When we first started this blog over two years ago, one of our first posts to receive a comment (proving that at least someone was actually reading what we wrote) dealt with the FCC’s proposal to allow AM stations to be rebroadcast on FM translators, a change of the Commission’s long-standing prohibition on using FM translators
Just over a week ago, the FCC decided to freeze the dismissal of FM translator applications of applicants who had more than 10 applications still pending at the FCC. As we have written, the FCC had ordered all applicants in the 2003 FM Translator filing window to dismiss all but 10 of their remaining…
Federal Register publication of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Power FM (LPFM) stations and their relationship to FM translators and upgrades of full-power FM stations occurred today. This sets the comment dates in that proceeding – with comments due April 7, and replies on April 21. This proceeding looks at…
Last week, we published a note that the FCC had published the new rules on Low Power FM (LPFM) stations in the Federal Register, starting the comment period on the issues raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in that proceeding – principally addressing the relationship between LPFM stations and FM translators and improvements…
[Correction 1/24/2008- we have published a correction to this entry, here, noting that the Federal Register publication described below contained only half of the FCC’s order in its LPFM proceeding, omitting the portion seeking public comment. That section of the order will apparently be published in the Federal Register at a later date – so the February 19 comment date set out below is incorrect. Everyone has more time to prepare their comments. The actual filing date will be set in the future.]
The FCC Order establishing new rules for Low Power FM (LPFM) Stations was published in the Federal Register on January 17. This sets the date of February 19 for the filing of comments on the question of the relationship between LPFM stations and both FM translators and full-power FM stations. These comments will address two issues, (1) whether LPFM stations should remain secondary stations, subject to being knocked off the air by new full-power FM stations and (2) whether LPFM stations should get some sort of priority over some or all FM translator stations.
LPFM stations have been "secondary" stations, meaning that they could be knocked off the air when a new FM station came on the air, or when improvements to the facilities of an existing FM station were constructed, if the new full-power FM facilities would be caused interference from the existing LPFM station. As we wrote here, at its November meeting, the FCC decided that it needed more information to determine whether LPFM stations should continue to be secondary to new or improved FM stations. While not reaching a final determination on that issue, the FCC adopted temporary processing policies which essentially force the full-power stations to deal with LPFM operators in cases where such interference arises – potentially blocking improvements in the facilities of a number of FM stations.
In an unusually contentious FCC meeting, the FCC adopted rules that promote Low Power FM ("LPFM") stations seemingly to the detriment of FM translators and improvements in the facilities of full-power FM stations. While no formal text of the decision has yet been released, the Commission did release a Public Notice summarizing its action. However, given the lack of detail contained in the Notice as to some of the decisions – including capping at 10 the number of translator applications from the 2003 FM translator window that one entity can continue to process and the adoption of an interim policy that would preclude the processing of full-power FM applications that created interference that could not be resolved to an existing LPFM station – it appears that the Press Release was written before these final details were determined. And given that the two Republican Commissioners dissented from aspects of this order supported by their Chairman (and also dissented on certain cable items considered later in the meeting), one wonders about the process that resulted in the Republican chairman of the FCC voting with the two Democratic Commissioners on an item that in many respects favors LPFM stations to the detriment of existing broadcast operators.
In any event, specific decisions mentioned in today’s meeting include:
- Treating changes in the Board of Directors of an LPFM station as minor ownership changes that can be quickly approved by the FCC
- Allowing the sale of LPFM stations from one non-profit entity to another
- Tightening rules requiring local programming on these stations
- Maintaining requirements that LPFM stations must be locally owned, and limiting groups to ownership of only one station
- Limiting applicants in the 2003 FM translator window to processing only 10 pending applications each, and requiring that they decide which 10 applications to prosecute before any settlement window opens (the two Republican Commissioners favored allowing applicants to continue to process up to 50 applications)
- Adopting an interim policy requiring that full-power FM stations that are improving their facilities in such a way that their improvement would interfere with an LPFM station to work with the LPFM to find a way to eliminate or minimize the interference. If no resolution could be found, the full-power station’s application would not be processed (which we have expressed concerns about before)
- Urging that Congress repeal the ban on the FCC making any changes that would eliminate protections for full power stations from third-adjacent channel interference from LPFMs
The FCC’s proposal to allow FM translators to rebroadcast the signals of AM stations as a fill-in service has been published in the Federal Register setting the dates for comment. Comments in the proceeding will be due by January 7, 2008, with Reply Comments due on or before February 4, 2008. As we wrote…
As the Commission held its last localism hearing in Washington on Halloween night, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s views on how the FCC should insure that stations are responsive to their communities became somewhat clearer. In his opening statement, the Chairman outlined a set of actions that could be taken by the FCC to insure more service to the public. While emphasizing the importance of efforts to encourage new entrants into broadcast ownership, the Chairman’s proposals to add new regulatory requirements, including requiring that a station be manned during all hours of operation, may well have the result of making it more difficult for any new entrant (or for existing smaller operators) to profitably operate their stations. In addition, he has offered proposals that would seemingly require cable and satellite carriage of in-state television stations not in a system’s DMA – a proposal sure to cause concern to stations in DMAs that straddle state lines.
The Chairman’s statement includes the following proposals:
- Requirements for uniform filings by broadcasters quantifying their public service – presumably their news and information programming and the public service announcements that they provide
- Requiring that stations have manned main studios during all hours of operations (not just during business hours)
- Allowing flexibility for LPFM stations to be sold, but adopting new rules to insure that such stations are used for local programming, not something provided from a network or other programming source
- Providing television viewers the ability to get an in-state television stations on cable and satellite even if the county in which they reside is "home" to a DMA with stations in another state
- Capping the number of applications accepted from the 2003 FM translator filing window – which might result in the dismissal of hundreds of applications that have effectively been frozen for 4 years
On an NAB Radio Show panel that included the news that LPFM licenses are, in some cases, holding up the processing of certain FM applications while solutions to potential interference to the LPFM station are sought (see out post here), a representative of the Audio Services Division of the FCC’s Media Bureau also revealed that…
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.