• 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

Tough Road Ahead for TV Translators

How many people actually watch translators anymore? We still have a lot of them in AZ, and most have converted to digital, but I see a lot of satellite dishes in rural parts of the state.
 
If a translator was to work out a deal with the local cable company for carriage of its signal in return for splitting revenues of the 30 sec spot per hour, maybe it has a chance.

Since I haven't heard of such deals, I'd conclude it's too much trouble for the cable company vs. just getting the feed directly from the parent station.

If we had the full compliment of the big four nets and PBS here in Cañon City, I'd use them for the superior signal. The ABC, CBS and NBC local affiliates own our translators and went digital several years ago. No Fox or PBS means I still get to pay the $5.99/mo for locals on Dish.

Translator networks like OATS back in Ottumwa IA that were supported largely by donations have real tough sledding. OATS met the scythe of the Reaper several years ago.
 
The big problem will be finding any spectrum for the translators to operate on.
Many small cable companies receive their signals via OTA from the translators. Some systems use a microwave network, but it's expensive.

Bigger problem for the stations, though, is that if there is not viewable signal in an area, it's considered a "White Area", so a viewer could likely qualify for Distant Nets. Then, the station loses audience and $$$.
 
With the transition to DTV in 2009 many translators were abandoned, mainly because trying to receive and re-transmit a DTV signal was a PITA. Depending on the situation where you have a combination of proper terrain shielding and field strength from the primary station, DTV on-channel boosters have been showing promise in filling in shadowed areas.
 
Here is the latest on rural TV translators:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/farmers-plow-fcc-over-translator-treatment/146276

As the article points out:

"They (NAFB) said that they were "puzzled" by a proposal that contemplates even more translator losses for the speculative gains from unlicensed devices.

The National Association of Broadcasters has pointed out that after years of available TV white spaces, there are few devices out there using all that white space. The agriculture groups agree, saying the benefits have "not yet materialized and may never materialize."

They said they found it "extraordinary" that the commission would consider displacing TV translators serving rural communities on the "gamble" that unlicensed would provide future benefit."

At a July sub-committee hearing Tom Wheeler was forced to acknowledge that licensed services have priority over unlicensed. So it is doubtful, after all displaced low power stations find new channels, if there will be many open channels left for unlicensed devices. Sorry Google.
 
This is an issue to someone like my father. He owns property with a summer cabin in a very rural area. When the digital conversion occurred he went from getting a handful of fuzzy analog signals from a city 60 miles away to ONE local station. The situation has since improved somewhat thanks to translators. He is deep in the woods, so does not have line-of-sight for a satellite dish, and the cable doesn't run there.
 
LPTVs and Translators Can Channel-Share

The Federal Communications Commission today outlined provisions to accommodate low-power television and translator licensees through the incentive auction process.

The FCC said today’s “Third Channel Sharing Report & Order” builds on these previous commission actions by:

Permitting Channel-Sharing: The Third Report & Order allows channel sharing among LPTV and TV translator stations.

Extending the Deadline for the Digital Transition: This summer the commission postponed the Sept. 1, 2015 deadline for LPTV and TV translator stations to transition to digital broadcasting so that these stations will not be forced to complete their digital conversion only to find that their newly constructed digital facilities were displaced as a result of the repacking process. The Order sets a new digital transition date of 12 months after the 39-month post-incentive auction transition final deadline for full power and Class A stations (51 months after the conclusion of the incentive auction, scheduled to begin March 29, 2016).

Offering Software Assistance for Finding New Channels: Prior to opening the special displacement window for LPTV and TV translator stations, the Media Bureau will utilize the repacking and optimization software to identify new channels for displaced translator stations.
Click to expand...

http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/lptvs-and-translators-can-channelshare/277658
 
This Report & Order is a huge win for LPTV. Because low power television as a licensed service has right of displacement over unlicensed services, the MB is tasked with identifying any and all open channels with which displaced stations can move to and future channel assignments will not be required to protect white spaces.

Also, low power stations will be free to channel share with full power and Class A stations which could significantly increase the coverage of many LPTV stations.

Plus, the FCC proposes, in time, to open a window in which LPTV stations can apply for Class A status. This should eliminate the "secondary status" cloud under which LPTV stations have been broadcasting.

So there's a lot to like in this R&O.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1217/FCC-15-175A1.pdf
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom