Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Davis Wright Tremaine Law Firm : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

At today's FCC open meeting, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") to begin the process of implementing the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, passed by Congress last year, and to chart a path to the licensing of new LPFM stations.  (See our earlier posting here regarding the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.)  While today's item does not attempt to address all of the issues raised by the Act, it starts the implementation process and seeks to develop processing policies for FM translator applications, resume the licensing of pending translator applications, and establish a framework for licensing new LPFM stations.  

One of the most significant aspect of the NPRM is the Commission's tentative conclusion that the earlier "ten application limit" that it previously imposed on pending FM translator applications would not further the statutory mandate of licensing new LPFM stations, as the limit does not take geographic or market differences into consideration and the remaining translator applications would still block new LPFMs in numerous markets, according to the Media Bureau's analysis.  In today's item, the Commission proposes to eliminate the earlier ten application limit and consider other alternatives for potentially dismissing previously filed translator applications in order to ensure that new LPFM applications can be granted.  Specifically, the FCC seeks comment on several options, including:  1.) Dismissing all pending FM translator applications and make plans for a new joint window for both LPFM and FM translators; 2.) Not dismissing any FM translator applications, but rather establish a priority for future LPFM applications; and 3.) Adopting a market-specific translator application dismissal processing policy to clear out pending FM translator applications in certain markets. 

The NPRM also raises questions regarding how the Commission should assess the needs of the local community -- which the Act instructs it to consider when making licensing decisions between LPFM and translators.  These questions go to the fundamental nature of each class of station and the type of service they can, and/or must, provide to the public consistent with their respective licensing rules.  In addition, the NPRM seeks input on how to interpret the Act's requirement that translators and LPFMs are to be afforded "equal status".  Here, the Commission starts with the question of whether the Act's mandate that it treat LPFM and translator "stations" co-equal allows it to give priority to later-filed LPFM "applications" over pending FM translator "applications".  Reading the NPRM it is clear that the broadly worded Act was big on goals and short on specificity, as today's item now seeks to put the rubber to the road and figure out how to balance the two services, and how exactly to process applications from the two services while ensuring opportunities for new LPFM stations on the one hand, and yet treating FM translators on a "co-equal basis" on the other hand.  

The Commission also seeks comment on processing policies to deter the potential for speculative abuses among translator applicants, and comment on the use of FM translators to rebroadcast the signals of AM stations.  Both the NPRM and several of the Commissioners support the use of FM translators to rebroadcast AM stations, however, the current policy only authorizes such rebroadcasts on FM translators that had licenses or permits as of May 1, 2009.  The FCC asks whether it should extend that policy to permit AM rebroadcasts on FM translator applications that were on file as of May 1, 2009.  The FCC is moving quickly on this proceeding, and Comments will be due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due 45 days after publication.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent speech before the Community Radio Conference, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn suggested that the proposal to reallocate Channels 5 and 6 for FM radio use had merit and should be considered further.  That proposal is already before the FCC, and ripe for decision - so it could theoretically be adopted tomorrow.  However, the proposal is not backed by all.  While Commissioner Clyburn may think that the idea bears more exploration, there seems to be significantly more consideration that is necessary before a decision on the pending proposals can be made.  What are these proposals, and what is standing in the way of a reallocation? 

As we have written before, the proposals have been made to take TV Channels 5 and 6, which are immediately adjacent to the FM band, and reallocate them to radio broadcasting.  The pending proposals include suggestions that LPFM stations could be located on the new FM channels that could be created, that new space for noncommercial radio operations could be created and, if they operated digitally, there would even be room to move the entire AM band to Channel 5.  While some have suggested that any relief from such a transition would be long in coming, as radios would need to be manufactured, in fact that process might not be as prolonged as suggested, as the frequencies used by these television channels are already used for FM radio in Asia.  Radios already exist that could pick up these channels (at least for analog reception).  However, television interests have opposed this reallotment, but it may well be the broadband plan which could have the greatest impact on the consideration of this issue. 

The initial objections to the reallotment of these channels to radio came essentially from two groups of television operators.  The first were those few full-power stations that were still operating, after the digital television transition, on these channels and either couldn't move to another channel, or were unwilling to do so without getting paid.  The second group was low power television operators.  Many of these operators are using Channel 6 LPTV stations, which are still operating in an analog mode in many markets, as virtual radio stations, as FM receivers can pick up the audio of these stations.  While there will be an eventual transition of these stations to digital which will probably end their use as radio stations, the ultimate transition date has not yet been set.

But the recent proposal for the repurposing of some of the television spectrum for wireless broadband creates a whole new problem for the use of Channels 5 and 6 for FM radio. Those channels might well be needed for television if the FCC seriously forces TV to give up part of the UHF band that is currently used for DTV service.  While VHF channels, like 5 and 6, have proved to less than optimal for DTV use, and are not expected to be very good for mobile DTV, television users could be forced to use these channels were the FCC to follow up with its suggestions of taking some of the UHF channels for mobile broadband.  These issues are all interrelated - a change in the use of TV channels for broadband may down the road affect the growth of FM.  In short, while Commissioner Clyburn may think that the idea has merit - don't look for it to be implemented anytime soon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, the FCC released a Public Notice requesting further comments on the proposal to increase the power of HD radio operations.  We have written about that proceeding a number of times, including posts here and here.  The increased power for the digital radio signals has been sought by many broadcasters who believe that current HD radio power levels do not  produce strong enough digital signals to penetrate buildings and fully serve radio markets.  On the other hand, other broadcasters fear that the increased power for the digital signals will create interference to existing analog stations operating on adjacent channels.  Today, the FCC set the dates for the filing of these additional comments - comments are due on July 6, with replies due on July 17. 

While comments have already been filed on the proposal to increase digital power, the FCC has raised a number of specific issues on which it wants comments, especially in light of the studies sponsored by NPR in cooperation with a number of other broadcasters, which seek to do a comprehensive review of the interference potential of higher powered digital operations.  NPR is shooting to have that report to the FCC in September.  The specific questions raised in the new FCC notice are:

• Whether the FCC should wait to decide on the power increase proposal until after the NPR study is done
• Whether current operations by radio stations operating in HD, and the various tests that have already been run, demonstrate the need for higher power operation on a permanent or provisional basis
• Whether new standards of interference to adjacent channel stations should be adopted, and if the interference should also protect LPFM stations
• Whether there should be specific procedures adopted to resolve any interference issues that do arise. 

Many of these questions have been addressed to one degree or another in previous comments.  Other than the question of whether to defer any decision in the proceeding until after the NPR study has been completed, the one new issue raised in the FCC's request for comments is whether LPFM stations should be protected from potential interference from any HD radio operation.  LPFM, which was originally established as a secondary service where stations could be dropped in where they would fit and preempted if there was interference from a full-power station, are receiving more and more protections from incursions from other stations.  Here, again, the FCC is asking if these supposedly secondary services should be protected from uses from primary stations.

Interested parties should file their comments on the dates set out above.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Digital Television conversion has allowed the FCC to reclaim significant portions of the TV spectrum for wireless and public safety uses - television channels above 51 will no longer be used for broadcast TV at the end of the analog to digital transition.  But, as part of the FCC's Diversity proceeding (see our post here), a proposal dealing with the other end of the TV spectrum is being considered - whether to remove Channels 5 and 6 from the television band and instead use these channels for FM radio.  These channels are adjacent to the lower end of the FM band.  Because of this adjacency, the existence of TV Channel 6 in a market can limit the use of the lowest end of the FM band (used for Noncommercial Educational stations) to avoid interference to the TV station.  Similarly, Channel 6's audio can be heard on many FM radio receivers, a fact that has recently been used by some LPTV operators to use their stations to deliver an audio service that can be received by FM radios (see our post on this subject).  In comments filed in the Diversity proceeding, parties have taken positions all across the spectrum - from television operators who have opposed using the channel for anything but television, to those suggesting that the channels be entirely cleared of television users and turned into a digital radio service.  Proposals also suggest using the band for LPFM operations, and even for clearing the AM band by assigning AM operators to this band to commence new digital operations.

In comments that our firm submitted on behalf of a group of noncommercial FM radio licensees who also rebroadcast their signals on a number of FM translator stations, we suggested that Channel 6 could provide a home for LPFM operations, instead of trying to squeeze those stations into the existing FM band.  There are currently proposals to squeeze more LPFM stations into the FM band by supplanting some FM translators (see our summary of some of those proposals here).  In these comments in the Diversity proceeding, we pointed out that, as there are currently radios on the market that receive 87.9, 87.7 and even 87.5, using these three channels for LPFM service would provide an immediate home to these stations, and far more opportunity for than LPFM would have in the already congested FM band.  These opportunities would exist even in most of the largest radio markets in the country, except in the handful of markets where a Channel 6 television station will continue to operate after the digital transition.  By adopting this proposal, the service that would be provided by FM translators would not be threatened. 

Another set of comments submitted by a group which includes a number of consulting engineers went even further, suggesting that all of Channels 5 and 6 be turned over to a radio service, that the service be operated in a digital mode, and that AM stations and LPFMs all be moved to these new channels.  The proposal is quite detailed, submitting a table of allotments for the relocation of the AM stations.  The proposal also sets out alternative channels for all current full-power television stations on Channels 5 and 6 where they could be moved to clear these two channels for radio operations.

On the other hand, a number of groups have opposed use of these channels for radio.  The opposition includes those stations who already are operating their digital stations on these channels, and organizations including the NAB and MSTV who represent broadcast television stations.  These groups argue that these two channels need to be retained as television channels not only for use by the television stations that have digital operations there, but also for new stations that can be allotted after the end of the digital transition, as well as for LPTV stations that are already operating there and ones that could be built in the future. 

Thus, the Commission will be faced with a choice between using these channels for more radio or more television.  So far, no party has argued that there is no need for this additional service given the multiple services that each TV and FM radio station can provide when operating digitally, nor have questions been raised as to what the addition of new channels (either radio or TV) will do for revenues of existing stations already facing unprecedented competition from other forms of new media.  Of course, the competition will come digitally in any event through other means of wireless delivery, so more competition is inevitable whether or not these channels are used for new broadcast services.  The use of these channels for more broadcasting will only hasten the inevitable increase in competition that broadcasters will face.   At the same time, the addition of all these channels will show, once again, that the incredible competition that exists to broadcasters and demonstrate that government regulation is not necessary to ensure that local service will be provided as, if the marketplace demands it, it will be provided (see our post here). 

Reply Comments on these important issues are due on August 29.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

Just over a week ago, the FCC decided to freeze the dismissal of FM translator applications of applicants who had more than 10 applications still pending at the FCC.  As we have written, the FCC had ordered all applicants in the 2003 FM Translator filing window to dismiss all but 10 of their remaining applications.  The Commission took this action in response to the request of advocates of Low Power FM (LPFM) stations, who argued that the numerous pending translators blocked too many opportunities for new LPFM stations.  While translator applicants opposed the Commission's action, and filed Petitions for Reconsideration of that decision and a request for stay of the deadline for selecting the applications for dismissal, the deadline for selection of the applications to be dismissed came and went.  Only after that deadline did the Commission issue a Public Notice announcing that it would not process the dismissal requests until it resolved the pending Reconsideration petitions. 

While the dismissals of applications by parties with more than 10 applications have been frozen, the processing of applications filed by other applicants will be allowed to go forward. So, presumably, unless these applications are mutually exclusive with some of the frozen applications, we will see some new translator applications processed and granted, and perhaps even settlement windows opened in cases where there are mutually exclusive applications by parties with less than 10 applications pending.  For all other applicants, either applications by those with more than 10 pending applications or applications which are mutually exclusive with such applications, they will remain pending until the Reconsideration requests are resolved.  So we should, at long last, see at least some new FM translator applications processed and granted in the near future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

In November, the FCC adopted an Order limiting to 10 the number of FM translators from the 2003 translator filing window that a single applicant could pursue.  This Order was adopted by the Commission at the urging of LPFM advocates who believed that the large number of FM translator applications filed in 2003 foreclosed some opportunities for new low power FM stations (see our description of the Order here).  Last week, the FCC released a Public Notice telling translator applicants to choose which 10 applications that they will continue to prosecute.  Applicants have until April 3 to make that choice and notify the Commission of their choice.  If no choice is made by that date, the FCC will continue to process the first 10 applications that were on file, dismissing any remaining applications by that applicant.

The Commission is expecting to then continue to process the remaining applications, opening a settlement window after the dismissal process is complete so that the remaining applicants can sort out possible engineering solutions or other settlements that would resolve conflicts between remaining mutually exclusive applications.  However, there are a number of Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed against the Order establishing the 10 application limit (including one filed by our firm on behalf of a number of clients).  We'll see if the Commission takes any action on the Reconsideration petitions (and an accompanying Petition for Stay of the selection deadline) or if the Commission marches on and continues to process these applications.  For now, applicants should be ready to make their selections on or before April 3.

Note that the FCC requires hard copies of the dismissal letters, rather than some sort of electronic filing.  So be sure to allow time for the delivery of such selections.  Also note that the Public Notice does not define "applicant."  Is an applicant a company or individual, or do all of the FCC's attribution rules apply to this limit?  No guidance whatsoever is provided by the FCC's Public Notice.  Perhaps these issues will also be addressed by the FCC at some point prior to the deadline.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Federal Register publication of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Power FM (LPFM) stations and their relationship to FM translators and upgrades of full-power FM stations occurred today.  This sets the comment dates in that proceeding - with comments due April 7, and replies on April 21.  This proceeding looks at technical issues of whether LPFM stations (which were originally authorized as secondary stations, subject to being knocked off the air if they caused interference to full-power stations (including new stations or increases in the facilities of existing stations), should be protected against interference from such new FM facilities.  Also, the proceeding looks at whether LPFM should get a preference over FM translators, perhaps even being able to bump existing FM translators off the air to make way for new LPFM stations.  We wrote more about this proceeding, here.  FM station and FM translator licensees should be sure to file comments with the FCC on how this proceeding could affect their operations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

At its December meeting, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Localism.  At that meeting, while the Commissioners discussed the generalities of the proposals being made, the specifics of the proposals were unknown.  The full text of the NPRM has now been released, and it sets out the areas in which the Commission proposes to re-regulate broadcast stations.  The order also hints at a number of other proceedings that the Commission intends to launch in the near future, and reminds broadcasters of a number of other existing proceedings that will potentially bring about greater regulation.  From the discussion in the NPRM, new rules will apply to all broadcasters - large and small - and potentially place significant burdens on all stations which, as always, are hardest for small stations to deal with.  Given the number of new regulatory initiatives discussed by the Commission, the NPRM is a must-read for all broadcasters, and this proceeding is one in which all broadcasters should participate.

Among the specific proposals on which the Commission asks for comments include the following:

Community Advisory Boards:  The Commission tentatively concludes that all stations will be required to establish a community advisory board to advise the station on the issues of importance to the community that can be addressed in the station's programming.  The Commission indicated that it did not want to bring back the burden of the ascertainment process that was abolished in the 1980s, but asks how the Board should be established so as to represent the entire community, suggesting that the categories of community leaders that were used in the ascertainment process could be used as a standard to guide the licensee in determining the make-up of the board.  Other questions include how often the board should meet, and how the board members should be selected (or elected - though by whom, the Commission does not suggest).

Other Community Outreach Efforts.  The Commission also suggests that other community outreach efforts should be considered as possible mandates for broadcasters.  These would include the following:

• Listener surveys by telephone or other electronic means (general public surveys were also part of the ascertainment process abolished in the 1980s, so if this were adopted together with the Community Advisory Board, ascertainment would effectively be back)
• Focus sessions or town hall meetings
• Participation of management personnel on community boards, committees, councils and commissions (mandatory civic participation?)
• Specific phone numbers or email addresses, publicized during programming, for the public to register their comments on station operations.

Remote Station Operations.  Comments are sought as to whether television stations should be forbidden to operate without being manned during all hours of operation.  Radio operations will be addressed in the proceeding to consider the public interest issues posed in the Digital Radio Proceeding (see our summary here).

Quantitative Programming Guidelines.  The Commission proposes to adopt quantitative standards for programming that a station would have to meet to avoid extra processing and scrutiny at license renewal time.  Questions include what categories of standards should be established (just local programs - or more specific requirements to set required amounts of news, public affairs and other categories - and how to define what programming would qualify in each category), should requirements be established as specific numbers of minutes or hours per day or per week or by a percentage of programming or through some other metric, should other specific requirements or measurements be established?

Main Studios.  The commission suggests reverting to the pre-1987 requirement that each station maintain a main studio in its community of license

Network Programming Review.  The Commission asks whether rules should be adopted to require that local network affiliates have some ability to review all network programming before it is aired.  If so, what programs would be exempt from the requirement (e.g. live programs), how much prior review is necessary, would such a right disrupt network operations?

Voice Tracking.  The Commission asks if "voice-tracking," (i.e. a radio announcer who provides announcing on a radio station from outside a local market, sometimes including local inserts to make it sound as if the announcer is local) should be limited or prohibited, or if disclosure should be required.

Local Music.  While the Commission indicates that it did not think that a ban on national playlists was required, it did ask whether broadcasters should be required to report the songs that they play, and how they choose their music.  With that information, the Commission asks if it should consider the amount of local music played when assessing whether a station has served the needs of its community at license renewal time.

Class A TV.  The Commission asks whether it should adopt rules that permit more LPTV stations to achieve Class A status, meaning that they would no longer be secondary stations subject to being forced off the air by interfering uses of the TV spectrum by full-power TV stations.

 

In addition to these specific proposals to be considered in this proceeding, the Commission mentions a number of other proceedings that are either underway or which will be initiated to consider other issues relevant to the consideration of localism in broadcasting.  The new proceedings to begin include:

Embedded Advertising.  The Commission specifically states in the NPRM that it believes that there are a number of broadcast practices that violate the spirit of the Commission's sponsorship identification rules.  On one of these issues, the Commission plans to launch a proceeding to investigate 'embedded advertising," commercial messages that are contained in program content (e.g. when the hero of a TV program sips a recognizable can of Coke or drives a Ford or goes to see a specific new movie).  That proceeding was on the Commission's agenda in December, but was pulled at the last minute but apparently will return in the near future.

Network-Affiliate Issues.  The Commission for years has had pending before it a petition by a group of owners of network affiliated television stations arguing that network affiliation agreements gave the networks too much power, effectively precluding affiliates from making programming choices that might better serve the interests of their communities.  It appears that the Commission will be resolving those issues, perhaps in a new proceeding to specifically consider some of those issues.

In-State Television Signal Availability.  The Commission promises to initiate a proceeding to determine if cable and satellite carriers should be permitted (or required) to provide subscribers with service from an in-state television station, even if the subscriber lives in a DMA where all the television stations originate in another state. 

FM Channel Availability.  The FCC has instructed its staff to come up with a tool to make it easier for the public to determine (on their own without hiring a consulting engineer) if a new FM station can be allotted at a particular community.  Look for this tool to appear on the FCC's website in the future. 

Other issues will be decided as part of other on-going proceedings.  These include:

Enhanced Disclosure Obligations.  In a simultaneously released Order, the FCC imposes certain enhanced disclosure obligations on television broadcasters - requiring that new forms be completed quarterly by broadcasters reporting on the types of programming that they broadcast, and requiring that public file information be maintained on the station's website (if the station has a website).  The imposition of similar requirement for radio is already under consideration in the Digital Radio proceeding.

Emergency Communications.  The obligations of broadcasters to communicate with their audiences in times of emergency, including communications with the hearing impaired and with audience members who do not speak English, are to be considered in an Emergency Communications docket that the Commission states will be decided soon

LPFM Issues.  Issues about providing LPFM stations with more protections from interference from full power stations, and a potential preference against FM translator stations, will be addressed in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the Commission will soon be receiving comments (see our post here)

Payola, Video News Releases and Sponsorship Identification.  The Commission currently has proceedings underway to enforce its payola rules in specific cases, and to gather more information about the use of Video News Releases (VNRs) by broadcasters, as well as certain specific enforcement actions.  The Commission intends to pursue these issues

Increase Opportunity for New Entrants.  In a separate proceeding adopted at the December meeting, the Commission adopted an order containing specific rules to enhance the opportunities for new entrants into broadcast ownership, thus increasing local media diversity.  That proceeding will also raise a number of new issues.  The text of the new rules adopted in that proceeding, and its proposals for other new rules, has not yet been released, but a number of localism related issues will be discussed in that proceeding.

Comments on this extensive list of proposals for new rules are due only 30 days after a summary of this proceeding is published in the Federal Register.  The Commission has given the public only 30 days to comment on proposals to return the broadcast industry to the regulatory structure of the 1980s.  All broadcasters should be paying attention to these proposals, as they will have a direct impact on their bottom line, and will also create numerous traps into which a broadcaster can fall at renewal time.  The five and ten thousand dollar fines that we saw in the last renewal cycle for stations that did not complete all of their quarterly issues programs lists may well be nothing compared to fines for violating some or all of these new standards if adopted.  Pay attention to this proceeding!

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link

Last week, we published a note that the FCC had published the new rules on Low Power FM (LPFM) stations in the Federal Register, starting the comment period on the issues raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in that proceeding - principally addressing the relationship between LPFM stations and FM translators and improvements in full power FM stations.  But we were wrong about the comment date.  In an unusual action, the Federal Register publication only contained that portion of the FCC's order actually adopting new rules on ownership and transferability of LPFM stations, limiting the number of FM translator applications that one entity can process from the 2003 filing window, and announcing interim processing rules with respect to situations where interference to an LPFM station would be caused by upgrades to FM stations.  The section of the document which constitutes the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking were omitted from the Federal Register publication, even though it had been acted on simultaneously with the new rules that are going into effect, and even though the language dealing with the Further Notice was released together with the new rules, in a single document back in early December.

So the comment date on the relationship between LPFM stations, FM translators and the upgrades of full-power stations remain to be set - watch for the date to be set soon. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

[Correction 1/24/2008- we have published a correction to this entry, here, noting that the Federal Register publication described below contained only half of the FCC's order in its LPFM proceeding, omitting the portion seeking public comment.  That section of the order will apparently be published in the Federal Register at a later date - so the February 19 comment date set out below is incorrect.  Everyone has more time to prepare their comments.  The actual filing date will be set in the future.]

The FCC Order establishing new rules for Low Power FM (LPFM) Stations was published in the Federal Register on January 17.  This sets the date of February 19 for the filing of comments on the question of the relationship between LPFM stations and both FM translators and full-power FM stations.  These comments will address two issues, (1) whether LPFM stations should remain secondary stations, subject to being knocked off the air by new full-power FM stations and (2) whether LPFM stations should get some sort of priority over some or all FM translator stations.

LPFM stations have been "secondary" stations, meaning that they could be knocked off the air when a new FM station came on the air, or when improvements to the facilities of an existing FM station were constructed, if the new full-power FM facilities would be caused interference from the existing LPFM station.  As we wrote here, at its November meeting, the FCC decided that it needed more information to determine whether LPFM stations should continue to be secondary to new or improved FM stations.   While not reaching a final determination on that issue, the FCC adopted temporary processing policies which essentially force the full-power stations to deal with LPFM operators in cases where such interference arises - potentially blocking improvements in the facilities of a number of FM stations. 

On the translator issue, the FCC is asking whether LPFM stations should get some sort of preference over FM translator stations - perhaps allowing a new LPFM station to knock some or all translators off the air.  The Commission asks whether LPFM stations better serve the public interest than do FM translators in some or all circumstances.  For instance, the Commission has suggested that only a certain number of FM translators per main station should be protected, or some other criteria should be used, to determine which translators should be given protection from LPFM interference.

These are important issues that broadcasters should consider carefully as it could affect the ability of many stations to expand their service (or for translator operators to continue to serve areas that they currently serve).  Parties affected by these proposals should file comments on or before the February 19 deadline.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

At last Tuesday's FCC meeting, the Commission adopted a controversial order, over the objection of two Commissioners, that could limit the processing of some applications for improvements by some full power FM stations, and would restrict translator applications, all in the name of encouraging Low Power FM (LPFM) stations to provide outlets for expression by groups that cannot get access to full-power radio stations (see our summary of that action here).  In recent weeks, two ideas have received some publicity providing an alternative outlet for these prospective local broadcasters - and both provide a simple solution (one more immediate and ad hoc than that other), but both leading to the same result - why not just extend the FM band by using TV channel 6?

The current FM band begins at 88.1 MHz, a channel that is actually immediately adjacent to TV Channel 6.  The FCC has for years restricted operations of noncommercial FM stations (which operate from 88.1 to 91.9 on the FM dial) in areas where there are Channel 6 TV stations in order to prevent the radio stations from creating interference to the reception of the TV stations.  That's while you will often find fewer noncommercial stations, or ones with weaker coverage, in communities that have TV Channel 6 licensees.  TV stations use an FM transmission system for their audio.  Thus, you will also find that most FM receivers (especially ones without digital tuners) will pick up the audio from TV channel 6 if tuned all the way to the left of the dial.  The short-term solution to expanding the FM band came from one broadcaster who noted that fact.

In recent weeks, a new FM station has surfaced in New York City - one which is not really an FM station at all, but instead a TV channel 6 operation being programmed like a radio station to emphasize the audio that can be picked up on FM radio dials.  Any FM station in New York would have easily cost many tens of millions of dollars to buy - so instead a new radio outlet was created by taking this low power television station, previously targeted to a narrow ethnic audience, to reach a much broader radio audience in the City.  A unique solution to the search for a spot on the crowded radio dial - and one that will not disappear in 2009 at the end of the digital conversion, as LPTV stations currently have no mandatory digital transition deadline. 

As a longer term solution, why not just take all of channel 6 and use it for FM operations?  That proposal was one that was advanced by consulting engineer Jack Mullaney in Comments recently filed in the digital television proceeding.  In his comments, Mullaney advocates the use of channel 6 (which has not been used by the FCC for digital operations of television stations to avoid interference to noncommercial FM stations, except in a few isolated cases where no alternative digital channel was available, ) for FM operations after the digital television transition has been complete.  As set out in Mullaney's comments, this could increase the FM band by 30 channels (there currently are 100 FM channels), which could create enough spectrum to allow for channels set aside for specific uses like LPFM, without having to worry about interference to full power stations.  Or channels could be set aside just for FM translators.  A section of the band could even be reserved for "pirate" radio - allowing anyone to start a radio station without an FCC license, provided that they stay on-channel and observe specific power limitations.

These innovative solutions to the current perceived scarcity of FM channels would be more advantageous than the Commission's current attempt to repeal the laws of physics by cramming LPFM stations into the existing band without displacing or otherwise interfering with other authorized users - a seemingly impossible proposition.  The proposal has been made - how will the FCC react to Mr. Mullaney's suggestion?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link

The FCC has released the agenda for its Open Meeting to be held on Tuesday, November 27.  The agenda is full of issues of importance to broadcasters, and several items may resolve issues that may be troubling - including issues relating to low power FM stations (LPFM) and resolving a long outstanding proceeding concerning the possibility of mandatory public interest obligations for TV stations.  The Commission also has on tap initiatives to encourage the entry of minorities and other new entrants into the broadcast business - even though comments on the Commission's proposals on this matter were received just a month ago.

First, the Commission is to release an Order on Low Power FM.  We have written about some of the issues that could be decided previously - including issues of whether or not to allow the assignment and transfer of such stations (here) and whether to give these stations preferences over translators and even improvements in full power stations (here and here).

On the TV side, the Commission seems ready to issue an order on the public interest obligations of television operators.  We wrote about the proposals - made as part of the Commission's DTV proceedings (though to be applicable to all TV stations), here.  Proposed rules included the standardization of quarterly issues programs lists, making station's public fies available on the Internet, and quantifying other public interest obligations. 

The proceeding to encourage minority ownership has a laundry list of new proposals, from allowing minority groups to buy expiring construction permits for new stations and giving them increased time to construct, to allowing various modifications of the multiple ownership rules that would allow investments by non-minorities in companies controlled by minorities or new entrants.  We summarized those proposals here.  With the last comments on these proposals just filed on October 15, this would be an exceedingly quick action - as actions on most rulemaking proposals usually take a year or more to resolve.

This could be an incredibly important meeting for broadcasters - so be sure to watch for the results on Tuesday.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As the Commission held its last localism hearing in Washington on Halloween night, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's views on how the FCC should insure that stations are responsive to their communities became somewhat clearer.  In his opening statement, the Chairman outlined a set of actions that could be taken by the FCC to insure more service to the public.  While emphasizing the importance of efforts to encourage new entrants into broadcast ownership, the Chairman's proposals to add new regulatory requirements, including requiring that a station be manned during all hours of operation, may well have the result of making it more difficult for any new entrant (or for existing smaller operators) to profitably operate their stations.  In addition, he has offered proposals that would seemingly require cable and satellite carriage of in-state television stations not in a system's DMA - a proposal sure to cause concern to stations in DMAs that straddle state lines.

The Chairman's statement includes the following proposals:

• Requirements for uniform filings by broadcasters quantifying their public service - presumably their news and information programming and the public service announcements that they provide
• Requiring that stations have manned main studios during all hours of operations (not just during business hours)
• Allowing flexibility for LPFM stations to be sold, but adopting new rules to insure that such stations are used for local programming, not something provided from a network or other programming source
• Providing television viewers the ability to get an in-state television stations on cable and satellite even if the county in which they reside is "home" to a DMA with stations in another state
• Capping the number of applications accepted from the 2003 FM translator filing window - which might result in the dismissal of hundreds of applications that have effectively been frozen for 4 years

The Chairman's statement makes much of the efforts of the Commission to promote new entrants into broadcast ownership, citing efforts to bring back a tax certificate for minority ownership, efforts to allow minority groups to acquire and construction unbuilt stations even if they may have expiring construction permits, and waiving Equity Debt Plus requirements (allowing more financing by companies that might be prohibited by the ownership rules from providing more than 1/3 of the financial backing to an applicant)(see our summary of some of the pending proposals to enhance minority ownership, here).   However, some of his other proposals actually make ownership by new entrants problematic.

On the radio side, requiring the manning of a studio 24 hours a day for stations operating full time may be an expense that a multi-station cluster in a large market would have no trouble handling.  However, the costs that the adoption of such a proposal would entail for a small, stand-alone station in a small market could be prohibitive.  The financial return in a small market from operating all night is slight, but stations continue such operations as a service to their listeners.  Years ago, when the FCC required manned main studios, many smaller stations would sign off in late evenings and overnight hours to avoid the costs of such operations.  Re-imposing a requirement that the station be manned whenever it is operated might bring back such limited service during overnight hours, or force smaller stations to consolidate so that the costs of overnight operations could be spread over multiple stations.  And to what end?  The rules already require that stations be controlled during all hours of operation.  With modern technology, the FCC recognized a decade ago when doing away with the requirement that studios be manned, control can be exerted without someone sitting at the studio, and can even originate programming without physically having someone present at the station.  And stations should be able to provide contact information to emergency officials so that they can respond to any overnight developments that might take place during unmanned hours. 

Communications with emergency officials is really the key - not whether the station has someone sitting at a studio.  The proposed new requirements seems to stem from the notorious "Minot" incident, when local authorities made claims that the largest cluster of radio stations in that community were not manned at night and could not respond to an emergency when a rail car carrying dangerous chemicals derailed creating a toxic cloud in parts of the city.  In fact, I have heard that general manager of those stations state that the stations were manned, and quickly had reporters covering the story, but that local officials simply did not know the how to activate their EAS system, and thus their phones were flooded by calls, which prevented them from reaching the station (which was in fact trying to call the police to obtain updated official information but prevented by the same overloaded phone system).  See Clear Channel's press release on the matter, here . 

The DMA (Designated Market Area - the area defined by the Nielsen ratings service as being the primary service area of a television station) issue is another concern to small market operators.  A number of Congressional bills started popping up early in the year, seeking to either permit or require cable and satellite operators to carry in-state television stations to all counties in a state, even if those counties fell within a DMA where the television service originated from stations in a different state.  While that sounds like a noble idea -giving viewers access to news from an in-state TV station - it caused major consternation among many stations who operate in markets straddling a state border.  Especially in small markets, many station operators felt that such a rule would only expand the power of large market stations that would be imported into the market, while cutting into audiences of the small market stations and making their existence more difficult.  Some of these stations felt that, in the long term, such rules might cause the disappearance of some small markets as the big-market stations gained statewide carriage.  The disappearance of small market stations would then cause a loss in real local news in exchange for some degree of state-wide news coverage.  Again, a seemingly simple idea that can cause many real world problems.

The FM translator issue while, again seeming like a simple issue, could cause many problems.  The FCC received thousands of applications for new FM translators when it opened a filing window in 2003.  While many hundred were processed and granted, in 2004 the FCC put a 6 month moratorium on further processing, while the Commissars considered the relationship of FM translators to LPFM stations.  That 6 month moratorium has now effectively been in place for over 3 years, with no end in sight.  While the Chairman's proposal to limit the number of applications that will be processed may seem like a good idea, it may well cause problems.  First, there are a number of applicants with many pending applications who spent considerable sums to file applications (including clients of our firm).  Is it fair to change the rules on these applicants in mid-stream, after these applications were filed in good faith?  And what will the impact of the limitation be - especially on the efforts to provide AM stations with FM translators?  With so many translator applications, if these were processed and granted, there would no doubt be a secondary market in excess construction permits that would allow AM stations to acquire FM translators for their use (which is being permitted on a temporary basis now, see our post here).  If these applications are dismissed or strictly limited, there will likely be a much more limited secondary market, and AM stations may well end up having to fight LPFM applicants for rights to use this spectrum.  With the potential of a preference for LPFM applicants, this could seriously curtail the ability of AM operators to obtain FM translators for their use.

All in all, this goes to show that there are no easy answers to the complex problems of the broadcast world.  The FCC's seeming interest in intervening in the markets to force the coverage of local issues, and to mandate what it perceives to be in the public interest, may well lead to significant unintended results that actually harm those efforts.  Watch these efforts closely.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

During a panel at the NAB Radio Show, FCC Audio Services Division Chief Peter Doyle was asked a question about the processing of FM applications filed under the new simplified process for upgrades in their technical facilities and for changes in their cities of license (see our post here for details about that process).  The question dealt with rumors that the processing of certain FM applications were being delayed if the proposed upgrade would cause interference problems to any LPFM stations which would threaten their existence.  We have written about our concerns that such a policy was possible, here.  According to the response yesterday, these delays are indeed taking place - meaning that LPFM stations that are supposed to be secondary services which yield to new or improved full-service stations are now blocking improvements in the facilities of these full-power stations.

Doyle explained that, at the moment, there is no policy of denying the full-service station's application - but these applications are being put on hold if they would impede an LPFM's ability to continue to operate in order to study options as to how the LPFM service might be preserved through a technical change or through agreements to accept interference.  While no final determination has been reached as to what will happen to the applications if there is no available resolution to the LPFM interference issue, he pointed to the pending rulemaking (pending for almost two years) that would give LPFM's higher status, and in effect allow them to preclude new or improved full-service operations.  There was some indication that these actions were being taken pursuant to the potential policies set out in that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - even though these policies were simply proposals advanced for public comment and have not yet been adopted by the full Commission.

 

This seems to be a troubling case of the Commission adopting rules and policies before formal rulemaking proceedings are completed.  In some cases, ad hoc policy changes may benefit broadcasters, but in cases like this, they may harm them and effectively impede the full implementation of a Commission decision that was long in the making.  And this change is in a policy that was fundamental when the FCC first authorized LPFM - that low power FM stations that serve limited areas, and which have great potential for preclusive effects on large stations serving much larger populations, would be secondary to the greater service provided by the full-power stations.  While the Commission can always change that policy, it would seem that they should do so in a reasoned rulemaking process, analyzing all of the pros and cons in the change in policy, through a resolution of a rulemaking proceeding like that which they started two years ago.  Obviously, we have to see how the application process plays out (and it indeed may just be an attempt to help the LPFM stations in a benign fashion that will not affect the upgrades of the full service stations) but if these processing policies do indeed result in denial or permanent limbo for some full-service station applications, this certainly would look like the prejudgment of an important issue without an analysis of all of the legitimately-raised counterarguments that have been submitted to the Commission in its rulemaking proceeding. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At last Thursday's Public Hearing on multiple ownership in Chicago, about which we wrote here, a statement was read by a spokesman for Presidential candidate Barack Obama.  According to press reports, the statement expressed the candidate's positions favoring shorter license renewal terms for broadcasters so that they would be subject to more public scrutiny, as well as criticizing the FCC for allowing broadcast consolidation.  These thoughts essentially echo the comments of FCC Commissioner Copps, especially on the subject of license renewal terms, whose views we wrote about here.  While many press reports have asked if this statement by Senator Obama foreshadows the broadcast ownership debate becoming part of the presidential campaign issues, we worry that it may signal a far broader attack on broadcasters during the upcoming political year.  The statement by Senator Obama is but one of a host of indications that broadcasters may face a rash of legislative issues that are now on the political drawing boards.

Broadcasters make easy targets for politicians as everyone is an expert on radio and television - after all, virtually everyone watches TV or listens to the radio and thus fancies themselves knowledgeable of what is good and bad for the public.  But those in Congress (and on the FCC) have the ability to do something about it.  And, with an election year upon us, they have the added incentive to act, given that any action is bound to generate at least some publicity and, for some, this may be their last opportunity to enact legislation that they feel important.  We've already written about the renewed emphasis, just last week, on passing legislation to overturn the Second Circuit's decision throwing out the FCC's fines on "fleeting expletives" and making the unanticipated use of one of those "dirty words" subject again to FCC indecency fines.  Clearly, no Congressman wants to be seen as being in favor of indecency (look at the rise in the indecency fines to $325,000 per occurrence which was voted through Congress just before the last election), and First Amendment issues are much more nuanced and difficult to explain to the voter, so watch this legislation.

But indecency and ownership are not the only broadcast issues on the Congressional agenda.  Bills to regulate violence on television are pending (see our post here).  Proposals have been made to regulate the advertising of unhealthy food to children, which have been stayed off temporarily by a government commission to study the issue and suggest voluntary guidelines, but at least one Presidential candidate has suggested (as we wrote here) that legislation is an option if the voluntary reforms don't go far enough and move fast enough.  And LPFM, about which we wrote here, also may rise on the Congressional agenda. 

The FCC may itself feel the heat to do something (almost anything) in the election year, and in the last days of the Presidential term and perhaps the last days of the terms of some of the sitting Commissioners (as there is usually substantial FCC turnover after an election, no matter which party wins).  Many FCC issues, from rumored new rules on payola and sponsorship identification, to old issues long waiting for resolution, like the taping of broadcast programs and the extension of broadcast EEO rules to part-time employees and the return of Form 395 all await action.  So, in the crazy days before the election, watch carefully to see what surprises your government has in store.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At today’s Future of Music Policy Summit in Washington, DC, there has been much talk about issues of interest to broadcasters, including the performance right in sound recordings for terrestrial radio, multiple ownership, and many other issues. The Future of Music Coalition, whose website is here, is dedicated to bringing the voice of musicians and the public to Congress and other decision-makers in Washington. Thus, the Coalition is involved in music issues before Congress and the Copyright Office, as well as before the FCC and other agencies on issues including multiple ownership, net neutrality, and similar matters. Members of the Coalition have been involved in the Low Power FM debate. At the panel session titled "The Hill Was Alive with the Sound of Music," dealing with legislative matters affecting music that are pending or which may arise before Congress, only one issue was perceived as being likely to be considered and potentially resolved by this Congress, before the Presidential election.  That was the issue of LPFM, where bills have been introduced in Congress to eliminate the restrictions that prohibited LPFM stations from causing third-adjacent channel interference to other stations.

The panel included staffers from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, who both indicated that, while there were many other issues of importance to those in the music industry that might be considered this year, LPFM was the one issue that had a chance of actually being adopted this year, given bipartisan support for pending bills.   The pending legislation, The Local Community Radio Act of 2007, has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.  This legislation would lift restrictions on interference to third adjacent channel stations - restrictions which were adopted by Congress about 7 years ago.  We wrote about this legislation, here.

We will see whether Congress takes any action on LPFM, has the FCC already begun to do so?  In our July comment on this issue, we also wrote about complaints from LPFM advocates that facilities changes in FM stations were forcing LPFM stations off the air.  Of course, LPFM stations were supposed to have been authorized as secondary services that could be forced off the air when they created interference to full-service stations.  We've now heard from some DC attorneys that client's full-power FM applications are being held up while their impact on LPFM stations is being reviewed by the FCC.  While this is not a policy of the FCC, and these holds may well be innocuous, broadcasters planning facility changes should consider the potential of an issue when in their engineering planning and review process.  Just one more thing for a broadcaster to worry about....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC late today released its long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to allow FM translators to rebroadcast the signal of AM stations - and potentially to originate programming during those nighttime hours when a daytime-only AM station is not permitted to operate.  The proposal is to permit AM stations to operate FM translators in an area that is the lesser of a circle 25 miles from their transmitter site or within their 2 mv/m daytime service contour.  In proposing the changes in its rules, the Commission raised a number of questions on which it seeks public comment.   These include the following:

• Is allowing the rebroadcast of AM stations on FM translators in the public interest?  What would its impact be on other stations including AM and FM stations, as well as LPFM stations?
• How many translators should each AM station be permitted?
• Should daytime-only AM stations be allowed to originate programming on an FM translator during hours when they have no programming to rebroadcast?
• Should the FCC permit AM stations to begin operating translators all at once - or should the use of these translators be phased in - perhaps permitting daytimers or stations with minimal nighttime power to operate translators first for some transitional period.
• Should there be a restriction on an AM station's use of an FM translator if the AM is co-owned with an FM station in the same market?
• Can an AM station "broker" time on a translator to provide the type of service proposed in this proceeding?

In addition to these operational issues, the FCC poses a few technical issues about these operations.  These include:

• Should any extension beyond the 2 mv/m contour be permitted?  If so, how much and in what circumstances?
• How should the 2 mv/m contour be calculated - using standard FCC predictions, or allowing the measurement of the actual reach of that signal?
• Should the 25 mile zone be extended to 35 miles in Zone II (essentially the less populated areas of the country)?

Comments on the Notice will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with replies due 30 days later.

The Notice summarizes the preliminary comments filed in the proceeding, noting that LPFM supporters opposed the proposal as it would create a new competitor for the use of the FM spectrum.  Some concern was apparently also voiced by public radio operators, who felt that other FM interference issues, and issues concerning the use of translators generally, should be resolved before this proceeding is concluded.  So, even though the FCC has tentatively proposed the adoption of these rules, there will be opposition, and broadcasters will need to make a good case for these proposals to ultimately be adopted.

AM station operators should carefully consider the issues raised by the FCC in this proceeding, to make sure that they permit uses that will really assist them in their operations.  For instance, some AM operators of stations with significant directional patterns have looked at FM translators as a means to fill in the nulls in their patterns.  But if the signal of the translator cannot extend the 2 mv/m contour of the AM station, this proposal may not provide a remedy to the problems of these directional stations. 

It is also important to note that the proposals do not suggest any sort of preference for AM operators in obtaining FM translators, or any sort of guarantee that FM translators will be available for use by all AM operators.  Thus, this proposal should not be viewed as a panacea for all AM stations, as there may be areas where there are simply no translators available for use by AM stations.

Nevertheless, the proposal does offer some potential assistance to operators of AM stations.  Thus, broadcasters interested in the potential that these translators offer should prepare comments addressing the issues raised by the FCC, and urging the adoption of proposals that would advance their interests, and that of the listening public.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link

In the last week, several new LPFM issues have arisen – one a Congressional push to authorize more of these stations by ignoring third adjacent channel interference to full power stations, and another involving complaints to the FCC about LPFM stations being forced to change channels or cease operation because of interference from changes made by full power stations. The latter issue has apparently arisen in the context of stations taking advantage of the FCC’s rules which made it easier to effectuate changes in the cities of license of FM stations (see our summary of the rule changes here), causing more movement of such stations. Both of these issues could present issues for FM broadcasters. 

The Congressional action was initiated by the introduction of legislation in both the House and the Senate that would eliminate third adjacent channel protections that full power stations have from LPFMs. Those protections have been the subject of controversy since the FCC authorized the LPFM service.  LPFM advocates have contended that the interference protections are unnecessary, as most FM receivers should be able to distinguish between stations on third adjacent channels. The NAB contends that the protections are needed as there are still many radios that would be affected by that interference. Full power stations, except for those authorized at short-spacings prior to 1964, are protected from third adjacent channel interference from each other. Competing engineering studies have been done, the FCC has not acted on this question (and in fact Congress had prohibited such action years ago).  But now, some feel that the time for some liberalization of the rules is in order.

At the same time, LPFM advocates have been complaining to the FCC about FM upgrades or facility changes that have caused LPFM stations to have to cease operations or look for alternative channels as they would cause interference to the new facilities of some FM stations.  An article on these complaints, including a mention of Congressional and FCC meetings on the subject, can be found here.  One interesting claim is that some of the LPFM operators were not aware that they were operating a secondary service - or that this meant that the station could be bumped by changes made by a full power station.

FM broadcasters who waited years for last Fall's FCC decision liberalizing changes in cities of license and other technical changes, would be very concerned were some or all of these modifications rolled back because of LPFM interference.  Thus, broadcasters should stay on top of this issue to make sure that the ability for eased facility changes are not rolled back.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The FCC, after taking two years off, is looking to finish their field hearings on Localism by scheduling a hearing in Portland, Maine on June 29.  This hearing is not one of the six hearings to discuss possible new multiple ownership rules, but instead a continuation of the hearings started by Chairman Powell after public controversy over the 2003 multiple ownership rules.  In an ironic twist of fate, this public notice was released on the Friday before the National Association of Broadcasters Educational Foundation hosts their Service to America Awards Dinner to honor broadcasters and the public service commitment that they have to their communities.  Thus, while the FCC is looking in the hinterlands for evidence of the responsiveness of the broadcast industry to the needs of their listeners, some of the best evidence of that service was on display some 12 blocks from the FCC's headquarters.

The Localism hearings were part of a larger proceeding begun in response to the controversy after the 2003 multiple ownership rules.  When the Democratic Commissioners, Congressional legislators from both parties, and a variety of citizen's groups from across the political spectrum complained about how the public's input was not sought before the rules were adopted, the FCC tried to respond to some of those complaints by putting out a Notice of Inquiry on Localism.  The proceeding was to assess how well broadcasters were serving their communities, and the Notice asked for public comment on a grab bag of issues including the following:

• whether a broadcaster's public interest obligations should be quantified (bringing back obligations abolished in the 1980s that required specific amounts of the programming of broadcast stations to be devoted to news and public affairs programming), 
• should broadcasters be required to play specific amounts of local music,
• is payola a major issue,
• whether more programming should be devoted to political campaigns, 
• whether the voices of minorities were being heard on the airwaves.
• if the FCC should authorize more LPFM stations and take other steps to make airtime available to new entrants

Several Localism hearings were announced, and a number were held, with the last one being in Monterey, California in July 2004.  The Commission never completed the remaining announced hearings, one to be held in Portland, and the final one to be held in Washington, DC.  While the Commission has attempted to avoid the mistakes of the past by holding a half dozen public hearings on the proposed new multiple ownership rules, the fact that the Localism hearings were never completed was brought to the attention of the Chairman during some Congressional oversight hearings of the FCC earlier this year.  In response to questioning, the Chairman promised to finish those hearings, apparently leading to the scheduling of this proceeding in Portland.

The irony of scheduling the hearing just before the NAB's gala awards banquet is striking.  At the Service to America awards banquet, the NABEF honored stations from across the country that had undertaken extraordinary efforts to serve their communities - raising funds for disaster relief, adopting community issues and working to address those issues, or simply reporting on the daily matters of importance to their communities, the dinner highlighted these efforts.  Also, the billion dollar plus yearly contribution by broadcasters in public service time and fund-raising for charity were mentioned numerous times.  In fact, three of the FCC Commissioners (Copps, Adelstein and McDowell), were all in attendance and assisted in the presentation of awards.  While critics of the broadcast industry may complain about instances where some issue or another was overlooked, is there really a better system for insuring that every issue is covered?  Perhaps we'll find out at the Portland hearing....

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link