http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/539

I can see where the critics are coming from, in terms of these cross-band "translators" stretching the definition of what a translator station is. I would hope that the FCC would make Clear Channel and the other interested parties demonstrate why it is not feasible for them to have nighttime synchronous boosters or, alternately, relocate the transmitter site so that nulls are not thrown over highly-populated suburbs.

I believe synchronous AM transmission is still in the experimental stage. Also, it's getting more difficult everyday to move to a new location without sharing tower space. Then too, the costs involved are often prohibitive to smaller operators.

I think if an AM stations situation is so bad that they must get an FM frequency then they should turn off the AM and surrender the license once they get an FM.

I can see nothing good coming from this.

"AM daytimer stations are at a competitive disadvantage, and generally cannot provide good nighttime service to their communities of license," the Big River group wrote to the FCC in early December.

-- You knew that going in. Don't buy a DAYTIMER if you want to provide service at night. How is that different than killing someone and then you get the law changed so it's not illegal. These greedy broadcasters just make me sick.

The other thing being kicked around recently was to allow LPFMs on third-adjacents. Since translators are already allowed on third-adjacents, what this would probably do is clog the FM dial everywhere so getting an LPFM on the air would be nearly impossible.

Can someone please explain how religious translators in markets hundreds, if not thousands, miles from point of origin serve the community? WWJD? Not what people are doing in his name today!

If I were king, After the analog TV goes dark, I would use Ch 6 (82-88 mhz) and perhaps Ch 5 (76-82 mhz) to create an "expanded FM band". Many tuners are already designed to receive these frequencies, with a simple jumper mod.

I would allow area AM stations first shot at the new expanded FM band, and hold off other applicants until much later. The power levels/antenna height could be chosen in proportion to to the present daytime AM station coverage.

Stations would be allowed on both frequencies for some period of time, but would have to make a choice and turn off one (AM or FM station) at the end of the trial period... much like the HDTV deal.

I suspect that this would "thin out" the AM band, perhaps to the extent that wider channel spacings and bandwidths could be used. This might allow a more robust/ better sounding digital system to be developed, or just use the improved bandwidth for higher quality analog broadcasting (perhaps a return to stereo).

Just dreaming... this will likely never happen

If the gov. thinks they could make more money creating an expanded FM band they would. I love your thinking.

I see many AM's are on HD-2 channels, then the law doesn't have to change!
Get people to buy new radio's!
They are getting cheaper!

"Can someone please explain how religious translators in markets hundreds, if not thousands, miles from point of origin serve the community?"

That was the case years ago but since then religious broadcasters like K-Love have replaced many translators with regular broadcast stations that originate local PSA's. Even their website has a place where you can announce local happenings in your state. I would venture this information is then broadcast over your local K-Love station. Here's the Oregon listing:

KLOY 88.7 Astoria = 250 watts
KVLB 90.5 Bend = 1,4kw
KLVP 88.7 Cherryville/Portland = 3.7kw
KKLP 90.1 La Pine = 2.5kw
KLON 90.3 Rockaway Beach/Tillamook = 1.8kw
KJKL 88.7 Selma/Medford/Grants Pass = 30kw
KLVU 107.1 Sweet Home/Eugene = 9.6kw
KLOV 89.3 Winchester/Roseburg = 1.6kw

Current models of Nautel transmitters (for example, see http://www.nautel.com/Main.aspx?id=2332 ) support the use of an external GPS frequency reference for synchronization. In England, synchronized transmitters on the AM band and on their longwave band have been in use for years. However, this approach hasn't widely caught on in the US, possibly because of regulatory hurdles.

Given that the parties pushing for this probably own several full-power FMs in the markets where they operate their AMs, they might as well just can their least successful FM format and simulcast the AM there.

Perhaps I am missing something here, But won't this produce a grid of "hot spots" and "cold spots" on the map, as the 2 phased transmitters add to and cancel each other? How can this work very well?

Alfredo,

I believe the GPS synch is used in HD broadcasting. A time clock is needed to properly keep the diversity delay in the analog synched to the digital, among other things.

If an AM station broadcasts on an FM translator, will it be in Stereo?

> If an AM station broadcasts on an FM translator,
> will it be in Stereo?

That would be up to the management and engineer at the station. There is no simple answer.

Would it be worth the expense if the main signal is in mono?

> Would it be worth the expense if the main signal
> is in mono?

One participant on this board pointed out some time ago that most AM broadcast studios use stereo equipment and are wired for stereo. There is a very good chance that the FM translators would get their audio using some method other than over-the-air pickup of the AM signal. Those factors would tend to make stereo operation more feasible.

On the other hand, particularly if the translator is low-powered, broadcasting in mono may improve reception for most of its listeners. If the station's format is primarily satellite-delivered talk programs, then the only things that would be broadcast in stereo would be local commercials and music beds.