FM Translators and LPFM

Subscribe to FM Translators and LPFM via RSS

Last month, we noted that there were a number of upcoming FCC actions on broadcast matters, as revealed in an article on the FCC’s blog. That article, by FCC Chairman Wheeler, promised that an order on the AM revitalization proceeding was in the works. Such an order is in fact circulating among the Commissioners for consideration and has been the subject of a significant amount of lobbying in recent weeks – mostly because the order apparently omits an application filing window exclusively for AM licensees to file for new FM translators to rebroadcast their signals in their service areas.

Based on ex parte filings (letters submitted to the docket file on the AM improvement rulemaking summarizing meetings held by interested parties with FCC Commissioners and other FCC decision-makers), it appears that that order circulating among the Commissioners omits the AM-only translator filing window, in line with the Chairman’s statements back in April that he does not want to set aside a window exclusively for AM stations to file for new FM translators (see our article here).  With the Chairman opposed, the new lobbying seems to be aimed at convincing other Commissioners to support the AM-only window, which many AM operators see as the one sure way to help preserve AM operations for the foreseeable future (perhaps until an all-digital operation becomes feasible). Even though the order apparently does not call for an AM-only window for FM translators, there does seem to be some recognition that translators can assist AMs in their operations.
Continue Reading Where Does the FCC’s AM Revitalization Order Stand?

The FCC announced yesterday 2015 regulatory fees are due by 11:59 pm (Eastern Daylight Time) on September 24, 2015.  The FCC also announced that the FCC’s automated filing and payment system (Fee Filer) for FY 2015 regulatory fees was open yesterday and will reopen on Tuesday, September 8 (it is closed today through the holiday weekend as the entire FCC electronic filing system is being shut down for maintenance).  All commercial radio and television stations (and those who hold construction permits for unbuilt commercial stations) must pay these fees.  The fees for radio are the same as were proposed in our article on the FCC’s proposal for the fees, here.  The fees for TV changed slightly from those proposed in May, and are set out at the bottom of this article.  The FCC also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking a number of questions about potential changes in the computation of broadcast fees in the future.

The FCC reminded all parties who pay fees that checks will not be accepted for regulatory fees.  Instead, all fees must be paid electronically by online “ACH” payment (an electronic payment system that many use for transferring money from one party’s accounts to another’s account), by credit card (though credit card payments will only be accepted when a company’s total fees due are less than $25,000), or wire transfer, all with an accompanying FCC 159-E form which must first be electronically filed through the FCC’s Fee Filer system. 
Continue Reading FCC Regulatory Fees Due September 24 – Plus FCC Proposes Changes in Future Broadcaster Fee Computations

The FCC has asked for comments on a rulemaking proposal that would fundamentally change the way in which LPFM stations operate – proposing that they be allowed to take commercial messages (as opposed to the current limit the they operate noncommercially, only taking underwriting announcements and other noncommercial sponsorships), allowing them to be owned by local small businesses (as opposed to the current rule that limit their ownership to nonprofit organizations), and giving them primary status (protecting them against being displaced by a subsequent move of a full-power station or the initiation of service by a new full-power FM station). The proposal also asks that the limits on ownership, which currently limit most nonprofit groups to ownership of a single LPFM, be lifted. There is also a suggestion that LPFM stations be governed by the same spacing rules that apply to FM translators, letting them locate wherever there is no predicted interference, not limiting them to locations where they meet mileage separation requirements set out by the current rules. This is a new proposal, going beyond the proposal we wrote about here to allow LPFM stations to increase power to 250 watts, on which the FCC recently took comments.

Comments on this proposal are due on August 30. The proposal is not a proposal by the FCC to adopt rules on these matters, but instead just a preliminary notice that the petition asking for these changes to the rules was filed, and asking for public comment as to whether the FCC should take any action and further pursue the proposals being made. Obviously, some broadcasters may want to comment on this proposal which would fundamentally change the nature of the LPFM service.
Continue Reading Proposal Asks that Low Power FM Stations Be Given Primary Status, and Allowed to Operate Commercially

June brings some standard obligations for broadcasters in a number of states with anniversaries of their license renewal filing, plus the return of an obligation that we have not seen in 4 years- the obligations of radio stations in certain states to file an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report. In addition to these routine regulatory deadlines, comment dates on certain FCC proceedings, a new CALM Act deadline, and some decisions for which broadcasters should be watching are among the regulatory actions that we can expect this coming month.

First, let’s look at the standard recurring obligations. By June 1, Annual EEO Public Inspection File Reports need to be placed in the public inspection files (including the online files of TV stations) of stations that are part of a station employment unit with five or more full-time (30 hours per week) employees that are licensed to communities in these states: Arizona, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.  As we wrote in more detail yesterday, June 1 also brings the obligation of radio stations that are part of employment units with 11 or more full-time employees, and are located in Maryland, DC, Virginia or West Virginia to file their Form 397, EEO Mid-Term Report. Every other month for the next four years we will see a similar obligation arise for a group of radio or TV stations in states that have celebrated the 4th anniversary of the filing of their license renewal applications.
Continue Reading June Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – EEO Public File Reports and Form 397, CALM Act Compliance Obligations, Incentive Auction Actions, Comments on Reg Fees and LPFM Rules, and More

Last week, the FCC formally announced its receipt of a proposal from REC Networks to raise the maximum power for LPFM stations from 100 watts to 250 watts, to give them equivalent power levels with FM translator stations. REC suggests that these higher power levels are necessary to allow LPFM stations to overcome the effects of multipath in their coverage areas, and to provide sufficient building penetration in more urban areas. The proposal (which is available here) also suggests other changes to the rules that apply to LPFM stations, including those dealing with interference protections between LPFM stations and FM translators, and the rules allowing the use of the FM translators by LPFM stations. The FCC notice is only an announcement that the proposal has been received. While comments can be filed within 30 days as to whether or not the FCC should move further to consider the issues raised in the Petition, any ultimate action should require that the FCC issue a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit comments on the specific proposals that the Commission deems potentially worthy of consideration.

Nevertheless, even though this is but a request for preliminary comments, broadcasters may want to consider commenting within the 30 days provided by the Commission as to whether or not this proposal should move forward. The proposals put forward in REC’s Petition are very detailed, and it provided significant backing information in support of its requests. The 250 watt proposal has many nuances – proposing that these upgrades be allowed, at least initially, only for already authorized LPFM stations as minor changes to their existing facilities. And the proposal would not expand the “buffer zones” adopted by the Commission when it first authorized LPFM stations – establishing mileage separation requirements between LPFM and full-power FM stations designed to protect the full-power station beyond its normally protected contour. REC suggests that, in most cases, the buffer zone provides too much protection to full-power stations, and that even at 250 watts, there should still be sufficient protection to full-power stations.
Continue Reading Preliminary Comments Sought by FCC on Proposal to Increase LPFM Power to 250 Watts and to Modify LPFM Translator Rules

Almost two years ago, the FCC launched its AM revitalization efforts with great flourish, and promises of prompt action. We wrote about the two aspects of potential assistance for AM stations that were proposed in the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – technical proposals which mostly focused on ways to make the relocation of AM stations easier (see our article here) and the quick-fix proposal for new FM translators reserved for AM stations, a band-aid to keep AM stations alive while a new more permanent solution for these stations could be found (see our post here). The comments on the translator proposal, a filing window for new FM translators reserved for AM stations, were almost all positive. The vibrations from the FCC also seemed to be positive, and many AMs have been hanging on in anticipation of the coming of this filing window. This week, serious questions arose as to whether the FCC thinking on this issue has changed – and it appears that a translator window for AM stations may not in fact occur (or perhaps not in the manner that it was envisioned by most observers over the last two years).

This rethinking was first exhibited in an article on the FCC’s Blog, posted by FCC Chairman Wheeler on Monday morning, April 13, just as the National Association of Broadcasters Convention was beginning in Las Vegas. The article quickly became a prime topic of conversation among radio broadcasters at the convention. In the article, the Chairman promises to move quickly to resolve the issues posed in the AM NPRM, adopting some of the technical proposals that were set out in the NPRM, and proposing for future consideration new ideas for AM improvement. But what gathered the most attention were his comments on FM translators for AM stations. He wrote the following about that window:

I have two concerns about the record and whether opening such a window is necessary, given the current state of the marketplace. The first is whether there is an insufficient number of FM translator licenses available for AM stations….The second unanswered concern is why, if it is necessary to open the translator window, it should only be opened for one group… [I]f we are to assure that spectrum availability is an open opportunity, then the government shouldn’t favor one class of licensees with an exclusive spectrum opportunity unavailable to others just because the company owns a license in the AM band.

Conversations in Las Vegas centered around the meaning of these comments, comments that were further amplified in his speech before the NAB Convention on Wednesday.
Continue Reading The Confusing State of AM Radio Revitalization Efforts – No FM Translator Window for AM Licensees?

Each year, at about this time, we pull out the crystal ball and make predictions of the issues affecting broadcasters that will likely bubble up to the top of the FCC’s agenda in the coming year.  While we try each year to throw in a mention of the issues that come to our mind, there are always surprises, and new issues that we did not anticipate. Sometimes policy decisions will come from individual cases, and sometimes they will be driven by a particular FCC Commissioner who finds a specific issue that is of specific interest to him or her.  But here is our try at listing at least some of the issues that broadcasters should expect from Washington in the coming year.  With so many issues on the table, we’ll divide the issues into two parts – talking about FCC issues today, and issues from Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the maze of government agencies and courts who deal with broadcast issues.  In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days.

So here are some issues that are on the table at the FCC – starting first with issues affecting all stations, then on to TV and radio issues in separate sections below. 

General Broadcast Issues

There are numerous issues before the FCC that affect both radio and television broadcasters, some of which have been pending for many years and are ripe for resolution, while others are raised in proceedings that are just beginning. These include:

Multiple Ownership Rules Review: In April, the FCC finally addressed its long outstanding Quadrennial Review of the broadcast multiple ownership rules – essentially by punting most of them into the next Quadrennial Review, which probably won’t be resolved until 2016.  Issues deferred include any revisions to the local ownership limits for radio or TV (such as loosening the ownership caps for TV stations in smaller markets, which the FCC tentatively suggested that they would not do), any revision to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule (which the FCC tentatively suggested that they would consider – perhaps so that this rule can be changed before the newspaper becomes extinct), and questions about the attribution of TV Shared Services Agreements (which the FCC is already scrutinizing under an Interim Policy adopted by the Media Bureau).
Continue Reading What Washington Has in Store for Broadcasters in 2015 – Part 1, What’s Up at the FCC

Right before Christmas, the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing that they have reviewed the final set of mutually exclusive LPFM applications.  “Mutually exclusive applications” are applications for stations in the same geographic area which cannot all be granted without creating interference issues. The notice identifies tentative winners selected by the “point system” that the FCC uses to decide between mutually exclusive applicants (or applicants headed for shared time arrangements where they remained tied after the FCC’s “point system” analysis).  The Public Notice lists 96 mutually exclusive groups of LPFM applicants in the Southeast and South Central states.  We wrote in July about a group of Western applications that had already been considered by the FCC, and in September about another group of LPFM applications in the Northeast and North Central states.  So this current notice should be the final major list of LPFM applications that need to be processed by the FCC.  The issuance of this notice gives broadcasters and other interested parties 30 days to file any objections to these proposed new stations.  In addition, applicants can raise issues against each other.  Objections are due on January 22. 

The notice also sets a 90 day window for LPFM applicants whose applications are listed in this notice to file applications to make changes in their applications – including major changes to new frequencies or different transmitter sites.  Applicants who were not the tentative winners in the FCC’s consideration of the mutually exclusive groups have another shot to get FCC permission to construct a new LPFM station, if they can find an open frequency in the next 90 days.  Those amendments are due by March 23, but are often filed earlier as they are treated by the FCC on a first come, first served basis.  Broadcasters need to watch these amendments, as they could pose interference issues for full-power FM stations on channels not previously proposed for use by any LPFM applicant. 
Continue Reading FCC Issues Public Notice on Mutually Exclusive LPFM Applications in the Southeast US – Deadlines for Petitions to Deny and Amendments to Applications

In a case decided last week, the FCC decided to clarify its policies on typos in FCC applications for radio stations.  While one might not think that a typo is such a big idea, in connection with FCC application filing windows, when multiple applicants may be seeking the same frequency or channel in …

In 2011, licensees of FM translators who wanted to move those translators to areas where there was a need for their service thought that the FCC had done a great thing by authorizing the use of the “Mattoon” waiver (see our article here).  The Mattoon waiver allowed the processing of an FCC application to move the location of a translator as a minor change (meaning that it could be filed at any time, rather than having to wait for a window for the filing of major changes and new translator applications – the last of which opened in 2003) if the current and proposed interfering and protected contours of the stations overlapped.  Without the waiver, the rules deem a minor change to occur only when the protected 60 dbu contour of the station from the proposed and exiting sites overlap, allowing much smaller moves. But, as we have written before, the FCC now seems to be backing off the use of these waivers, and two recent decisions raise the question of whether the policy is doomed (as the Commission proposed in its AM improvement proposals, which we summarized here).

The use of the waiver in many cases eliminated the need for multiple “hops” of translators to get them from existing locations to the sites at which a broadcaster wanted to use them to provide service.  These hops would move the translator from the locations at which it was licensed to a new site, only to file another application as soon as the initial move was granted to move the translator yet again to get them to the location where a broadcaster wanted to use them to provide service.  In some cases, multiple intermediate hops were necessary to move the translator to the site at which its use was ultimately desired.  The Mattoon waiver allowed many site moves to be accomplished through a single application rather than requiring multiple hops, each of which cost the broadcaster time and money in filing multiple applications and in actually building the translator at multiple sites, and also saved the FCC the time and effort to process each of the applications necessary to approve these intermediate stops for the translator. 
Continue Reading The End of the Mattoon Waiver? – FCC Decisions Confirming Its Use Only for the Rebroadcast of AM Stations and Prohibiting Intermediate Site Changes