Clear Channel tower (BNPFT-20030826AAE). At a height that would place their directional antenna in the middle of the two bay antenna for WNUS, Belpre, Ohio (the number 1 station 12+ in the market). Another pair of translators proposed for my area are supposed to be installed on a flagpole (really: a disguised Alltel Cellular tower) near the principal mall. On my 2nd adjacent. Proposing to relay a station on my first adjacent.

Needless to say, I can't afford to have either one built, even if I have to sue any tower owner who dares accomodate them. As well as any supposed primary station.

Don't expect the Commission to take any action on "trafficking." It is obvious that the Commission bureaucrats either don't have a clue, or that the fix is in.
 
> Note that the article refers to satellite delivery, although
> almost all of the channels applied for in the window were
> commercial ("non-reserved") and therefore satellite delivery
> can't be used. Many of the translators proposed by these
> folks indicate they will rebroadcast stations that cannot
> possibly be recevied at the sites proposed.
>
> Edgewater and Radio Assist were formed several months before
> the window was announced. They were checking on tower sites
> in December, for example, with Clear Channel's Vertical Real
> Estate division (in San Francisco, I believe).
>
> They knew this window was coming.
>
> Despite this, many of the sites were propsoed without any
> real permission from the site owners. One in my area is
> proposed to be installed on a Clear Channel tower
> (BNPFT-20030826AAE). At a height that would place their
> directional antenna in the middle of the two bay antenna for
> WNUS, Belpre, Ohio (the number 1 station 12+ in the market).
> Another pair of translators proposed for my area are
> supposed to be installed on a flagpole (really: a disguised
> Alltel Cellular tower) near the principal mall. On my 2nd
> adjacent. Proposing to relay a station on my first adjacent.
>
>
> Needless to say, I can't afford to have either one built,
> even if I have to sue any tower owner who dares accomodate
> them. As well as any supposed primary station.
>
> Don't expect the Commission to take any action on
> "trafficking." It is obvious that the Commission bureaucrats
> either don't have a clue, or that the fix is in.
>
Interesting post, tpt. But as Mr. Parrish keeps saying in the article, "cart before the horse." As you may have known, there is a petition at the FCC by these guys to allow satillite delivery of translators in the commercial band. This is the trojan horse, as they are trying to change the rules at the FCC AFTER they have filed multiple applications for multiple frequencies in all the major markets and population centers. So first they apply for the licenses, then they petition the FCC to change the rules so that they can utilize those very same licenses. Currently, Sat-fed translators in the Commercial band are ILLEGAL, and they know it. This proposal must be shot down. I will try and find the docket number for you and the rest of this board, so you can see their plan and true intentions. Heads up, Allocations Staff and policy wonks at the FCC....we will not stand for this abuse.
 
> Note that the article refers to satellite delivery, although
> almost all of the channels applied for in the window were
> commercial ("non-reserved") and therefore satellite delivery
> can't be used. Many of the translators proposed by these
> folks indicate they will rebroadcast stations that cannot
> possibly be recevied at the sites proposed.
>
> Edgewater and Radio Assist were formed several months before
> the window was announced. They were checking on tower sites
> in December, for example, with Clear Channel's Vertical Real
> Estate division (in San Francisco, I believe).
>
> They knew this window was coming.
>
> Despite this, many of the sites were propsoed without any
> real permission from the site owners. One in my area is
> proposed to be installed on a Clear Channel tower
> (BNPFT-20030826AAE). At a height that would place their
> directional antenna in the middle of the two bay antenna for
> WNUS, Belpre, Ohio (the number 1 station 12+ in the market).
> Another pair of translators proposed for my area are
> supposed to be installed on a flagpole (really: a disguised
> Alltel Cellular tower) near the principal mall. On my 2nd
> adjacent. Proposing to relay a station on my first adjacent.
>
>
> Needless to say, I can't afford to have either one built,
> even if I have to sue any tower owner who dares accomodate
> them. As well as any supposed primary station.
>
> Don't expect the Commission to take any action on
> "trafficking." It is obvious that the Commission bureaucrats
> either don't have a clue, or that the fix is in.
>


I want to make it clear that I am 100% on your side in regards to the translator issues. I do have a question though...

On what grounds are you going to sue the tower owners? They are doing nothing illegal. There is no law preventing them from leasing space to anyone.

I tend to get concerned when I hear about people sueing everyone in sight when they feel that they have been slighted. The only people taking it in the shorts in the end is the public.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
They've found out that they can make all this money from selling these translators, so I doubt that they will even bother to build very many. Even if they could feed them by satellite.

After all, there are a lot of religious broadcasters out there and only a limited number of folks who will contribute to them.
 
> On what grounds are you going to sue the tower owners? They
> are doing nothing illegal. There is no law preventing them
> from leasing space to anyone.
>
> I tend to get concerned when I hear about people sueing
> everyone in sight when they feel that they have been
> slighted. The only people taking it in the shorts in the
> end is the public.
>
Wouldn't be necessary if the Commission stuck to their orginal mandate to police the spectrum. Instead of trying to be enforcers of public morality and EEO.

Legal theory would be nuisance & intereference with my business. But these folks (Edgewater, et al.) will probably stick these translators in someone's back yard rather than pay rent.
 
> > On what grounds are you going to sue the tower owners?
> They
> > are doing nothing illegal. There is no law preventing
> them
> > from leasing space to anyone.
> >
> > I tend to get concerned when I hear about people sueing
> > everyone in sight when they feel that they have been
> > slighted. The only people taking it in the shorts in the
> > end is the public.
> >
> Wouldn't be necessary if the Commission stuck to their
> orginal mandate to police the spectrum. Instead of trying
> to be enforcers of public morality and EEO.
>
> Legal theory would be nuisance & intereference with my
> business. But these folks (Edgewater, et al.) will probably
> stick these translators in someone's back yard rather than
> pay rent.
>


You're right about the FCC. I disagree, however, with interference of trade. The tower owner isn't doing anything other than renting space to someone. It's akin to me suing Orban because my competitor is overmodulated and splattering.

Like I said, you are absolutely right when it comes to these guys, but as someone who rents tower spaces I wholeheartedly disagree with your tactic. It is not my responsibility to insure the interference-free operation of any tenant. I would open myself up to plenty of trouble if I did - especially if the FCC licensed the facility.

At best, you may have a case if I leased the space to someone without an FCC license who's specific intent was to interfere. If I rented to an FCC licensee who, according to the FCC, can operate in that space, you'd have no basis on which to litigate against me. In fact, it would smack of you restraining MY trade by demanding that I remove a legally licensed user. Now, get them shut down by the FCC and it's a whole different ballgame.

Please don't get me wrong-I'm with you 100%...I just really am not fond of a "let's sue everyone" mentality. It is unfair to most of us, and we all end up paying in the end.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Currently, Sat-fed
> translators in the Commercial band are ILLEGAL, and they
> know it.

But, there is a loophole. While a translator in the non-reserved (commercial) band can not directly be fed by satellite, microwave or other means, it does not prevent a translator in the non-reserved band from relaying a reserved band translator fed by satellite.

The rules really need to be based on the location of the primary station in relation to the translator. In the case of a translator relaying another translator, the primary station is considered the ultimate full power station (the one that's on file in CDBS). We have promoted a limit of 400km and in a different state. This will put restrictions on Twin Falls, ID stations having translators in Key West.

ec
 
> 250 miles is not much of a "limit."

Sure, on the East Coast 250 miles might encompass several states, but out west and even down south, 250 miles might not even get you close to a state line.

It would have been a much more severe limit if some of the larger non-com networks hadn't managed to acquire full-power stations. For example, take away some of EMF's stations in Ohio, and a lot of the translators they have there now or will have once they build the facilities would be history.
<P ID="signature">______________
chargeradioweb.jpg
</P>
 
FCC Policy Debate/Re: Columbia Journalism Review/FM Translator Abuse

I agree that soething needs to be done.

I'm 22 years old and to se ehow some of the companies abuse the spectrum makes me phsyically sick. Some translators outwest are pushing the 250 Watt max at very high altitudes.

For instance, theres 1 or 2 translators in Grants pass, OR that are the equivalent to 3kw/328 feet Class As(mind you, they relay a commercial station owned by Clear Channel).

Some of the spectrum these * translators take up could be used for for small, local commercial radio stations serving a community that would be otherwise, not serve. I know for a fact, there are some towns and communities who would love to have something like this but can't.


*Edit---profanity
 
Adding to this situation, there has apparently been a split within the Calvary Satellite Network (CSN).

More Info:
http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0506.htm#052006
http://phoenixpreacher.com/

I've yet to totally decode and understand it all. But worth noting, IMO, is that (apparently) some CSN stations may no longer be carrying the network in full - rather an alternative schedule provided by whichever half of the split network claims to own a particular station (which is very complicated, because the two halves of CSN have intermingled to the point where one may own equipment for a given station, whereas the other may hold the license, or the other may be paying the tower rental.)

Further, some stations that used to be part of the "Effect Radio" Christian Rock network of CSN are apparently now being provided with a similar format, branded "Radio X". Again, this may relate to which half of the split network owns various affiliates. From what I can tell, few Effect Radio affiliates were affected by this move.
 
Here's a critique of the CJR article. I think it clearly shows the perversion of this abuse by the fellows in Idaho. Click here:

http://diymedia.net/feature/f030506.htm

I think radio bub had it right on in the beginning of this post, which is that Mr. Parrish
filed for translator licenses in the non-reserved (commercial) band which cannot be utilized currently. The rules are very clear, the only way these facilities can be used is through an on-air delivery. So what do they do? Set out to change the rules AFTER they have received a "foot hold" (1st position) for licenses throughout the country. This makes me sick............
 
It's more than obvious after reading the various info on this thread alone that the powers at the FCC ought to throw out the entire last translator window filing and start this whole thing over from square one. The other thing that ought to be done right away is to disqualify those organizations who have falsely applied, misused or abused the rules in the past for personal gain, etc., and the FCC already has this qualification on the books-they just need to ENFORCE the their OWN RULES!

The other thing for the FCC's to-do list: GO BACK and re-establish the whole situation of just "what" a translator is needed for and why it needs to be authorized in the first place. I believe it was to "fill in", helping the main station signal in areas where there are obvious terrain obstructions and the like, NOT for "mini" radio stations that are many counties or STATES away from the main channel. A simple rule like "no translator will be authorized to any station more than 50 miles away from the main channel" ought to eliminate the 297 Calvary translators outside of Id Falls out of their 300 just with this one rule.

The FCC should also ask those applicants to JUSTIFY THEIR REASONING IN TECHNICAL/ENGINEERING TERMS, exactly WHY they need a translator and WHERE, covering it with clear diagrams of the area "proposed", and keeping things limited to those areas.....not covering whole counties or cities outside the main channel COL that have no connection to the main station at all.

Non Comms and educationals with a history of good service, along with valid LPFM operators should get first crack at these translator frequencies, followed by the rest. Same rule I put forth above ought to apply in the qualifications for NCE and LPFM operations.

This current translator thing is total abuse of the U.S. system and spectrum, plain and simple.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom