FM translators for AM stations

Subscribe to FM translators for AM stations via RSS

It’s February, and we’re back to the normal cycle of FCC filings. Due to be placed in the public files of radio and TV stations with 5 or more full-time employees are EEO Public Inspection File Reports for radio and TV stations in the following states: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma. Radio stations with more than 10 full-time employees licensed in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi also have an obligation to file an EEO Mid-Term Report providing the FCC with their last two EEO Public File Reports, plus providing the FCC with a contact person to provide information about their EEO programs.  For more about the Form 397 Mid-Term Report, see our article here.

Noncommercial Television Stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma and Noncommercial AM and FM Radio Stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York have an obligation to file their Biennial Ownership Reports on February 1. While the FCC just last week adopted new rules to move noncommercial stations to a Biennial Ownership Report filing deadline consistent with commercial stations (by December 1 of odd numbered years), that rule is not yet effective so noncommercial stations in the states listed above need to continue to file their reports as scheduled on the anniversary date of the filing of their license renewal applications.
Continue Reading February Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters

While January starts off with some regulatory deadlines that apply to all broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs lists must be placed in a station’s public file by the 10th of January – there are many other dates that come due this month, dates to which broadcasters need to pay careful attention. For TV stations, they need to file at the FCC by January 11 (as the 10th is a Sunday) Children’s Television Reports, listing all of the programming that they broadcast in the previous quarter addressing the educational and informational needs of children. Records showing a TV station’s compliance with the commercial limits in children’s television should also be placed in the station’s public file.  As we have written, missing Quarterly Issues Programs lists (see our articles here and here) and Children’s Television Reports (and even late Children’s Television Reports) provided the basis for most of the fines during the last renewal cycle (see, for instance, our article here) – even for missing reports from early in the renewal cycle and, for the Children’s Reports, even where the reports were filed (repeatedly) only a few days late. So it is important to meet the obligations imposed by these regular filing deadlines.

Starting on the first day of this new year, there are a host of other obligations and deadlines that arise. On January 1, TV stations need to be captioning clips of video programming that they make available on their websites or in their mobile apps, if those clips came from programming that was captioned when shown on TV. For more on that obligation, see our article on the new online captioning requirements here.
Continue Reading January Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Quarterly Issues Programs Lists and Children’s Television Reports, Incentive Auction, FM Translators for AM Stations, Webcasting Fees, LUR Windows and More

The FCC’s Media Bureau gave a long-awaited Christmas present to many of the country’s AM stations, releasing a Public Notice announcing the filing dates for the translator modification application filing windows for AM stations.  These are the windows authorized by the Commission as part of its AM Revitalization proceeding (see our article here for more about the FCC decision to open these windows).  In these windows, the FCC will allow an AM licensee to buy or arrange to program an FM translator and move it up to 250 miles to a location from which it can be used to rebroadcast an AM station.  In making such a site move, the applicant can also change the translator’s channel to specify operations on any vacant frequency in the area where the AM station wants to operate that translator that will not cause interference to existing broadcasters.  However, applications will only be accepted to move translators or translator construction permits in the commercial part of the FM band, 92.1 MHz (Channel 221) and above.

Initially, there will be two windows.  The first window will open January 29, 2016 and close at 11:59 pm (EDT) on July 28, 2016.  This window can be used by Class C and Class D AM stations to seek to move an FM translator for use by those stations.

The second window will open on July 29, 2016 and close at 5:59 pm (EDT) on October 31, 2016.  Any AM station can file an application during that window. 
Continue Reading Window to Open January 29 for Applications to Move FM Translators Up to 250 Miles to Rebroadcast AM Stations

On Friday, the FCC finally took action in its long-awaited AM revitalization rulemaking proceeding.  Friday’s order came in three parts – one adopting certain changes to FCC technical FCC rules and also adopting procedures for AM stations to acquire FM translators, a second asking for comment on a series of additional proposals looking to further change certain AM rules, and a final section a more preliminary inquiry looking at longer term policy changes to the AM rules.  While not providing everything some AM proponents may have wished for, the order does promise some immediate help for AM stations – including steps to, in the short-term, bring FM translators to many of the AM stations that feel these translators are necessary for their continued survival.  Today, we’ll look at that aspect of the order – the proposals to make available FM translators to help AM stations.

As we have written (see our articles here and here), there was a major controversy at the FCC about whether or not to open a window, restricted to AM licensees, letting them file for new FM translators, or to instead provide a process where AM stations would need to buy existing translators to provide FM service for their stations.  In Friday’s order, the FCC promised both.  Initially, in 2016, it will open a two-part window during which it will waive its minor change rules so as to allow AM licensees to buy an FM translator authorization, and “move” that translator up to 250 miles from its present location, to its AM market to operate on any available FM channel in that market.  Later in 2017, it will open a more traditional window for any AM that was not able to acquire a translator in 2016 where that AM will be able to file an application for a new FM translator. There are many details associated with each of these windows.
Continue Reading FCC Adopts AM Revitalization Order – Part 1 – The Upcoming Windows for AM Stations to Acquire FM Translators

A proposal to allow AM station licensees to buy FM translators located as far as 250 miles away from the AM station and move them to an area where they can rebroadcast the AM station was the talk of the NAB Radio Show last week.   With battling news releases from FCC Commissioners (one from Commissioner Pai supporting an immediate translator window during which AM licensees would have an exclusive right to file for new FM translators, and a subsequent one from Commissioner Clyburn where she indicates her belief that the 250 mile proposal was the quickest way to bring translators to AM licensees), this proposal seems to have replaced the proposed translator window restricted to AM owners that had been proposed in the AM revitalization order introduced by the FCC about 2 years ago (see our summary of the initial proposal for an AM window here, and a discussion of the controversy over that window here and here). What does this proposal entail?

While the precise rules that are being considered by the Commission are unclear as they have not been released for public comment, from comments made in the public statements released by FCC Commissioners last week, other comments made by FCC staffers at the Radio Show, and stories reported by the trade press, it appears that the FCC is considering allowing any AM licensee to buy a translator located within 250 miles of their AM station and, as a one-step minor change application, to move the translator onto any channel that fits in the AM station’s market.  An AM licensee buys the translator authorization – and it basically gives that licensee the right to file for a vacant frequency in its market on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Continue Reading Moving FM Translators 250 Miles to Rebroadcast an AM Station – What the FCC is Considering as Part of Its AM Revitalization Proceeding

An order deciding on the steps the FCC will take to revitalize AM radio is currently being actively considered by the Commissioners. As we wrote earlier this week, the biggest argument about the proposal that is circulating is reportedly whether or not that order will provide for a window for filing for new FM translators specifically to be used for the rebroadcast of AM stations. As we wrote, the FCC Chairman has indicated his opposition to that proposal – and the reasons for that opposition were made clearer in the press conference following yesterday’s open FCC meeting. While AM radio was not on the agenda of the meeting, the Chairman was nevertheless asked about his opposition to the AM-only translator window. His response? He said something along the lines of – Everybody has the right to ask for free spectrum, but it’s not the general policy of this agency to give it away. It seems to me that this cannot be the full reason for his opposition, as the process for awarding FM translators generally results in spectrum being given away for free – and Congress in fact set up the system that way, reserving an auction only as a last resort in the award of FM translators. An AM-only window for FM translators is no more a give-away of free spectrum than is any other translator filing window.

Applications for new FM translators are filed during pre-announced auction filing windows. If, during one of those windows, mutually exclusive applications are filed (applications that, for technical reasons conflict with each other), these applications are not immediately thrown into an auction as would be the case when there are mutually exclusive applications for full-power FM or TV channels. Instead, pursuant to the Congressional authorization for the auctions used to award spectrum to commercial broadcasters, an auction is used for secondary services like FM translators, and for AM stations where there are no pre-allocated channels, only where the applicants cannot themselves first find a solution for their mutual exclusivity. Thus, once applications are filed, the FCC announces a window during which applicants can work together to coordinate modifications to their proposed facilities to attempt to come up with engineering solutions so that both applications can be granted, or to work out other permitted settlements. As a result of the 2003 FM translator window, the FCC has already granted thousands of new FM translators – and none of these applications were granted as the result of an auction (see our articles here, here and here about the grant of these translators). All were either singletons (meaning they were not technically mutually exclusive with any other application) or they were granted after engineering amendments or other settlements resolved their mutual exclusivity. All of the thousands of new FM translators granted after the 2003 window were “free spectrum,” no different than any applications that would be granted following any AM-only translator filing window.
Continue Reading More on AM Revitalization – Why the FCC Chairman is Against an AM-Only Filing Window For FM Translators

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?

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?

In a case that has been watched by many AM licensees and debated at a number of broadcast conferences in the last few years, the FCC on Friday denied the “Tell City waiver,” by which the licensee of an AM station in Indiana sought to buy an FM translator in Kentucky and move it to Indiana, on a non-adjacent channel, and use it to rebroadcast their AM station.  This sought to expand the “Mattoon waiver” (about which we have written many times including articles here and here) which effectively changed the definition of a “minor change” for an FM translator that could be approved in a single application, without waiting for any sort of translator filing window. 

The current rules define a minor change as one where the translator’s 1 mv/m service contour at both the current and proposed sites overlap.  The Mattoon waiver treated applications as minor changes where the service contours did not overlap – as long as the interfering contour of the translator at one site overlapped with the protected contour of the station at the other site – essentially meaning that a translator could not exist at both the current and proposed sites without prohibited interference.  The Tell City waiver would have eliminated even that connection between the present and proposed sites for the translator – allowing essentially a move of any FM translator from one place to another, and from one frequency to another, regardless of whether the new location had any connection with the original site.  That attempt to stretch the definition of a minor change led the Commission’s Media Bureau to deny the request.
Continue Reading FCC Denies “Tell City Waiver” to Move Translator to Distant Non-Adjacent Channel to Rebroadcast AM Station

It’s come to our attention that the FCC’s Media Bureau has recently been granting applications for changes in the transmitter sites of FM translators to be used for AM stations with conditions on the subsequent use of that translator.  The conditions seem to be added to the construction permits granted to applicants who filed an application for a site change and relied on the Mattoon waiver (see our discussion of that waiver here) to expedite the relocation to the new transmitter site.  The condition requires that the translator be used only with the AM station for a period of 4 years.

A similar condition was proposed in connection with the FCC’s proceeding on AM improvements, where the FCC proposed to open a window for the filing of applications for new translators, but to limit the applicants to AM licensees who want to use those translators to rebroadcast their AM station (see our summary of the proposal for a translator window for AM station owners here).  Obviously, that proposal for an AM-only window for translator applicants has not been adopted, and there has been some objection to the proposal to permanent tie any translator granted as a result of that window to the AM station that initially asks for it.  For instance, some comments suggest that a translator be allowed to change primary stations if the primary station is moved to another AM in the same market owned by the same company, or that it be allowed to be transferred should the AM station cease operations (as there will no doubt be some AMs that may not be able to survive even with an FM translator).  But, in the new condition now being added to translator moves granted pursuant to a Mattoon waiver, any such limitation is not provided.
Continue Reading New Conditions on Mattoon Waivers for FM Translators Used for AM Stations – Mandatory Rebroadcast of AM on the Translator for 4 Years