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 December 20, 2010 by David Oxenford

Bill Changing LPFM Spacings But Protecting FM Stations Passes Congress - After NAB Assures More Protections to Broadcasters

The Local Community Radio Act has been pending in Congress, ready to be approved for many months, but held up by the Senate.  This weekend, as the Congressional term was drawing to a close, both the House and the Senate approved a bill modifying the interference standards for Low Power FM radio stations, opening the possibility that more channels will be available for LPFM use when the next window for filing new LPFM applications opens. However, this bill is substantially modified from the LPFM bill that was just passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year (see our summary of the House version of the bill). The NAB has been working with the LPFM advocates to adopt a bill with substantially more protections for full-power stations, while still allowing LPFMs to locate on channels third adjacent to full power stations. The bill passed by Congress and soon to be signed by the President makes substantial changes to the original House version, and seemingly provides many such protections. Specifically, the final legislation is different from the old bill in many ways including:

  • It does away with all the introductory language in the original House bill that contained many Congressional findings about the value of LPFM stations, language that could have been used to justify FCC actions in the future that would be unfavorable to the interests of full-power stations. 
  • It specifically forbids the FCC from amending the distance requirements between LPFM and full-power stations for first and second adjacent channel operations.  It does allow for waivers of these separations, but requires LPFMs to cease operations if complaints of interference to a full-power station are received.
  • It makes clear that LPFM stations are secondary to full power stations, both as they currently exist and as they may be modified in the future. 
  • The law specifically requires that the FCC treat LPFM and FM translators and FM boosters as being equal in status, and secondary to full-power stations (both existing and modified full-power stations) – thus seemingly ending some of the LPFM proposals that would allow LPFM stations to preempt existing FM translators.
  • For LPFMs that are located at less than the full distance from a full-power station set out by the LPFM rules, even on a third adjacent channel, the LPFM must provide the same protections that translators give to other stations under Section 74.1203, which includes the requirement that a new secondary station (like a translator or LPFM) cease operations if it interferes with the reception of any regularly used FM signal (even if the signal is outside of the existing station’s primary service contour)
  • The bill adds a provision to protect stations in certain densely populated states (principally if not exclusively New Jersey) by imposing the translator interference rules on LPFM stations (seemingly the same provision as provided for stations in other states when the LPFM is operated at less than the current spacings. 

This bill does contain some provisions that are not entirely clear, and in some cases, provisions that seem a bit contradictory. These issues will no doubt be sorted out by the FCC, and potentially by Congress itself, in the future. 

But with the principal established that LPFMs can be treated more like translators for purposes of interference, the way may be paved for resolution of many of the long-delayed proceedings involving LPFM stations and FM translators, including potentially resolution of the status of the thousands of FM translator applications still on file from the 2003 window. While anxious applicants should not look for such a resolution overnight, the status of translators and LPFM stations is now clearer than it was, and some of the basic issues that had delayed processing of these applications have been resolved.  But other issues remain, as LPFM advocates are still concerned with the number of potential translators that could be granted, which they fear could preempt potential new LPFM service in some areas.   Translator applicants with many pending applications are worried about what will happen to those applications, and whether they will be able to timely provide service to the areas that would be served by these new stations.  So, while issues remain to be resolved, the passage of the bill should result in action some action in the not too distant 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: , , , , , , , ,