Buffalo Cumulus sells AM to Buddy Shula

[davideduardo]

The original concept, which was programming in the public interest of the residents of the COL, is outdated and non-existent in the real world. The "community issues" for Peralta, Isleta, Belen, Los Lunas, and Bosque Farms are the same as the ones in Albuquerque proper ... and 90% of the time are the same ones regardless of geographic market.

Back when we had to do personal interviews with “community leaders” and ask each of at least 50 or 60 mayors and police chiefs and chamber of commerce heads and the like about what the most important issues were, we found the same basic things were brought up by everyone. While each might have a “pet issue” there was a common consensus.

Carr wants to declutter the regs? Fine. Include 73.1201 ... either do away with it like most of the rest of the world has, or let stations use their market identifier instead, similar to what @secondchoice suggested. It appears to be meaningless for translators and LPFMs anyway (maybe those should be 73.1201 optional?).

Signals don’t follow city limits and town borders. At present, with OTA radio in such decline and so many alternative audio offerings, the FCC could well do away with any programming issues as economics and market forces will, in a way, self regulate all audio services.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Back when we had to do personal interviews with “community leaders” and ask each of at least 50 or 60 mayors and police chiefs and chamber of commerce heads and the like about what the most important issues were, we found the same basic things were brought up by everyone. While each might have a “pet issue” there was a common consensus.

I remember having to do those back in the 1980s. My recollection is the same as yours; you could ask 50 people to list their top 10 issues and nine of them would be on all the lists.

Signals don’t follow city limits and town borders. At present, with OTA radio in such decline and so many alternative audio offerings, the FCC could well do away with any programming issues as economics and market forces will, in a way, self regulate all audio services.

Besides which, the audience doesn't care about KRKE being "in Peralta" or KOAZ being "in Isleta".

 

[secondchoice]

In the full-service context, it must be at the community level, pursuant to the Communications Act.

Then the Communications act needs changed. As David said market forces will make doing business like 1990 impossible. If the FCC has the foresight to realize there will not be much of a radio industry to collect fees from if they don't drop anaquated concepts and rules.

 

[davideduardo]

Then the Communications act needs changed. As David said market forces will make doing business like 1990 impossible. If the FCC has the foresight to realize there will not be much of a radio industry to collect fees from if they don't drop anaquated concepts and rules.

As I have mentioned, there was considerable political influence over the FRC and, later, the FCC. We don’t have European style 500,000 to a million watt stations because the politicians feared stations that might have even greater influence than newspapers if thy coved whole states or many states.

In the late 29’s and early 30’s newspapers were limited in “coverage” by how far trucks could get those physical papers to outlying areas at a reasonable cost and “on time” for people to want them. The pols feared stations with an instant and wider reach with high power could influence voters. So we got just a few medium power 50 kw stations and lots of 250 watt Class IV stations an many 1 to 5 kw limited signals

Not valid today!

 

[fybush]

There's no explicit language in the Communications Act requiring the specific COL interpretation the FCC uses, just the "fair distribution" clause that can just as easily be interpreted as considering a "community" to be a market or metro area.

Once the FCC wiped out the main studio and ascertainment rules, the justification for the current COL rules pretty much vanished with it.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

The biggest problem with the antiquated concept of COL is the 73.1201 station identification requirements. Example: The two stations I program in Albuquerque have COLs in smaller -- but valid -- communities just south of the ABQ city limits for their AMs, but other than during the TOH announcement, we only reference Albuquerque. (Without even thinking hard, I can name three other stations in the market, not co-owned with my client's cluster, who are in the exact same situation.)

The original concept, which was programming in the public interest of the residents of the COL, is outdated and non-existent in the real world. The "community issues" for Peralta, Isleta, Belen, Los Lunas, and Bosque Farms are the same as the ones in Albuquerque proper ... and 90% of the time are the same ones regardless of geographic market.

Carr wants to declutter the regs? Fine. Include 73.1201 ... either do away with it like most of the rest of the world has, or let stations use their market identifier instead, similar to what @secondchoice suggested. It appears to be meaningless for translators and LPFMs anyway (maybe those should be 73.1201 optional?).

I still work for KLMI. licensed to Rock River WY. a town of like 250 people 30-40 miles NW of Laramie, a city of 30,000. We ID as "KLMI Rock River, Laramie". The station was creatively engineered by the guy who got it on air.. i dont think it can upgrade or move closer due to a full p[ower on 106.3 in cheyenne and 105.9 Denver....... its fits where it is and im not sure theres any other towns to license it to out there that qualify as a town.. but its very very much terrain shielded from Laramie because its on a short tower on a short hill.. and theres a much taller mountain in the way. Hello on channel booster!

 

[chrocket87]

I have a format idea:

Buddy should use this new signal to launch a Children’s music format: Little WECK

 

[Michi]

There's no explicit language in the Communications Act requiring the specific COL interpretation the FCC uses, just the "fair distribution" clause that can just as easily be interpreted as considering a "community" to be a market or metro area.

Once the FCC wiped out the main studio and ascertainment rules, the justification for the current COL rules pretty much vanished with it.

"In considering applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals thereof, when and insofar as there is demand for the same, the Commission shall make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same." 47 USC §307(b) (emphasis added)

It specifies "communities" and not "markets". It may seem outdated given the evolvement of radio since 1934, but it would take an act of Congress to change this. The FCC can't do this on its own. The idea was to assure that as many different communities could get their own stations and all stations would not be bunched up on the urban areas leaving the rural areas in the dust. This is also why unserved and underserved areas get priority in both consideration for preferential arrangement of allotments in the commercial services and filing window threshold fair distribution priority in the NCE services.

 

[fybush]

Actually, it does:

"In considering applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals thereof, when and insofar as there is demand for the same, the Commission shall make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same." 47 USC §307(b) (emphasis added)

It specifies "communities" and not "markets". It may seem outdated given the evolvement of radio since 1934, but it would take an act of Congress to change this. The FCC can't do this on its own. The idea was to assure that as many different communities could get their own stations and all stations would not be bunched up on the urban areas leaving the rural areas in the dust. This is also why unserved and underserved areas get priority in both consideration for preferential arrangement of allotments in the commercial services and filing window threshold fair distribution priority in the NCE services.

And yet the interpretation of "community" has changed repeatedly over the decades. The FCC will accept a census-designated place as a "community" now, which was certainly not the case in 1934.

There's no reason an expansive FCC interpretation of "community" couldn't encompass a "metro area," and in reality the Urbanized Area Policy's permissiveness when it comes to moving stations' COLs within a UA already represents most of what such an expansive interpretation would look like.

 

[davideduardo]

Actually, it does:

"In considering applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals thereof, when and insofar as there is demand for the same, the Commission shall make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, hours of operation, and of power among the several States and communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to each of the same." 47 USC §307(b) (emphasis added)

It specifies "communities" and not "markets". It may seem outdated given the evolvement of radio since 1934, but it would take an act of Congress to change this. The FCC can't do this on its own. The idea was to assure that as many different communities could get their own stations and all stations would not be bunched up on the urban areas leaving the rural areas in the dust. This is also why unserved and underserved areas get priority in both consideration for preferential arrangement of allotments in the commercial services and filing window threshold fair distribution priority in the NCE services.

My rebuttal would be that the meanings of words have changed. Yesterday's "community" is today's "metro area" or "market" and there is so much vagueness in each term so as to make them synonymous.

When Docket 80-90 allowed major changes without simultaneously opening licenses up to challenges, we saw the FCC permit many station moves either into larger metro areas or next to them ("rimshots") as well as many Class A's upgrading to the various new B and C categories. In essence, the FCC said "you can trade your community for a more profitable one as long as the engineering is in order."

Docket 80-90 was a de facto abrogation of 47 USC §307(b) as the Commission seemingly said "you can pick the community that can make you more money, even if it means abandoning service to a less profitable or less populated area".

 

[K.M. Richards]

I am more inclined to accept Scott's take on what leeway the FCC has over Michi's more rigid POV. His reasoning about "what constitutes a community" would allow the FCC to adopt its own definition without running afoul of the 1934 Communications Act.

Michi's argument in her second paragraph has little weight given the way the business changed. There is really no reason why the FCC cannot define "community" as a market where there is a minimum level of population while defining it by a lesser standard in rural areas.

Again, who cares that KRKE's COL is Peralta, when that's essentially part of the Albuquerque market?

 

[Michi]

A CDP is still a community, it just not an incorporated community. The FCC will accept in some cases, communities not listed in the Census if it can be demonstrated that there are significant supporting aspects where people in the area associate it with that community name. This is something that has been very difficult to do and has been the subject of a slew of Informal Objections I have filed over the past 30+ years where people attempt to take a spot on the map and attempt to use it as a community.

A couple of recent examples:

Crystal (Clark County), Nevada (Bureau dismissed application for that reason, considered REC's IO as moot) (note: there is also a Crystal, Nevada in Nye County, which is a community for allotment purposes.)

Kramer Junction, California (amended to Hinkley, CA, which is a community, REC withdrew)

 

[davideduardo]

Michi's argument in her second paragraph has little weight given the way the business changed. There is really no reason why the FCC cannot define "community" as a market where there is a minimum level of population while defining it by a lesser standard in rural areas.

Urban sprawl and the profusion of separate municipalities surrounding and dependent on a central city really took off after WW II when the American Dream of a house, two kids and a car became a reality for so many.

There were many township that surrounded big cities but which were independent until this phenomenon occurred. Suddenly Indio, CA was part of the Palm Springs Community. Parma and Willoughby were part of Cleveland. And so on.

The Communications Act is nearly a century old, and word meanings have changed. We currently have discussion of the 1778 Alien Enemies Act as being applicable... or not... today. Same goes for some of the purposes and wordings of the Communications Act.

Beyond that, radio waves do not obey city limits. Never have.

 

[Michi]

The other issue is if we were to expand the definition of "community" to include an entire market, then we would have to define a "market". If we use Nielsen Audio boundaries,. then that would mean that stations would need to serve entire markets in order to meet their §307 obligations. Every smaller station would be wiped away. Market based coverage areas (franchises) are done in other countries and normally involves one broadcaster operating multiple transmitters on different frequencies.

Plus, what do we do with the massive amount of land area that is an unrated and thus, does not have a market?

The priorities of first aural service, first/second local transmission service and other public interest reasons at the community level is much easier to manage and is fairer, especially to the rural communities.

 

[davideduardo]

The other issue is if we were to expand the definition of "community" to include an entire market, then we would have to define a "market". If we use Nielsen Audio boundaries,. then that would mean that stations would need to serve entire markets in order to meet their §307 obligations. Every smaller station would be wiped away. Market based coverage areas (franchises) are done in other countries and normally involves one broadcaster operating multiple transmitters on different frequencies.

Mexico has a mix of market based and zone based definitions. They have been more recently simply stating the transmitter location as the license site. For service obligations, they look at the signal of each station and its population coverage. No "cities" or "markets" or "zones".

In many other nations, radio has already moved to being either regional or national. Commercial radio in Spain following WW II began to consist of some local stations and a number of national ones using multiple transmitters as you mention. Again in Spain, there were regional networks based on the several different languages spoken in that country.

But in most nations, particularly those basing their legal system on the Napoleonic Code, cities did not add separate suburbs... the core city just absorbed newly populated area and grew.

Plus, what do we do with the massive amount of land area that is an unrated and thus, does not have a market?

In this case, the Mexican model of looking at the service area of each station is vastly better.

The priorities of first aural service, first/second local transmission service and other public interest reasons at the community level is much easier to manage and is fairer, especially to the rural communities.

And such a "service area" criteria would give special circumstances to suburban stations as they would each have their own world.

 

[fybush]

In the AM service (and NCE FM), the FCC already licenses stations that don't serve the entire area of a "COL."

These are only insoluble problems if you're determined to be intractable about them. I would much rather operate within today's reality.

 

[K.M. Richards]

The other issue is if we were to expand the definition of "community" to include an entire market, then we would have to define a "market". If we use Nielsen Audio boundaries,. then that would mean that stations would need to serve entire markets in order to meet their §307 obligations. Every smaller station would be wiped away. Market based coverage areas (franchises) are done in other countries and normally involves one broadcaster operating multiple transmitters on different frequencies.

Michi, my dear long-time friend, you need to think more creatively instead of trying to put arguments into boxes that can be redefined.

Why couldn't §307 be amended to indicate that a station using the market designator as the COL simply must have its signal contour fall at least 90% within that market? If we are recognizing that the present methodology of determining COL is outdated, why can't we operate from the presumption that not all stations using a market designator must have full-market coverage?

Of course, if we do away with §73.1201 it doesn't matter what's on the license itself ...

Plus, what do we do with the massive amount of land area that is an unrated and thus, does not have a market?

In an unrated market, let the licensee choose a COL. It could be the dominant community in the region, or the county seat, or even the county name itself.

Again, do away with §73.1201 and who cares?

The priorities of first aural service, first/second local transmission service and other public interest reasons at the community level is much easier to manage and is fairer, especially to the rural communities.

When did I say I wanted a system that ignored stations outside of rated markets?

The rural communities don't have a problem with COL/§73.1201 issues. That's a straw man argument, in my view. Those very local station operators already know what their issues are and the rest of it is a legal distraction.

The first/second local service requirement can be just as easily handled with relaxed standards for COL in rural areas, because they do not have the same density as the rated markets.

 

[CTListener]

A CDP is still a community, it just not an incorporated community. The FCC will accept in some cases, communities not listed in the Census if it can be demonstrated that there are significant supporting aspects where people in the area associate it with that community name. This is something that has been very difficult to do and has been the subject of a slew of Informal Objections I have filed over the past 30+ years where people attempt to take a spot on the map and attempt to use it as a community.

A couple of recent examples:

Crystal (Clark County), Nevada (Bureau dismissed application for that reason, considered REC's IO as moot) (note: there is also a Crystal, Nevada in Nye County, which is a community for allotment purposes.)

Kramer Junction, California (amended to Hinkley, CA, which is a community, REC withdrew)

Yet WHOM is still licensed to Mount Washington, New Hampshire, which has never been a community.

 

[fybush]

Yet WHOM is still licensed to Mount Washington, New Hampshire, which has never been a community.

And in those earliest days of FM, the FCC licensed FM stations based on the overall area (in square miles) that they covered.

The other issue these days with COL as an indicator of fair distribution of service is that there's so little that a station is required to do to "serve" that community. You don't need a studio of any sort at all, whether it's in the community limits or out of it. Ascertainment is long, long gone. Public files are online and issues lists can be almost vanishingly generic as long as they're uploaded on time. So what does it even mean to "serve" a COL?

 

[Yeziknoradio]

I have a format idea:

Buddy should use this new signal to launch a Children’s music format: Little WECK

Restoring Radio Disney might be a better idea, but even then, I doubt it'll work.