Posted on January 3, 2012 by David Oxenford

FCC Deadlines in January - Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, Children's Program Reports, Comments on TV Online Public File and Public Interest Obligation Proposals, FM Window and More

In addition to the normal FCC deadlines for routine filings, January brings the deadline for comments in a number of FCC proceedings, and a filing window for new FM applications.  For TV stations, the Commission recently extended to January 17 the Reply Comment deadline on its proposals (summarized here) for an online public inspection file.  Many public interest groups have supported the FCC's proposals to put the public file online, including the political file and new information concerning sponsorship identification information, while broadcasters have expressed concerns about the burden and practicality of an online file with all the information that the FCC is considering.  Comments are also due on January 17 on the related Notice of Inquiry looking into the adoption of a new form to document the public interest programming of TV broadcasters to replace the never-effective Form 355.  Comments deadlines on Petitions for Reconsideration of two other rulemaking decisions - on the adoption of rules allowing AM stations to use FM translators, and the Rural Radio proceeding - are due on January 4 with replies on January 17.  That the FCC only now sought comments on the 3 year old Reconsideration petitions in the AM translator proceeding is unusual, as the issue raised by the reconsideration petitions has also been incorporated in the recent FCC proceeding looking at the relationship between FM translators and LPFM opportunities.

We just reminded broadcasters of the new FM window, where applications for 119 new FM channels can now be filed between now and the January 12 deadline.  Broadcasters also need to remember to complete their Quarterly Issues Programs lists, and place them in their public file, by January 10.  As we've written, there are big fines for stations who forget to complete these reports and have to report their absence at license renewal time.  See our advisory on the Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, here, and also our advisory on Children's Television obligations, including Form 398, that needs to be filed at the FCC by January 10, along with a public file report documenting compliance with the limitations on commercial advertising in children's programming . 

For more information on many of the routine regulatory deadlines for broadcasters, see our Broadcasters Calendar for 2012 here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 2, 2011 by David Oxenford

New Policy on FM Translator Moves - Bigger Moves Permitted In One Hop, But Multiple Hops are an Abuse of FCC Processes

The FCC today made it easier to move an FM translator from one location to another, but at the same time adopted new policies that seemingly restrict how far a translator can be moved.  Today's decision  uses a waiver process to relax the rules so as to permit a move of a translator a greater distance in a single application, but the decision also labels multi-hop moves as an abuse of the Commission's processes.  As translators have become more important to broadcasters as a way to bring AM and HD-2 signals to a wider audience, this decision will have an immediate and significant impact on many broadcasters, once it becomes clear exactly what are the parameters set by the Commission.

Under Section 74.1233(a) of the FCC rules, a minor change for an FM translator requires that the facilities proposed in an application have a 60 dbu contour that overlaps with the translator's current licensed 60 dbu.  In effect, this is saying that part of the protected service area of the proposed new facility must overlap with the current protected service area served by the station from its licensed facility.  As major change applications can only be filed during designated translator windows (and there has been no FM translator major change window since 2003), to make any move in a translator, it must be a minor change.  The decision today allows, through a waiver of the rules, a minor change application to be used if the licensed facilities preclude construction of the new facilities, i.e. if the interfering contour of the licensed facilities of the translator overlap with the protected contour specified by the application for new facilities.  A the interfering contour goes much further than the protected contour, this allows the FCC to approve in a single application a move of a greater distance than would be allowed under a strict reading of the rule.  However, there were significant conditions imposed on the application of this new waiver policy that may preclude longer moves that have been common in the last few years. 

In the decision, the Commission said that the waiver was justified based on four grounds:

  1. The applicant had no history of "filing serial minor modification applications";
  2. The proposed site for the translator was mutually exclusive with the licensed facility (see the description above)
  3. The move-in does not preclude LPFM opportunities (see the freeze on certain translator moves in larger markets that we wrote about in our discussion of the pending rulemaking on the relationship between translators and LPFM stations)
  4. While not "dispositive", the application was for the rebroadcasting of an AM station (the local service helped to justify the waiver, but that kind of service may not be necessary to take advantage of this new policy).

The big news is the fact that the waiver was conditioned on fact that the applicant had not previously filed "serial minor modification applications."  Because there have been no FM translator windows in so long, broadcasters wanting to rebroadcast an AM station or an HD-2 signal on a translator have had to find existing translators to use for such rebroadcasts.  In some markets, there have been no available translators to use, so deals have been struck to move translators great distances to the desired market.  Such moves have been done through a series of minor change applications (often referred to as "hops") - with the station being built and licensed at several intermediate locations before the station ended up at the desired location.  We have written before about the Commission's penalties for applicants who have not really constructed and operated their translators at some of these intermediate locations (see our articles here and here).  But today's decision goes much further, stating " We believe the filing of serial modification applications represents an abuse of process."  The decision admits that the serial applications do not violate any FCC rule.  But, the decision concludes that, as their purpose is to achieve through a series of applications an outcome that cannot be done on a single application, the applications are intended to subvert the purposes of the major change rules, and do not serve the public interest. 

This decision raises many questions.  Just what constitutes "serial modification applications?"  Is two hops to move a station a "serial modification?"  It would seem that this could not be the case, as the very application that was granted in this decision would, under a strict application of the rule, need two hops to complete.  So are they saying that someone who did it in a way that is permitted under the rules (using two hops) is bad, but someone who asked for an exception (as did the applicant here) to the rules is serving the public interest so much that they merit a waiver of the rules?  Or does it have to be more than 2 hops to be bad?  Is it bad only when the newly proposed facility is precluded by the current facility?   How was an applicant supposed to know that this was bad?  How can the Commission deny the use of this new waiver policy to applicants who may have been serial modifiers in the past, when these applicants did not know that serial modification was bad?  There are probably hundreds of cases where the Commission has approved serial modifications - never once indicating that these were inherently bad (except in those cases where applicants did not really do what they said that they had done - e.g. they didn't really construct the intermediate hops, or they did not leave the station running for more than a limited period of time at one of the intermediate locations).  The FCC even got complaints that they were processing these hops too fast for those who had concerns to protest - so the processing was slowed.  But even when the processing was slowed, there never was any expression that multiple hops were an abuse of process.  How can the Commission now retroactively say that what was approved by the FCC in the past disqualifies an applicant from taking advantage of a new policy? 

All these questions will no doubt be answered as others try to take advantage of this policy.  Watch and see what happens as the new policy is applied in cases coming before the FCC in the coming months.
Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on July 29, 2011 by David Oxenford

August 29 Deadline for Comments on LPFM and FM Translator Processing - Looking to Unfreeze 2003 FM Translator Applications and to Open a New LPFM Window

August 29 will be the deadline for initial comments on the FCC's proceeding to set the relationship between applications for new LPFM stations and those for FM translators, a date set forth in a Federal Register publication of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this topic.  We wrote about the FCC's NPRM here.  But it bears emphasizing that the decisions made in this proceeding will impact the processing of the thousands of FM translator applications still pending from the window opened for these applications back in 2003, and the potential for a new filing window for LPFM applications in the near future.  The NPRM also will decide whether FM translators can be used for the rebroadcast of an AM station if that translator was granted after the FCC first authorized the rebroadcast of AM stations by FM translators.  Up to this point, AM stations can only use translators granted before May 1, 2009 to rebroadcast their signals. 

Issues to be addressed in this proceeding include:

  • Whether the FCC's proposal to use a market based analysis to determine which 2003 translators can continue to be processed (dismissing all translators when there were few opportunities for new LPFM stations) is justified?
  • Whether the technical basis of that analysis is accurate (as the FCC used the same model to assess the availability of channels in a market - overlaying a grid onto each market, and determining if LPFM opportunities existed at set points on that grid - the grid size was uniform in all markets, even though markets obviously are not uniform in size and shape)
  • Whether the assumptions about the number of LPFMs that are needed in each market were justified (the FCC concluding that there should be opportunities for at least 8 LPFMs in the Top 20 markets, 7 in Markets 21-50, 6 in Markets 51-100, and 5 in Markets between 101 and 150 and in smaller markets where at least 4 translator applications are pending - if there were not that many opportunities available, then all the FM translators pending in that market were proposed to be dismissed).
  • How should future opportunities for filing new LPFM and FM translator applications be handled?  What would be the priorities between such applications?

In addition, while this proceeding is pending, all "move-ins" of FM translators into rated markets, where they have become much in demand to rebroadcast AM signals or signals from HD-2 stations, are frozen.  So, many are anxious for the resolution of this proceeding - not only those with 2003 FM translator window applications still pending and those who are anxious to file for new LPFM stations, but also those looking to move a translator into a larger market (and we're sure that the FCC is anxious to resolve this matter too).  So file your comments by the August 29 deadline, and your replies by September 12.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on May 3, 2010 by David Oxenford

FM Analog Translator Can Rebroadcast FM Digital Multicast Programming - Opportunities for New Signals in Local Markets

In a recent decision, the FCC made clear that analog FM translators can rebroadcast the signal of a HD digital multicast channel from a commonly owned FM station.  For months, broadcasters have been introducing "new" FM stations to their communities via translators rebroadcasting HD-2 signals which are broadcast digitally on a primary FM station, and available only to those who have purchased HD radio receivers.  In the decision that was just released, the Commission's staff rejected an objection to the use of an FM translator taking a signal that can only be heard on a digital HD Radio and turning it into an analog signal capable of being received on any FM receiver.  In this case, the broadcaster rebroadcast his AM station on the FM HD station so that it could then be rebroadcast on the FM translator.  But, even if the HD multicast channel was a totally independent station that could otherwise only be heard on an HD digital radio, it could be rebroadcast on the FM translator and received by anyone with an FM radio in the limited area served by the translator station. 

The Commission did make clear, however, that a broadcaster cannot use another station owner's HD multicast channel and rebroadcast that on a translator if the broadcaster already owned the maximum number of stations allowed by the multiple ownership rules.  In other words, if a broadcaster is allowed by the multiple ownership rules to own 4 FM stations in a market, it could put a fifth (low power) FM signal in that market through the use of an FM translator rebroadcasting one of its own HD multicast signals.  However, if it had not itself converted its FM stations to digital so that it had its own multicast abilities, it could not do a time brokerage agreement and program the multicast signal of another broadcaster in town who had installed the digital equipment needed to do such multicasts.  An LMA or time brokerage agreement with another station for use of an HD multicast channel counts for multiple ownership purposes in the same way that such a programming agreement would if it provided for programming of a primary analog  FM station. 

This decision, together with the recent decision (summarized here) to allow AM stations to rebroadcast their signal on FM translators, opens the possibility of many more vibrant outlets for local expression from signals that otherwise have limited reach in communities where there are translators making such operations possible.  Watch for more broadcasters taking advantage of these opportunities in the future. 
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on October 18, 2009 by David Oxenford

House Committee Passes Bill to Allow for More LPFM Stations - With Some Protections for Existing Broadcasters

Last Thursday, the possibility of more Low Power FM (LPFM) stations came a step closer, as a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill (the text of which is here) which would remove existing Congressional restrictions on the FCC adopting rules to ignore potential interference from new LPFM stations to full power FMs operating on third-adjacent channels.  With this committee approval coming at the same time as the Senate Judiciary Committee's approval of a bill that would authorize a sound recording performance royalty on radio broadcasters' over-the-air programming, this was not a good day legislatively for traditional broadcasters.  But it certainly could have been worse, as the LPFM bill does contain new provisions that would serve to extend some protection to existing broadcasters from interference from new LPFM stations.  Perhaps because of these new protections, the committee action was unanimous.

 The new protections built into the bill include the following:

  • Protection for third-adjacent channel full-power FM stations providing reading services for the blind
  • Providing protection for FM translator input signals from interference from new LPFM stations
  • For a year after a new LPFM goes on the air, it must broadcast notices that any listener who experiences interference to another FM station or FM translator from this new LPFM should report that interference to the LPFM station.  In the event that interference is reported:
    • The LPFM must notify the FCC and the third-adjacent channel station that is getting interference
    • The LPFM station must address the interference that arises
    • The FCC is charged with looking for ways to assist the LPFM in remediating interference, including allowing co-location of the LPFM at the same tower site as the FM station or FM translator to which interference is being caused
    • The FCC will investigate allegations of interference from an FM broadcaster or FM translator, no matter how far that interference is from the station, and even if the interference is to mobile reception

The bill does not say, however, what happens if the interference is not remediated.  Under current FCC rules for the FM translator service, a new translator must sign off if interference to existing stations cannot be resolved.  The bill does not specify that remedy for LPFM.  This issue remains to be resolved if the bill eventually passes Congress.

The bill also provides that the FCC "when licensing FM translators and low-power FM stations" shall ensure that licenses shall be available to both translators and LPFM stations, but that such decisions shall be made based on the "needs of the local community."  The FCC is already struggling with the proper balance between FM translators and LPFM stations.  As we've written before, the FCC has been trying to decide what to do with the number of FM translators that were filed in the last translator window.  And, now that FM translators for AM stations have been authorized, there is even more demand for the use of such translators, which LPFM advocates contend limit their ability to establish new changes.  Plus, plans have been offered to use parts of TV Channel 6 for use by LPFM stations to lessen their conflict with translators,  but thus far the FCC has not moved on these proposals.  

Given the findings in the bill about the local benefits of LPFM, one wonders if Congress is trying to stack the deck in favor of LPFM in this analysis that the FCC is supposed to conduct.  FM translators need to be aware of this threat, and lobby Congress and the FCC to make sure that their opportunities are preserved, as well as those of LPFM stations.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on June 29, 2009 by Brendan Holland

FCC Adopts Rules Permitting AM Rebroadcasts on FM Translators

The FCC today adopted an Order revising its rules to permit the rebroadcast of AM radio stations on FM translator stations.  A copy of the Order is available here.  By this Order, the FCC formally adopted the interim policy that it has experimented with in the past year and a half since the release of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding.  The Commission acknowledged that the interim rule has worked well and that allowing AM stations the same flexibility to use FM translators to enhance their service is in the public interest. 

Per today's Order:  "Specifically, AM broadcast stations will be allowed to use currently authorized FM translator stations (i.e., those now licensed or authorized in construction permits that have not expired) to rebroadcast their AM signals, provided that no portion of the 60 dBu contour of any such FM translator station extends beyond the smaller of: (a) a 25-mile radius from the AM transmitter site; or (b) the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station. In addition, AM broadcast licensees with Class D facilities will be allowed to originate programming on such FM translators during periods when their AM station is not operating."

Several things to note:

First, "currently authorized FM translators" means translator stations with licenses or permits in effect as of May 1st, 2009.  As expected, there is no opportunity to seek authorization for new FM translators, and by extension, there was no need for the FCC to address the issue of priorities between LPFM stations and FM translators (which the FCC says it will address in the pending LPFM rule making).  So this rule change simply allows existing FM translator stations to rebroadcast AM stations.

Second, the translator stations must be co-owned with the AM station being rebroadcast or else have written consent to rebroadcast the AM station (just as a translator must for an FM station).  The rules will allow AM licensees to enter into agreements for the rebroadcast of their station on FM translators licensed to unrelated entities in the non-reserved band.  However, this policy does not extend to FM translators in the reserved band. So AM stations can't enter into agreements with unrelated entities to rebroadcast their signals on reserved band translators.

Third, just as with FM stations, translators cannot be used to extend the contour of an AM station, and must be wholly contained within the 2 mV/m daytime contour and the 25-mile radius.  Similarly, the financial support rule remains the same, so AM licensees may not provide financial support for a translator in situations where an FM licensee could not do so.

Finally, just as with FM stations, there is no numeric limit on the number of fill-in FM translators allowed for an AM station, other than the existing limitation on the ability to hold multiple translators serving the "same area" absent a showing of technical need.

The Order is intended to go into effect as soon as possible, and the new rules will be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (or after OMB approval if it is later).  As of the effective date of this Order, the FCC will dismiss any pending or previously granted STAs allowing the rebroadcast of AM stations on FM translators, as they will no longer be necessary.  Consistent with the FCC's rules, translator stations must simply notify the FCC of a change in the station it is rebroadcasting by filing a simple letter notification. 
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on June 22, 2009 by David Oxenford

LPFM - When a Secondary Service Becomes Primary

When the Low Power FM service was first authorized, it was as a "secondary service," though a recent court decision shows how that secondary status is becoming less and less a reality.  A secondary service is traditionally one that can be allotted where there are no other uses for a particular frequency, and which is subject to being bumped off the spectrum should there be another demand for that spectrum by a "primary" user.  LPFM stations were originally supposed to provide service to areas between full-power FM radio stations, and to be bumped off the air if there was a new FM station authorized or a change in the frequency or power of an existing station.  A decision of the Court of Appeals released earlier this month , upholding an FCC order giving more protections to LPFM stations, puts this secondary service into question.

The Court decision upheld the Commission's decision, about which we wrote here, determining that waivers of second adjacent channel interference limitations between LPFM and full power stations should be permitted to help preserve LPFM service.  In addition, the Court upheld the FCC's process in adopting a new "interim" policy which provides that, where an LPFM is providing 8 hours a day of local programming and would be knocked off the air by an upgrade or city of license change of a full-power station, the LPFM station could apply for a waiver of its secondary status, and there would be a rebuttable presumption in favor of such a waiver.  If the waiver is granted, the LPFM station would be preserved, and the application of the full-power station dismissed.  Thus, effectively, LPFM would no longer be secondary, but instead will have assumed a primary, protected status.

Should broadcasters expect that all of their upgrades will be blocked by LPFM stations?  Perhaps, but maybe not as the Court's decision makes clear that the issue isn't fully resolved. The Commission's interim policy did not make the waiver of the secondary status automatic when requested by an LPFM station faced with an upgrade of a full-power station that would knock it off the air.  While there might be a presumption in favor of the waiver of secondary status, that presumption can be rebutted.  While the Commission did not say how the presumption could be rebutted, perhaps the full power station could show the far greater service that the upgrade would provide if it were not precluded by the preservation of the LPFM station.  The Commission did say that full power stations that needed upgrades to fully serve their community of license would be allowed.  But what about upgrades that served other new areas that did not receive significant service, or would simply cover significant areas that would get a new service from the upgrade?  Is it really in the public interest to preserve a station that was applied for as a secondary service, and which might provide service to a couple of thousand people when its preservation could preclude an upgrade that could provide new service to ten or twenty or one hundred times that many people?  The Commission did make clear how questions like these would be resolved, or what other issues could be raised to rebut the presumption in favor of the waiver of secondary status, so we will see how these cases are decided.  And no matter how these cases are decided, any such decision could again be appealed to the Courts.  The option for a full power station to appeal the grant of the waiver of secondary service was clearly left open by the Court's decision.

We might also see a glimpse of how the FCC will deal with LPFM issues this week, as the Commission will be addressing the question of whether to permanently authorize FM translators for AM stations.  LPFM advocates have argued that the use of FM translators for AM stations will cut down on the number of open channels on which to put LPFM stations.  Broadcasters, on the other hand, have contended that the existing service provided by AM stations would be strengthened by allowing FM translators, particularly those that fill in holes in directional antenna patterns or ones which allow a daytime AM to serve its community at night.  Will the promise of a new service outweigh these claims of the strengthening of an existing service. We will see later this week as this issue is addressed, and we'll have to stay tuned as other LPFM issues are addressed in coming months.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on February 19, 2009 by David Oxenford

FCC Denies Temporary Authority for AM Station to Use FM Translator Frequency For Which No Authority Had Been Granted

The FCC has an open proceeding pending to allow AM stations to use FM translators.  As we have written, while this proceeding continues, the Commission is allowing AM stations to rebroadcast their signals on FM translators on under Special Temporary Authority.  In a case decided today, the FCC made clear that this is only permitted where the translator already is an authorized facility.  In this case, an applicant requested that the FCC grant it temporary authority to operate an FM translator on a frequency where no authorization has been granted or even applied for.  The Commission's staff found that it had no authority to authorize such an AM station to put its signal on the FM band unless there was an authorized translator that could be used, or until the full Commission decided differently in the pending proceeding and allows AM stations to apply for new translators.

While this seems like a fairly straightforward decision, there is one interesting issue noted in the decision.  The applicant claimed that the FCC could authorize an FM translator on a temporary basis if the public interest supports it, citing a case in Nevada where the FCC authorized the temporary operation of a Low Power FM station for which no authorization had been filed.  We wrote about that case here, and the press suggestions that this application was granted at the request of a Nevada Senator even though it was not within the normal FCC processes.  In the case released today, the Commission's staff denied that the Nevada case provided any benefits to the applicant - stating that the Nevada decision was an unpublished decision with no precedential value.  Perhaps the decision also reflects the change of administration - to one that promises to be more observant of established processes and to make decisions based on reasoned decision-making.  

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on September 24, 2008 by David Oxenford

Proposal for FM Translators for AM Stations Deleted From FCC Agenda - Along With Many Other Broadcast Items

Tomorrow's FCC meeting was to consider the proposal to allow AM stations to use FM translators on a permanent basis (see our post here).  However, it is not going to happen - the FCC released a Public Notice today removing that item from the agenda for tomorrow's meeting.  While a number of other items were also withdrawn from the agenda, most of them were decisions on specific cases which are not routinely decided at open meetings, and most of these matters were decided on circulation (i.e. voted on by the Commissioners without a meeting).  Two more general items, one dealing with a simplification of AM proof of performance procedures and another with requests for reconsideration of the FCC's noncommercial comparative standards, have also been decided on circulation (and we will report on these decisions when the decisions are released).  But the item on FM translators for AM stations was pulled from the agenda, and has apparently not been decided by the FCC.

Rumors that this item would be pulled circulated last week at the NAB Radio Show.  We have always expressed concerns that this item would be held up by pressure put on the FCC by LPFM advocates who fear more demand for FM translators from AM stations will make it harder for LPFM applicants to find open channels.  We have no idea if this is in fact the reason for the deletion of the item from tomorrow's agenda, and will have to wait to see when the matter reappears for final consideration.

Tags: , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link
Posted on November 27, 2007 by David Oxenford

FCC Meeting Adopts Rules Favoring LPFM, Restricting Translator Applications, and Possibly Impeding Full Service FM Station Upgrades

In an unusually contentious FCC meeting, the FCC adopted rules that promote Low Power FM ("LPFM") stations seemingly to the detriment of FM translators and improvements in the facilities of full-power FM stations.  While no formal text of the decision has yet been released, the Commission did release a Public Notice summarizing its action.  However, given the lack of detail contained in the Notice as to some of the decisions - including capping at 10 the number of translator applications from the 2003 FM translator window that one entity can continue to process and the adoption of an interim policy that would preclude the processing of full-power FM applications that created interference that could not be resolved to an existing LPFM station - it appears that the Press Release was written before these final details were determined.  And given that the two Republican Commissioners dissented from aspects of this order supported by their Chairman (and also dissented on certain cable items considered later in the meeting), one wonders about the process that resulted in the Republican chairman of the FCC voting with the two Democratic Commissioners on an item that in many respects favors LPFM stations to the detriment of existing broadcast operators.

In any event, specific decisions mentioned in today's meeting include:

  • Treating changes in the Board of Directors of an LPFM station as minor ownership changes that  can be quickly approved by the FCC
  • Allowing the sale of LPFM stations from one non-profit entity to another
  • Tightening rules requiring local programming on these stations
  • Maintaining requirements that LPFM stations must be locally owned, and limiting groups to ownership of only one station
  • Limiting applicants in the 2003 FM translator window to processing only 10 pending applications each, and requiring that they decide which 10 applications to prosecute before any settlement window opens (the two Republican Commissioners favored allowing applicants to continue to process up to 50 applications)
  • Adopting an interim policy requiring that full-power FM stations that are improving their facilities in such a way that their improvement would interfere with an LPFM station to work with the LPFM to find a way to eliminate or minimize the interference.  If no resolution could be found, the full-power station's application would not be processed (which we have expressed concerns about before)
  • Urging that Congress repeal the ban on the FCC making any changes that would eliminate protections for full power stations from third-adjacent channel interference from LPFMs

In a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission will apparently go further to aide LPFM applicants.  The Further Notice will ask for comments on:

  • Potentially giving LPFM stations a status superior to that of FM translators
  • Looking at the relationship between LPFM and full power stations to see what permanent rules can be adopted to avoid having changes in full power stations preclude the continued operation of a LPFM facility - including the possibility that full power operators would have to pay the costs of relocating LPFM stations to different channels or transmitter site locations
  • Revising the LPFM rules to use contour protection interference techniques, rather than the strict mileage separations currently required.

The new rules, and the new proposals could have a significant effect on broadcasters.  Applicants who had a significant number of applications still pending in the 2003 window will likely have most of their applications dismissed (losing their investments in time and money in preparing those applications in 2003).  The dismissal of many of these applications may impede service to the public as some of these translators would likely replace translators that may be bumped by new noncommercial stations proposed in the recent noncommercial FM filing window.  And AM licensees who were hoping that some of these translators could be granted to provide them with FM translators on which their signals could be broadcast may not have such as many opportunities.

For full power stations, many of the simplified city-of-license change procedures that were only recently adopted to allow easier improvements for FM stations may now be complicated again, as LPFM stations will have to be protected.  These LPFM stations, which were licensed as secondary facilities, may now be precluding new service by full-power primary stations. 

As stated above, the full text of the decision has not been released - this summary is from statements made at the FCC meeting and from the Press Release that is lacking in many essential details.  Broadcasters should be alert for that order to determine exactly how these new rules, and the potential for even more changes in the future, may affect their current or planned operations.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link
Posted on September 30, 2007 by David Oxenford

FM Translators for AM Stations - Start Your Engines

On an NAB Radio Show panel that included the news that LPFM licenses are, in some cases, holding up the processing of certain FM applications while solutions to potential interference to the LPFM station are sought (see out post here), a representative of the Audio Services Division of the FCC's Media Bureau also revealed that the FCC is routinely accepting and processing requests for special temporary authority to allow AM stations to rebroadcast their signals on FM translators.  Such STA requests must follow the guidelines that are contained in the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would authorize such use on a permanent basis (see out summary of that proposal here). We have seen some of these requests already granted.

So, AM broadcasters interested in FM translators should start looking for translator stations to use for such purposes realizing, of course, that any FCC authority is temporary and could be overturned when the FCC ultimately makes its final decision in the rulemaking proceeding.  There is no window for the filing of new applications, so an AM licensee seeking to use the STA process must find an existing translator to use for this purpose.  But the opportunity is there, and AM broadcasters can take advantage of it.

Tags: , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link