FM Translators and LPFM

Subscribe to FM Translators and LPFM via RSS

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.Continue Reading FCC Finally Releases Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Allow FM Translators to Rebroadcast AM Stations

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.Continue Reading LPFM v. FM – More Stations Coming?

Two long awaited broadcast items seem to be missing in action at the FCC. Both the final rules on digital radio ("HD radio") and the Commission’s Notice of Proposed rulemaking on using FM translators to fill in gaps of the signals of AM stations, while expected quite a while ago, have still not been released by the FCC. The digital radio item, adopting rules on digital radio, eliminating the need to file for experimental authority for multi-channel FM operations and allowing AM stations to operate digitally at night, was adopted by the FCC at its meeting in March, yet the final text of the decision still hasn’t been released.  As the text has not been released, the effective date of the new rules has not been set.  Those AM stations ready to kick on their nighttime digital operations continue to wait.

As we explained in our previous posting on this matter, here, the digital radio order also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing issues such as the public interest obligations of broadcasters on their multicast digital channels. That was one of the items that was supposedly delayed the action that finally occurred at the March meeting, and perhaps it is delaying the release of the text of the order in this proceedingContinue Reading Radio Items Missing In Action at the FCC

As we wrote on Friday, the Copyright Royalty Board released to the parties their decision setting the sound recording music royalties for Internet radio for the years 2006-2010 – and the rates will be increasing significantly (absent success on appeal or in settlement discussions). The rates and appeal process are set out in our post on Friday.  The parties have until Monday, March 5 at noon, to request that the Board keep portions of the decision that contain confidential proprietary information out of the public record. Thus, the text of the decision is not yet public. Nevertheless, many parties are asking for more specific information about the decision and its impact. Certainly, when the decision is public, everyone will want to make their own judgments. But, until that time (which should be soon as the Board was careful to avoid using any significant amount of confidential information), I offer some observations about the decision (from my vantage point as a party who represented some of the webcasters involved in the proceeding), as well as thoughts on some of the questions that I have seen posted on various discussion boards this weekend.

First, it is essential to understand exactly what this decision covers. The Board’s decision covers only non-interactive webcasters operating pursuant to the statutory license. Our memo, here, discusses the statutory licensing scheme, and what a webcasting service must do to qualify to pay the royalties due under this statutory license. Essentially, a webcaster covered by this decision is one which operates like a radio station – where no listener can dictate which artists or songs he or she will hear (some limited degree of consumer influence is permitted, but a webcaster must comply with the restrictions set out in our memo).  Also, the webcaster cannot notify their listeners when any specific song will play. The decision does cover the Internet transmissions of the over-the-air content of most broadcast stations. 

The royalties are paid to SoundExchange – a nonprofit corporation with a Board made up of representatives of artists and the record companies. The royalties go to the copyright holders in Sound Recordings and the performers on those recordings ( the copyright holder is usually the record label. Royalties are split 50/50 – and the artist royalties are further divided 45% to the featured artist and 5% to any background musicians featured on the recording). 

The decision by the Board was the result of a long proceeding – which began in 2005. A summary of the proceeding can be found in our posting, here. Satellite radio also has to pay similar royalties, as do services that provide background music to businesses ("business establishment services"). Separate proceedings are underway to determine rates for these services.

With that background – here are some more thoughts on the decision – obviously in very summary form. The Board is charged with determining the royalty rates that would be determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller in a marketplace transaction. The Board was clear in the decision that it would look simply for evidence of what such a deal would be – it would not look at policy reasons why certain groups of webcasters (including small commercial webcasters or noncommercial webcasters) should get some special rate.Continue Reading More on the Copyright Royalty Board Decision on Internet Radio Music Royalties

At yesterday’s NAB Leadership Conference in Washington, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell stated that he thought that broadcasters would be pleased with the outcome of the Commission’s action on the NAB proposal to allow AM stations to use FM translators to fill in holes in their coverage, or to provide nighttime coverage for daytime stations.  The Commissioner said that the proposal was working its way through the FCC.  While he would not commit to a date when action could be expected, he thought something should come out soon.  In the interim, the FCC has granted at least one AM Station Temporary Authority to use an FM translator to rebroadcast its signal – apparently as a result of a Congressional request. 

We wrote, here, about the NAB proposal when it was first advanced back in August.  Broadcasters then had hopes for quick FCC action.  While it is good news that the FCC seems to be moving on the NAB proposal, broadcasters should not think that relief for all AM stations is coming soon.  Instead, the FCC will simply release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, opening a formal comment window in which parties can state their support for the proposal.  There may be others who oppose the proposal – particularly the supporters of Low Power FM stations.  Given that the FCC already has an open proceeding dealing with the relationship between FM translators and LPFM stations, the proposal to give AM operators FM translators will have to be linked in some way to this other proceeding.  And, were the FCC to decide that LPFM stations have a priority over FM translators, any victory for AM stations might be hollow, as LPFM stations could preclude the operation of many FM translators.Continue Reading McDowell: Broadcasters Will Likely Be Pleased by FCC Action on FM Translators for AM Stations – But One AM Doesn’t Wait

Two recent FCC cases set confusing and perhaps dangerous precedents for the use of Low Power FM stations.  In one case, the FCC allowed a pirate operator that they had shut down for an illegal operation to then resume operations under Special Temporary Authority (apparently following Congressional intervention).  In another case, where protests were lodged about the sale and probable format change of a noncommercial station, the FCC directed the opening of a special filing window for an LPFM in that community to provide a replacement service.  While the motivation of the FCC in each case may have been laudable, do these cases establish expectations on the part of other similarly situated parties that cannot be met in future cases?

According to a news article, the FCC, at the urging of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, authorized a pirate radio station to continue operations under Special Temporary Authority until the next low power FM application window opens.  After first shutting the station down for operating without a license, the FCC then permitted the station to resume operations to provide a local service to a small Nevada community.  According to the article, the expectation is that the operator would file for a permanent license once the FCC opens a window for filing applications for new Low Power FM stations.  While service to the Nevada community may be laudable, doesn’t this decision encourage others to start pirate stations in unserved communities, and then ask that their service be permitted to continue under temporary authority if the FCC finds them and shuts them down?  And even if the FCC would allow such operations, these process puts the parties operating at risk, as they may continue to operate stations, and then they may face a competing applicant during the next LPFM window.  Under the FCC’s policies for picking between mutually exclusive applicants, the established party could still end up not being the preferred applicant, and would have to shut the station down – taking away a service that the STA has allowed to become even more established in the community.  Continue Reading Fun With Low Power FM

Comments are due to be filed with the FCC by this Thursday, August 24, on the NAB’s proposal to allow AM radio stations to use FM translators to fill in nulls in their coverage.  Particularly for AM stations with very directional patterns, or with authorizations that specify little or no nighttime coverage, this proposal could provide an excellent way for these stations to maximize service to their listeners.  The NAB is making the filing of comments easy through an electronic filing system available on its website here.

While it is important for those supporting this proposal to file comments to urge the FCC to consider it, this is but the first step in a long process before this proposal can become reality.  The FCC here is asking only for comments on the NAB’s Petition for Rulemaking.  If the FCC finds merit in the NAB proposal, then it would have to draft its own Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to suggest rules that would govern the use of such translators.  After taking comments on the Notice, if the FCC is still convinced that the idea is a good one, the Commission would then have to draft a set of final rules and an order adopting those rules.  Thus, in the best case, this is a long process.Continue Reading FM Translators for AM Stations?