• 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

Hey Pamal - You can't DO this with the WLNA translator!

Ex-RadioTV

Ex-RadioTV

Was up in the Peekskill area today and tuned-in to the 1-watt translator for WLNA on 94.3 FM, W232DQ. I heard the music of co-owned WBPM(FM), Saugerties, which is usually simulcast over AM 1420, WLNA. But when I punched up WLNA, it was running Army Black Knights football.
Wait....what??
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the license for the translator W232DQ specifies WLNA as the primary station. It has to carry the programming of WLNA full time. They can't break away and play music on the translator, while running Army football on WLNA.
Curious, I listened until the game was over on WLNA, and after a few seconds of silence, the station joined the WBPM program, in-progress.
I have to assume they've been doing this all season, clearing Army football on 1420, but keeping the music playing on the translator.
Pamal, you can't do that with a translator.
 
I suspect that sometime when a station in this situation has enough money to spend thousands on an FCC attorney they will file for an exception from the requirement for 100% simulcast in the case of sports play by play where the station agreement prohibits any rebroadcasts or streams.

This would be similar to the Nielsen exception from 100% simulcasts to qualify for SLR. In fact, an attorney could use the Nielsen situation as precedent for allowing third party sports rights to preclude simulcasting but within very limited amounts of time each month.

The issue is whether any station has the money today to spend on this, preferring to simply do it and think that it won't be noticed and won't be sanctioned if noticed and explained.
 
DavidEduardo said:
I suspect that sometime when a station in this situation has enough money to spend thousands on an FCC attorney they will file for an exception from the requirement for 100% simulcast in the case of sports play by play where the station agreement prohibits any rebroadcasts or streams.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any such exemption being asked for, or granted. If there was, the trades would have picked up on it, and the Commission would be inundated with applications. There are plenty of small town AM/translator combos who would love to split up for a handful of hours a week like this.

I know of other stations that have done this. I don't care to call them out by name.

I'm certain in the cases I'm familiar with, the licensee is doing it based on a likelihood of never being caught, and expecting minimal consequences even if caught.
 
PTBoardOp94 said:
I'm not aware of any such exemption being asked for, or granted. If there was, the trades would have picked up on it, and the Commission would be inundated with applications.
Click to expand...
I did not say any had been requested. Were radio stations as a group more profitable, someone would file with the FCC to get an exemption for this. But the kind of stations that do this are small, and likely can't afford to try to get rule-making done.
PTBoardOp94 said:
There are plenty of small town AM/translator combos who would love to split up for a handful of hours a week like this.
Click to expand...
Just like many major market stations that have p-b-p sports with similar contracts can do in Nielsen ratings.
PTBoardOp94 said:
I know of other stations that have done this. I don't care to call them out by name.
Click to expand...
This is just a case, common over many decades, of the FCC not understanding the radio business.
PTBoardOp94 said:
I'm certain in the cases I'm familiar with, the licensee is doing it based on a likelihood of never being caught, and expecting minimal consequences even if caught.
Click to expand...
That is what I said. The cost of filing for modified rules would take too long and cost too much. If the FCC knew anything about radio, they would grant permanence to AM translators as some kind of A-3 facility and allow the underlying AM to go silent permanently!
 
Back
Top Bottom