translators

Translators: What are they and what is the fuss about?
Todd Urick

Little known to most people by name, the “translator” is becoming a key fixture on the FM band. Once used to improve reception in listening areas that had problems tuning-in certain regional radio stations, translators now serve a multitude of uses. Translators and boosters are essentially automated outposts for rebroadcasting radio stations. Here is the lowdown:

A translator rebroadcasts a primary station’s audio on a different frequency in a different area that cannot receive the primary signal clearly by conventional means. The original intent of the translator was to improve reception of a poorly received signal, or extend programming to underserved radio markets that were not currently being served with programming (fill-in and non-fill-in translators). For example, KQED 88.5 FM San Francisco has a translator on 88.1 FM in Benicia/Martinez, K201BV, both suburbs of San Francisco that lie behind the Berkeley Hills—which hinder reception. Translators begin with “K” or “W”, the FCC channel identification number (in this case channel 201 refers to 88.1 FM; channel 202 refers to 88.3 FM, etc), and two letters. This is not the only way to solve reception problems. KPFA Berkeley broadcasts on a secondary primary channel in the Berkeley Hills, KPFB. The easiest way—although trickiest for the engineer—is to use a booster, which is like a translator, but on the same frequency within the station’s service area. KOIT-FM San Francisco uses booster KOIT-FM2 in Martinez to rebroadcast their signal almost all the way through the I-680 corridor. Boosters are denoted as, by example, FM2, FM3, etc. after a stations call letters.

The idea of a translator is good in theory, but in recent years it has led to exploitation of the system. The FCC does not rule consistently with broadcast ownership. The FCC has certain limitations for commercial translators. But foremost, there is no cap to the number of translators an entity can own. Clear Channel has station caps, CBS Radio has station caps; translator owners—none. The Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Idaho rebroadcasts their station via satellite to about 440 translators across the nation. They also have about 300 pending applications. Just in Bakersfield, California they have six pending translator applications. They do serve Bakersfield currently with K289AN. Second, you don’t even need to own a radio station to own a translator. Several entities have applied for translators that don’t even have broadcasting in mind. Translators can be applied for in FCC auction windows for free. As an example, an entity named Radio Assist Ministry, Inc applied for about 2400 translators without a primary station. As the FCC blindly began to grant them, Radio Assist and others began selling them to other broadcasters (not a bad money-making concept, huh?). It wasn’t too long until some people pointed out this undertaking to the FCC (as the FCC could not see this themselves). Shortly afterwards an application-granting moratorium was declared until the FCC could sort the mess out. They still haven’t sorted it out, if you were wondering. Translators can range up to 250 watts, depending on antenna/terrain height. Booster wattage can be maximum 20% of the primary station broadcast wattage.

Translators on the educational band (88.1-91.9 FM) can be fed via satellite. In other words, your primary station could be in Alaska and you could feed a translator via satellite in Los Angeles. Translators on the commercial FM band (92.1-107.9 FM) have to be fed off an on-air signal from somewhere else nearby. That means audio can’t be delivered to it via microwave link, satellite, or phone line. The signal must be picked up “off-air” on a different frequency, and then rebroadcasted. Tactics such a licensing a station in the “boonies” and relaying the signal into a city on a translator frequency are done. But even fancier than that, a station might broadcast to a translator, and translator picks it up, and then rebroadcasts it to another translator.

The other oddity about translators is they can serve greater areas than LPFM, and can cause greater interference than LPFM stations, but NAB is for translatorsand against LPFMs. In the last translator window in 2003, the majority of all translator frequencies were filed for by a handful of applicants. Many of the applicants desired to feed many translators in chains; others wanted to resell translator construction permits once the FCC granted them for a profit. Either option, these new frequencies will either produce redundant non-local programming, or be programmed by groups with a large amount of money, whatever market rate happens to be for a translator. One could assert that translators destroy localism and decrease programming diversity.

I have personally driven through areas where I have been able to pick up the same NPR or broadcast ministry on more than four FM channels. In the case of the outer San Francisco Bay Area again, once where communities have been able to pick up a variety of locally produced non-commercial “fringe” signals, now they are covered up with redundant broadcast ministries.

To complicate things more, people are now insisting that the FCC look at new uses for translators. The Miller Media Group has petitioned the FCC to allow local origination of programming on translators. Currently translators cannot broadcast anything different than the primary station they are tied-in to. Allowing local origination of programming on translators sound like a good idea at first, but it is not. Allowing local origination on translators convolutes the very definition of translator. It merely allows people who already own translators—a handful of people—to go into the business of programming multiple stations. If a translator wasn’t suitable for the community it was originally applied for, it shouldn’t have been applied for.

An additional rulemaking proposal to have translators in the commercial band be able to be fed via satellite has been presented. The central idea here is to allow for even more centralized satellite broadcasters utilizing local airwaves.

It has also been proposed that AM stations displaced by IBOC interference be allowed to license fill-in translators. This is equally inane. iBiquity’s digital AM transmitter system broadcasts over adjacent AM channels, reducing the number of AM channels you can get on your radio. To compensate for this, AM stations would then be licensed FM channels to rebroadcast to areas experiencing interference from this new technology. Aside: To top things off, alternative AM digital formats have been proposed that don’t cause this interference, but they are being shadowed by iBiquity’s dominance in the market.

In all cases, we see that the FCC and NAB are supporting policies that generally reduce the diversity of programming in all areas, whether it be a satellite-fed or chained translators, or an AM station taking a slot to compensate for badly chosen technology standards.

If the FCC really supported localism and program diversity, it should do consider some of the following ideas for non-commercial translators:

· There should be a cap on translator ownership. Only primary stations should own translators. This includes current ownership. No station should need more than a specified number. Five? Ten? If one full power radio station is simply rebroadcasting another full power radio station that has met this cap, the rebroadcasting station is not allowed any translators.

· The FCC should look at the programming origination of the channel being displaced by a translator. If the signal intending to be displaced is serving an area with a certain percentage of locally-originated programming with a signal 40 dBu or greater (measured, not FCC contour), it shouldn’t be covered-up with a non-local signal.

· Regional primary stations that don’t own already own translators should be favored in over ones that do.

· If an area is being served with the same programming on multiple frequencies via translator, an applicant should be able to petition the FCC for the channel if they can offer a greater percentage of locally-produced programming than the current owner.