FM Translators and LPFM

Subscribe to FM Translators and LPFM via RSS

In part one of our report on the FCC’s recent actions on LPFM issues, we wrote about the FCC decisions about what to do with pending FM translator applications that may have an impact on LPFM availability. In this part two, we discuss the Commission’s separate order addressing the provisions of the Local Community Radio Act eliminating third-adjacent channel spacing restrictions between LPFM stations and full-power stations and otherwise modifying the interference protection standards that apply to these stations.  In a third part of this series, to be published soon, we will report on the proposals for changes in the LPFM service rules.

The impetus driving Congress in its adoption of the Local Community Radio Act ("LCRA") was the desire of LP FM advocates for the elimination of all third-adjacent channel protections between LPFMs and full-power FM stations. While the statutory changes mean that LPFM stations do not need to be spaced at any particular distance from third-adjacent channel FM stations, the changes do not completely eliminate all interference protections afforded to full-power stations. In fact, the LCRA sets up a very extensive scheme where LPFM stations must work to resolve any interference that is created to adjacent channel full-power station. The Commission set forth its reading of the statutory requirements, summarized below, and asked for public comment on that interpretation.Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Rules for LPFM – Part 2 – Interference to Full Power FM Stations

The status of LPFM stations has been up in the air almost since they were first created over a decade ago, as the FCC has been slow to open a window for filing applications for new stations while controversies about interference with full-power FM stations and FM translators, and other issues, were being hashed out. This past week, the FCC issued two orders interpreting the Local Community Radio Act ("LCRA") passed by Congress in late 2010 (which we summarized here), and clarifying other issues affecting the service.  This article will discuss the first of the two orders – attempting to resolve the priorities between LPFM stations and the thousands of applications for new FM translators still remaining to be processed from the FCC’s 2003 FM translator window. Subsequent articles will discuss the second order (which also contains a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for public comment on several proposals).  That order and NPRM addresses the interference protections between LPFM and full-power FM stations, the elimination of third-adjacent channel protections, and proposes some changes in LPFM rules, including proposals to allow LPFM stations to operate with up to 250 watts ERP in smaller markets, and even to operate FM translator stations of their own.

The first order attempts to resolve the issues about the FM translator applications that have been pending since 2003.  LPFM advocates contend that the thousands of applications that remain to be processed will foreclose LPFM opportunities, particularly in larger markets, by using up all available spectrum.  The translator applicants, on the other hand, have contended that translators provide an important service – expanding the reach of noncommercial stations and now allowing new outlets to more readily make available to the public the signals of AM stations and FM HD streams.  The order sets out markets where the FCC has found that spectrum is indeed limited for LPFM opportunities, where translator applications will be dismissed to provide opportunities for a certain base level of  LPFM service.  The order does not fully adopt the system proposed in the FCC’s July NPRM in this matter (see our summaries here and here)  which would have required the blanket dismissals of all translator applications in spectrum limited markets.  Instead, it provides opportunities for some translators to be processed even in these markets with limited LPFM opportunities, where it can be shown that these translators do not in fact block such opportunities. This is detailed below, as are the rules that the FCC has adopted which set local and national limits on the number of applications from the 2003 window that one applicant can continue to process and some changes in the rules regarding FM translator use by AM stations.Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Rules for LPFM – Part 1 – What to Do With FM Translator Applications From the 2003 Filing Window, and Using Translators for the Rebroadcasting of AM Stations

The long-brewing debate between Low Power FM advocates and FM translator applicants is on the FCC’s tentative agenda for its March open meeting, to be held on March 21.  The FCC’s agenda includes two items.  The first deals with the priorities between the potential spectrum available for LPFM stations and the pending applications for FM translators left to be processed from the 2003 FM translator window.  This follows up on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in July, proposing to process all of the translator applications pending in certain markets, while dismissing all of the applications remaining in other markets where it appears that spectrum available for LPFM is very limited, and where the grant of translator applications would block LPFM opportunities.

The second item deals with the future processing of LPFM applications in light of the passage of the Local Community Radio Act (summarized here).  The LCRA, among other things, lifted the prohibition against predicted third-adjacent channel interference from LPFM stations to full-power FM stations, and also provided for waivers of second adjacent channel interference in instances where the new LPFM would not create any actual interference to other FM users.  Where interference would be created, there would be a strict policy, like that which applies to translators, that the LPFM would have to cease operations if there were any interference to a regular user of an FM station – even outside of the station’s protected contour.  The second item to be addressed by the Commission will give details on how they plan to implement the requirements of the LCRA. 

The adoption of these two items will clear the way for a new window for LPFM applications – perhaps later this year.  In anticipation of that window, an LPFM advocacy group recently issued a press release indicating that they expected 10,000 new LPFM applications to be filed in an upcoming FM window.  Is that number realistic?   Who knows, though we’d be surprised if there was really that much pent up demand, especially given the ownership limits on LPFM applications, essentially limiting most parties to one application.  But if anything even approaching that number of applications is filed, look for potential problems in the FM band.Continue Reading FCC Prepares to Resolve the Conflicts Between LPFM and FM Translators – Could 10,000 Low Power FM Applications Be On the Way to the FM Band?

An FCC letter to the licensee of an FM translator owner asking very specific information about a series of applications to move that translator to a larger market raises question as to whether the FCC is shutting the door on moves of translators from one market to another – where they have often been used to rebroadcast the signal of an AM or an FM HD signal, adding new competition.  While this letter does not explicitly say that multi-hop moves of translators are impermissible under FCC rules, the fact that an investigatory letter from the FCC to one applicant is published in the FCC’s general releases indicates that a message is being sent by the Commission.  And the letter questions whether the large move accomplished by a series of small hops is an abuse of the FCC’s processes.  The letter asks for the details of each move in the series – where the station was built, who gave permission to use the transmitter sites that were used, how long the station operated at each location, what primary station’s signal did the translator rebroadcast at each site, and what the applicant’s ultimate purpose in the moves was.  

We’ve written about the FCC’s apparent crackdown on FM translator moves – first by simply slowing the processing of such applications, then entering into a consent decree with a monetary penalty and the forfeiture of a translator license by a translator licensee who apparently did not have reasonable assurance of every transmitter site in a multi-hop move, then suggesting that such moves were an abuse of process (while, at the same time, making more limited moves easier).  Now  it seems to be actually taking steps to enforce the thinking that, where there is an intent to accomplish a "major change by multiple minor change applications", there is an abuse of process.  Thus, the FCC seems to be drawing the noose tighter around the ability to move these stations large distances.

The FCC, when it authorized the use of FM translators for AM stations  did so with the caveat that only translators that had been granted as of the date of its 2009 order would be allowed to be used for such rebroadcasts.  In many markets, this put a premium on existing translators, as there were not enough translators to rebroadcast all the stations that wanted to be rebroadcast – even where the spectrum to locate such translators existed.  A number of broadcasters found translators in other communities that could technically fit in the community where the broadcaster operated, and agreed to buy them if they could be moved.  Outside a "major change window", translators can only be moved by "minor changes", i.e. where their existing contour overlaps the proposed new contour.  During translator windows, larger moves are permitted, but the last translator window was in 2003.  Another is not expected for at least another year or, most probably, two or more.  To get around the limitation on major changes, translator licensees would file a series of minor change applications to move a translator from one site to another (commonly referred to as a "hop"), build the translator at each site, and, through a series of minor changes, ultimately move to the city where there was an AM station or HD signal that wanted to use that translator.  For a time, the FCC seemed fine with this process.Continue Reading FCC Letter Questions Multi-Hop Move of FM Translator – Limits on Availability of Translators for AM Stations?

For an industry that some say is about to be made obsolete because of its digital competition, there are still many people who want a piece of the FM spectrum.   We’ve written much about the contest between LPFM and translator proponents seeking their piece of FM spectrum – a contest that we should see resolved by the FCC in the very near future. One topic that we have not written much about is "pirate radio," stations that operate illegally – without FCC authority.  This week, the FCC issued several orders, fining individuals up to $25,000 for operating pirate radio stations in various places around the country (see decisions here and here, and two other fines of $20,000 or more noted below).  Pirate radio has been and remains a big problem for many broadcasters and, despite the fines in cases like this, pirates seem to continue to crop up – especially in urban markets.

The pirate radio problem has always been with broadcasters.  In the past there was both the romance of the outlaw radio operator and concerns over the snake oil salesmen who were broadcasting from stations in Mexico, and there was a famous religious broadcaster who lost a battle with the FCC over the Fairness Doctrine in connection with a real radio station and then resumed operations from a boat off the coast of New Jersey.  But in the last 20 years pirates have been much more localized, low power operators, trying to reach audiences largely in urban areas. Despite a series of court decisions rejecting any First Amendment claim of pirates, and denying any claim that these low-power, local stations did not implicate the FCC’s power over interstate commerce regulation, pirates have never gone away.  In many ways, the FCC introduced the concept of Low Power FM stations in the 1990s as a way to provide an outlet for those who might otherwise be inclined to operate an unlicensed station.  In fact, one of the big arguments at the time of the initiation of LPFM was whether former pirate radio operators should be allowed to apply for LPFM stations.Continue Reading Pirates, Pirates Everywhere – Fines Up to $25,000 for Unlicensed Radio Stations

The FCC this week ordered an FM translator in Detroit to shut down as it caused interference to the reception of a full-power FM station from Toledo.  The translator had been rebroadcasting the HD2 signal of another area station, in effect introducing a new analog station in the Detroit area, to bring back a smooth jazz format that had left the city a few years ago.  But the translator caused interference to the reception of the Toledo station in areas where the Toledo station was regularly used and, in the eyes of the FCC, the translator’s operator was able to provide no relief to the complaining listeners.  Thus, it was ordered off the air.  Translators are required to shut down if they create interference to the regularly used signal of a full-power station, even outside of that station’s protected contour.  This happens somewhat regularly, so that part of the FCC decision is not particularly unique.  What is unique was that the FCC rejected attempts to resolve the interference by giving the complaining listeners mobile phones capable of picking up the Toledo station’s programming through a mobile "app" on the phone. The case also chastised the translator licensee for posting the names of the complaining listeners on its website.

As we wrote in a recent post, Section 74.1203 of the FCC rules requires that a translator cease operations if it interferes with the regularly used signal of a full-power FM station.  Objectors need to show that there are specific listeners who regularly listen to a full-power station, and that the translator creates interference to the reception of that signal in areas where these listeners had heard the station before the translator started to operate.  In the past, to get rid of these objections, translator operators have purchased the listeners who complain filters for their radios, or even new radios or other devices to overcome the interference objections.  In this case, the translator licensee went further when such traditional methods did not resolve the interference.  The translator operator bought the objectors mobile phones with an iHeartRadio mobile app that could receive the primary station (a Clear Channel station).  The FCC rejected that solution, finding that a non-broadcast solution to broadcast interference imperiled broadcast service – "a free over-the-air system that is and must remain a vital source of news, information and programming for all Americans" (emphasis in the original).  Thus, the translator was required to sign off unless and until it could resolve all interference claims.  Given that the Toledo station had only provided objections from those who complained about interference inside of the station’s protected contour, the FCC said that it would anticipate that many more objections would be submitted if it accepted the mobile app solution, and that it was likely that it would have to look at all sorts of different solutions to those future objections.  The Commission ordered the translator station off the air, and suggested that it might be difficult for it to restart operations on its current channel, which was co-channel with the Toledo station.Continue Reading FM Translator for HD-2 Signal Shut Down By FCC After Interference Complaints – Can’t Remedy Complaint By Giving Phones With Internet App to Complaining Listeners

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

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

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…