[CRTech] Christian Radio Tech [MSG 81535]
[Thread Prev] [-- Thread Index --] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [-- Date Index --] [Date Next]
RE: FM Translators
To: CRTech <crtech@crtech.org>
Subject: RE: FM Translators
From: Jack Epperson <Jack.Epperson@alphamediausa.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:43:44 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Content-language: en-US
References: <55D7DD7E-5F93-4418-9FD8-5A5F75C13AC0@gmail.com> <AB51A9A9EC341A479655F592221FE8BD770EC838@mbx028-e1-va-4.exch028.domain.local> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADib6sS3YlVGmIoS9/eusAvCgAAAEAAAAK5ZRpgFPVxLiesu5ohNCmMBAAAAAA==@kacs.org>
Thread-index: AQHTdcwL3/RYwZR9VkazGkPH051nh6NEwIhwgAAMuBCAABB4AA==
Thread-topic: [CRTech] FM Translators

That would be a political question. Understandably the AM folks think it is a lifeline for them and want it. However I know of very few successful implementations that have not had problems, especially here around the Great Lakes. There could be some, but we are way too populated in RF density for it to be a good thing in this region.

But when ATSC 3.0 becomes fully rolled out, it will become a moot point for many of us. That is the coming earthquake.



"Old engineers don’t die, they dielectric."



From: Cameron Beierle [mailto:manager@kacs.org]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:41 PM
To: 'CRTech'
Subject: RE: [CRTech] FM Translators



Do you think it likely that the FCC will change the long-standing rule that all translators are secondary signals, and therefore must not cause interference to primary full license signals?  Doesn’t seem that they will to me. Has been a principle ruling since translators began as I understand it.






From: Jack Epperson [mailto:Jack.Epperson@alphamediausa.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:04 AM
To: CRTech
Subject: RE: [CRTech] FM Translators


Con:  If there is any possibility of creating interference with an existing channel you could be chasing a wild goose.

Recent FCC ruling in North Carolina that just one unresolved complaint and they can make you turn it off. At least until the rules change.

We have a translator that is outside our 'protected' coverage at 90W and  27 miles away. Even though it says that this should work on paper, we still have a lot of listeners in that area that complain about interference from them. Their coverage is only a 6 mile diameter of staticky but listenable audio, then a 4 mile wide no-man’s land until our signal just gets steadily better as you move into our coverage area. Even at the far side of their signal you can still hear my channel better than theirs. Book says it work, but real life reality is challenged.



"Old engineers don’t die, they dielectric."



-----Original Message-----
From: KGBA Radio [mailto:kgbaradio@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:42 AM
To: crtech@crtech.org
Subject: [CRTech] FM Translators


Anyone have pro/con of having an FM Translator for an AM site? Seems like something to jump on if you have the opportunity.


Wondering in Southern California.

Michael Villero


100.1 FM / 1490 AM

El Centro, CA


For CRTech resources visit http://CRTech.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: crtech-unsubscribe@crtech.org List problems?? E-mail: TechStaff@CRTech.org

Follow-Ups: Re: FM Translators
(Tyger Elton <tyger@wilkinsradio.com>, 15 Dec 2017 21:54:39 -0000)
References: FM Translators
(KGBA Radio <kgbaradio@gmail.com>, 15 Dec 2017 17:42:04 -0000)
RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson <Jack.Epperson@alphamediausa.com>, 15 Dec 2017 19:03:52 -0000)
RE: FM Translators
("Cameron Beierle" <manager@kacs.org>, 15 Dec 2017 19:41:09 -0000)
Prev by date: RE: FM Translators
(Cameron Beierle, 15 Dec 2017 19:41:09 -0000)
Next by date: Re: FM Translators
(Tyger Elton, 15 Dec 2017 21:54:39 -0000)
Prev by thread: RE: FM Translators
(Cameron Beierle, 15 Dec 2017 19:41:09 -0000)
Next by thread: Re: FM Translators
(Tyger Elton, 15 Dec 2017 21:54:39 -0000)