What's the FCC policy for this situation? A stataion has a license and has been operating for years then it gets a construction permit to move it's tower elseware. Can the station stop broadcasting altogether and stay off for the two or three years it has to construct at it's new location as long as it gets back on the air before the construction permit runs out?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Can a station be off air while on a construction permit?
- Thread starter Larry the radio guy
- Start date
I cannot see why you could not go off the air but I'd have to question why unless the station is losing money. In our case, we moved to a new site, but built out the new site before signing off at the old one. We lost a day or two as our old transmitter was moved and set up at the new site as a backup. I would certainly let the FCC know about going silent just to be on the safe side.
From my dealings and those of others I know, the FCC would rather work with you than against you. That means you communicate clearly where you are (financially, what you are capable of doing at the moment, etc.) and continue to move forward.
There was one station I knew of that had been on the air. The new city council refused to grandfather his existing previously approved tower, shutting him down. Sure he could have sued the city but that's a way to go broke in the process. The area was high growth and land prices were very high. He spent three years finding a new spot. The FCC did not pile on to his stress but he kept them updated on progress. They'd rather not cancel a station as long as you are trying and can show you are.
From what I have seen, stations that have been move ins toward metros typically go silent and build at the new spot, so I think going silent would be okay with a CP to move in hand.
From my dealings and those of others I know, the FCC would rather work with you than against you. That means you communicate clearly where you are (financially, what you are capable of doing at the moment, etc.) and continue to move forward.
There was one station I knew of that had been on the air. The new city council refused to grandfather his existing previously approved tower, shutting him down. Sure he could have sued the city but that's a way to go broke in the process. The area was high growth and land prices were very high. He spent three years finding a new spot. The FCC did not pile on to his stress but he kept them updated on progress. They'd rather not cancel a station as long as you are trying and can show you are.
From what I have seen, stations that have been move ins toward metros typically go silent and build at the new spot, so I think going silent would be okay with a CP to move in hand.
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
The FCC, in my experience, is very understanding about situations like these, where local government actions force a station to go silent. I've seen cases where CPs were extended for years while a licensee tried to find a workable site to resume operations that didn't similarly run afoul of local NIMBYism.
Sorry, wasn't clear. I was asking if you can just decide that you don't want to broadcast and go off the air for two-three years until your new tower is built per your construction permit. I thought once you were broadcasting you were obligated to stay on the air and couldn't go off for more than 365 consecutive days. In the example there was no problem with locating or building or using a new tower or anything. Would not the FCC would say come on why can't you stay on air at your old tower until the new one is built? It doesn't take two years to move equipment.
Interesting scenario. I'll bite.
My observation is the station currently has a license for the old location, and a construction permit that, when built, will result in a second license for the new location. From past observations, I'd expect to see the old license stay in the database for some time after the move.
I would say that a silent STA should have been filed for the original location. That would have given them 1 year to restart or lose the existing license for that site. I don't think it would affect the new CP. Losing the original license might just cement the reality that the broadcaster was operating under, if there was no way to return to that site.
The reality is that I've seen cases where stations can stay dark for months, if not longer, and escape notice. With the closing of a bunch of FCC field offices, this breach of etiquette might not draw much attention.
Likely, the lawyers who work with FCC law know where "the letter" isn't taken as literally as the black and white of print might suggest. I've seen a few cases where a station has gone dark "by law", only to have the license handed back to the broadcaster. Seems a monetary contribution to the FCC's bank account can cure certain transgressions.
My observation is the station currently has a license for the old location, and a construction permit that, when built, will result in a second license for the new location. From past observations, I'd expect to see the old license stay in the database for some time after the move.
I would say that a silent STA should have been filed for the original location. That would have given them 1 year to restart or lose the existing license for that site. I don't think it would affect the new CP. Losing the original license might just cement the reality that the broadcaster was operating under, if there was no way to return to that site.
The reality is that I've seen cases where stations can stay dark for months, if not longer, and escape notice. With the closing of a bunch of FCC field offices, this breach of etiquette might not draw much attention.
Likely, the lawyers who work with FCC law know where "the letter" isn't taken as literally as the black and white of print might suggest. I've seen a few cases where a station has gone dark "by law", only to have the license handed back to the broadcaster. Seems a monetary contribution to the FCC's bank account can cure certain transgressions.
Last edited:
If the station should go off the air for more than 365 consecutive days from the old site which has always been and still is available would it not follow that the old license would be deleated and because the Construction permit is predicated on an exsisting license ( you can't get a new construction permit for a new station without a window) would not the construction permit be deleated as well?
Those are two different things. A construction permit to construct a new facility is granted accordingly for a completion deadline of three years. An STA approval for silent operation due to whatever circumstances can be for a period of 60 days or a year. Let's say for the sake of discussion; WXYZ AM was notified by their transmitter site landlord they have 30 days to vacate the property. This is a problem, so the owner decides to file a CP application to move WXYZ to another site which utilizes four towers and a DA2 to meet their day and night requirements. This sort of site doesn't go up overnight, certainly not in 30 days, so the licensee/owner files to take WXYZ silent at day 15 of the order to vacate to allow for removal of their current site, thus meeting the lease requirements that the site must be returned to original condition or face financial penalties. The Commission allows WXYZ to file for silent status with the order that WXYZ file construction updates for their new construction progress every 30 days. Of course, they still have three years to complete and license the new CP, which may require extending the silent STA as construction progresses.
In The case I am thinking of no request was ever filed to go silent, no notification was given the FCC that the station was off air. The licensee simply obtained a construction permit to move his antenna to a new location and after it was granted went off the air deciding he would come back on when construction was complete three years hence. There were no extenuating circumstances that would force him off the old site nor were there any extenuating circumstances that kept him off the new one. It is now many years since he went off air but he still holds a current license. His construction permit has not expired yet so is he in trouble for leaving the air for over 365 consecutive days?
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
Phrased that way, yes, he has violated the 365-day rule because he never filed for a STA to remain silent. Even if there were extenuating circumstances, those would have to be communicated to the FCC as part of the STA application (which in this case never existed) so that doesn't matter in this case anyway.
Now ... will the FCC cancel his existing license when there is an outstanding "minor change in facilities" CP? Doubtful. But they could levy a fine for failure to file for a STA, and they could levy a fine for each day silent without one.
He'll probably plead ignorance, which might get the fine reduced to a slap on the wrist, but I doubt anything worse will happen to him.
Now ... will the FCC cancel his existing license when there is an outstanding "minor change in facilities" CP? Doubtful. But they could levy a fine for failure to file for a STA, and they could levy a fine for each day silent without one.
He'll probably plead ignorance, which might get the fine reduced to a slap on the wrist, but I doubt anything worse will happen to him.
Mr. Richards is correct, the Commission may not issue a violation depending on the circumstances.
My experience is even though the premise are the rules are carved in stone, certain staff at the FCC have the leeway to rule based on a unique situation. That being said; it's sketchy at best to give you an educated answer without reviewing the application file at the Commission. Care to share the call letters of the station?
My experience is even though the premise are the rules are carved in stone, certain staff at the FCC have the leeway to rule based on a unique situation. That being said; it's sketchy at best to give you an educated answer without reviewing the application file at the Commission. Care to share the call letters of the station?
I can attest to the FCC working with you. At one station the CP expired on an upgrade. My boss had our attorney walk over to the FCC to ask for renewal stating my boss had always taken care of his business in the past on a timely basis but in this instance he was the caretaker for his spouse during her illness and buried her only a few days ago. He got an instant extension. And the attorney said he would ask but my boss was wasting his money by having him ask, as the attorney said an expired CP was never reinstated.
Now, as I understand it, you are licensed at one spot and have an active CP for another site. You wonder about shutting down the site with the active license and building out the new site prior to the CP expiring (I'm guessing the CP is a fairly recent thing). You are wondering if you shut down, go silent and stay that way until the new site is ready to roll is okay. You are saying you will not have the new site ready to go until near the date the CP expires. Hopefully I have that right. I wish I could give you the answer.
That really begs the question as to why. The only logical reason is financial. An example of this is not always a 'no money' issue but throwing money at a bad investment when the money is better spent on the upgrade. That can be a legitimate reason. Say you have a LPFM that looked good on paper but is a nightmare in reality. To continue to keep the existing station on means it is difficult to find the dollars to construct at the new site. Obviously the ground work and PR you have done with the existing station is worth something but perhaps the station continuing to operate is making it a financial liability concerning the new build out. If the station is holding its own, why not stay on the air? If it is costing you money it would be better to correct the negative trend as fast as possible getting on the new site as fast as you can so you can start reversing directions financially, not waiting until near the end of the CP if you can help it.
It could be an issue of a leased tower site with a CP for your own site. For example, your lease renews and for a term you don't want. If you don't renew, then you lost your lease.
I'm grasping at straws obviously, but realistically I cannot see any reason to throw away what you have established thus far in order to go silent until you're at the end of the CP unless you would be losing money or that those dollars are needed for the new build out.
I guess the big question is why do you want to do this? If it is the best scenario, then a heart to heart with the LPFM branch would be a good idea. If they know your situation they can help and they might just tell you how to make things work in your favor. They can't give legal advice, but the truth is they typically don't talk to a bunch of licensees so by merely talking to them sort of makes you special, no longer just a faceless name on an application or license where an engineer speaks on your behalf. The FCC isn't out to get you but rather to try to help licensees do what they need to do and get it done the right way.
Now, as I understand it, you are licensed at one spot and have an active CP for another site. You wonder about shutting down the site with the active license and building out the new site prior to the CP expiring (I'm guessing the CP is a fairly recent thing). You are wondering if you shut down, go silent and stay that way until the new site is ready to roll is okay. You are saying you will not have the new site ready to go until near the date the CP expires. Hopefully I have that right. I wish I could give you the answer.
That really begs the question as to why. The only logical reason is financial. An example of this is not always a 'no money' issue but throwing money at a bad investment when the money is better spent on the upgrade. That can be a legitimate reason. Say you have a LPFM that looked good on paper but is a nightmare in reality. To continue to keep the existing station on means it is difficult to find the dollars to construct at the new site. Obviously the ground work and PR you have done with the existing station is worth something but perhaps the station continuing to operate is making it a financial liability concerning the new build out. If the station is holding its own, why not stay on the air? If it is costing you money it would be better to correct the negative trend as fast as possible getting on the new site as fast as you can so you can start reversing directions financially, not waiting until near the end of the CP if you can help it.
It could be an issue of a leased tower site with a CP for your own site. For example, your lease renews and for a term you don't want. If you don't renew, then you lost your lease.
I'm grasping at straws obviously, but realistically I cannot see any reason to throw away what you have established thus far in order to go silent until you're at the end of the CP unless you would be losing money or that those dollars are needed for the new build out.
I guess the big question is why do you want to do this? If it is the best scenario, then a heart to heart with the LPFM branch would be a good idea. If they know your situation they can help and they might just tell you how to make things work in your favor. They can't give legal advice, but the truth is they typically don't talk to a bunch of licensees so by merely talking to them sort of makes you special, no longer just a faceless name on an application or license where an engineer speaks on your behalf. The FCC isn't out to get you but rather to try to help licensees do what they need to do and get it done the right way.
I didn't see anything about this example being an LPFM. But since you brought it up..From all the lapsed CP's, turned in licenses and failed plans to date, I'd say most LPFM's are a nightmare in reality.
Unless the OP posts the call letters of the station, we have no idea what the situation is. There could be a multitude of reasons why a licensee would take the station silent, including financial reasons, they may have more than one station in a group, business interruption insurance that covers their business for that station during a move, etc.
Again, what does this scenario have to do with an LPFM?
Maybe I missed something, but who said this was an LPFM? That, and LPFM's are considered secondary service and are not eligible for any sort of upgrades beyond the original CP. That's why the few LPFM licensees are whining that they want power increases and the ability to sell spots. Ain't gonna happen.
- Status