FCC to consider ongoing operation of existing FM6/Franken FMs, Expanded FM Band and Elimination of Reserved Band Protection Requirements

[Kelly A]

What's interesting to me is we have the FCC talking about expanding the FM band, making Franken FMs legal, and other ways of growing FM radio. Meanwhile at RadioInk, their big story is Fred Jacobs' survey about declining radio listenership. All the comments there are about how no one listen to FM because of the music and commercials.

Wait, the Commission is out of step with modern society?? And all this time I just thought it was the folks visiting this site.

If this is true, and listenership is declining, why in the world are we talking about expanding the FM band? Adding more stations isn't going to solve the problems of boring playlists and too many commercials. In fact, it's likely to make the situation worse.

Exactly. The NAB and broadcast groups asked for this years ago. The Commission is just now starting to consider it. Too little too late.

 

[ZantennaG1]

Wait, the Commission is out of step with modern society?? And all this time I just thought it was the folks visiting this site.

The FCC, and the FRC that came before it, can be a bit meat-headed at times, but at least they are trying to conserve radio for those who can't easily access streaming, or doesn't want to.

Exactly. The NAB and broadcast groups asked for this years ago. The Commission is just now starting to consider it. Too little too late.

This new proposal would've been more in step back in the 1990's, if not sooner.

 

[TheBigA]

Wait, the Commission is out of step with modern society??

Or maybe RadioInk is out of step....

 

[Kelly A]

Or maybe RadioInk is out of step....

That could be too. I can't imagine how this proposal would benefit anyone, nor someone with half a brain would want to finance something that likely nobody would listen to. Kind of like that dumb proposal of putting terrestrial radio streams on ATSC 3.0 DTV stations.
Great and all, except nobody could hear it.

 

[Kelly A]

The FCC, and the FRC that came before it, can be a bit meat-headed at times, but at least they are trying to conserve radio for those who can't easily access streaming, or doesn't want to.

This new proposal would've been more in step back in the 1990's, if not sooner.

More like the 70's or 80's. But there was no spectrum available, but consumers still purchased radios. Just like decades ago, that's all changed: Consumers don't purchase radios but rely on their smartphones for everything. Anyone who thinks adding more radio stations to corners of a band is going to convince consumers to abandon their phones for portable radios should seek psychological help.

 

[ZantennaG1]

Kind of like that dumb proposal of putting terrestrial radio streams on ATSC 3.0 DTV stations.
Great and all, except nobody could hear it.

Nobody could hear it? Please elaborate.

More like the 70's or 80's.

Agreed.

But there was no spectrum available, but consumers still purchased radios.

I suspect you are referring to the fact that most people in the 70's bought a pair of rabbit-ears and just watched the local VHFs on 2 through 13. However, a case could be made back then that goes like this: The UHF band opened up for TV in the 60's, and all TV's after a certain point in that decade required UHF tuners in them. Although "NBC 4" and "ABC 7" is a lot easier to remember than "Fox 42" (Omaha), people would've gotten used to the new channel names anyways. Before the spectrum explosion that took place between the 80's and 90's, there would've been loads of room to move low VHF (2-6) to UHF (13+), whilst leaving high VHF (7-13) intact. By doing so, anything below channel 6 would've been available for FM expansion, in a time, that you say, that consumers were still purchasing radios. Imagine if the US just straight up adopted the Japanese style FM band (76 Mhz) or decided not to include channels 5 or 6 in their band plan in the first place, and there would've been room for FM expansion. This wouldn't be the first time the FCC skipped a channel, such as 1, or 37. Channels 2-4 would still be available in this example, but the FM band is a lot better off, policy wise.

Just like decades ago, that's all changed: Consumers don't purchase radios but rely on their smartphones for everything. Anyone who thinks adding more radio stations to corners of a band is going to convince consumers to abandon their phones for portable radios should seek psychological help.

Who said that that the new expansion would get people to look up from their phones? This is to make it better for whoever's left on terrestrial radio nowadays. Although, if we can get some people to come off-of the fence and back to radio, that should boost ratings.

 

[Kelly A]

Nobody could hear it? Please elaborate.

As in: no average consumer would be pressing scan on their radio looking for a new station at the end of the band. The AM Expanded band was a great example of that. And it took almost 25 years for even a small percentage of consumers to find FM-HD extra channels. Would you want to invest-in and operate a radio station for 25 years hoping some listeners would find you? I'd guarantee, even if you had Elon Musk money, you wouldn't keep a station running with no listeners that long.

Agreed.

I suspect you are referring to the fact that most people in the 70's bought a pair of rabbit-ears and just watched the local VHFs on 2 through 13. However, a case could be made back then that goes like this: The UHF band opened up for TV in the 60's, and all TV's after a certain point in that decade required UHF tuners in them. Although "NBC 4" and "ABC 7" is a lot easier to remember than "Fox 42" (Omaha), people would've gotten used to the new channel names anyways. Before the spectrum explosion that took place between the 80's and 90's, there would've been loads of room to move low VHF (2-6) to UHF (13+), whilst leaving high VHF (7-13) intact. By doing so, anything below channel 6 would've been available for FM expansion, in a time, that you say, that consumers were still purchasing radios. Imagine if the US just straight up adopted the Japanese style FM band (76 Mhz) or decided not to include channels 5 or 6 in their band plan in the first place, and there would've been room for FM expansion. This wouldn't be the first time the FCC skipped a channel, such as 1, or 37. Channels 2-4 would still be available in this example, but the FM band is a lot better off, policy wise.

But this is the 21st Century already in progress. If it's not available on a smartphone or smartspeaker, nobody in any sort of numbers will seek it out.

Who said that that the new expansion would get people to look up from their phones?

There are a lot of what amount to 'phone deniers' on this discussion board. 'If we only broadcasted in 7.1 surround sound, or AM Stereo, or Dolby Atmos, or adding more FM stations to an already crowded band people would have a reason to spend more time listening to the radio.' No, no they won't. Those days are over. Consumers have SO many choices right now. Crowding the already congested FM band by expanding it, won't help change consumer habits.

This is to make it better for whoever's left on terrestrial radio nowadays. Although, if we can get some people to come off-of the fence and back to radio, that should boost ratings.

See my statement above. It seems like you might be a 'phone denier' too? Nobody is on any fence. If it's not on their phone, it doesn't exist.

 

[TheBigA]

As in: no average consumer would be pressing scan on their radio looking for a new station at the end of the band.

Which may be why they're talking about non-coms in this expanded dial. But the world isn't screaming for more non-com religious stations, which is what they'd be. (since no one else has any money).

That's why I'd say push the non-coms that exist in the commercial dial to the expanded dial and open up some commercial freqs in 92-108. If they combine that with allowing companies to own at least one more FM per market, they'd have a lot of takers. Just one more! It's not the end of the world. The reason why radio is in stagnation now is because of obsolete ownership rules.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Consumers have SO many choices right now. Crowding the already congested FM band by expanding it, won't help change consumer habits.

Speaking for my own consumer habits, I can't tell you the last time I listened to a radio station in my home market to see what was new. If my preferred radio station is playing sermons on Sunday, I'm not hitting the "Scan" button, I'm hitting the "Bluetooth" button.

 

[Kelly A]

Which may be why they're talking about non-coms in this expanded dial. But the world isn't screaming for more non-com religious stations, which is what they'd be. (since no one else has any money).

Building a non-com still costs money. But you're right. It's not like there is a crying need for more religious or NPR affiliated stations either. Let alone ones located on a deserted island.

That's why I'd say push the non-coms that exist in the commercial dial to the expanded dial and open up some commercial freqs in 92-108.

But if a not for profit organization sits on a Class C FM in a major metro in the commercial band, I suppose the only incentive would be to work a deal to sell the Class C, and move to the expanded band. That would assume the new allotment would have equal coverage, but there would still be a lack of audience for the foreseeable future. Too many what-if's to make it worthwhile. Besides, nobody is paying formerly stupid money (10X cash flow or whatever) for commercial stations anymore.

 

[ZantennaG1]

As in: no average consumer would be pressing scan on their radio looking for a new station at the end of the band. The AM Expanded band was a great example of that. And it took almost 25 years for even a small percentage of consumers to find FM-HD extra channels. Would you want to invest-in and operate a radio station for 25 years hoping some listeners would find you? I'd guarantee, even if you had Elon Musk money, you wouldn't keep a station running with no listeners that long.

But this is the 21st Century already in progress. If it's not available on a smartphone or smartspeaker, nobody in any sort of numbers will seek it out.

There are a lot of what amount to 'phone deniers' on this discussion board. 'If we only broadcasted in 7.1 surround sound, or AM Stereo, or Dolby Atmos, or adding more FM stations to an already crowded band people would have a reason to spend more time listening to the radio.' No, no they won't. Those days are over.

So, the current generation probably wouldn't notice if we pulled the plug tomorrow? Overall though, I agree here. You can add anything to your lineup, bit advertising is the only useful way of getting anybody to notice.

Consumers have SO many choices right now. Crowding the already congested FM band by expanding it, won't help change consumer habits.

Yes, plenty of choices, and again, the advertising is what gets people to give stuff a try.

See my statement above. It seems like you might be a 'phone denier' too? Nobody is on any fence. If it's not on their phone, it doesn't exist.

"Phone denier"? That would be someone on their computer in the 2000's saying that these "new-fangled" touch screens will never take off, whereas I'm setting here, on my phone, occasionally listening to streaming, acknowledging the phone's success while knowing there will always be the need for a back-up plan. Through your logic, 'If it's not on their phone, it doesn't exist' sounds like a world-denier to me!

Which may be why they're talking about non-coms in this expanded dial. But the world isn't screaming for more non-com religious stations, which is what they'd be. (since no one else has any money).

That's why I'd say push the non-coms that exist in the commercial dial to the expanded dial and open up some commercial freqs in 92-108. If they combine that with allowing companies to own at least one more FM per market, they'd have a lot of takers. Just one more! It's not the end of the world. The reason why radio is in stagnation now is because of obsolete ownership rules.

Agreed 100%

Speaking for my own consumer habits, I can't tell you the last time I listened to a radio station in my home market to see what was new. If my preferred radio station is playing sermons on Sunday, I'm not hitting the "Scan" button, I'm hitting the "Bluetooth" button.

I understand the sentiment, but since you're on here anyways, do try scanning your dial every once in a while. You might be in for a pleasant suprise!

 

[TheBigA]

But if a not for profit organization sits on a Class C FM in a major metro in the commercial band, I suppose the only incentive would be to work a deal to sell the Class C, and move to the expanded band.

My view is this would not be a voluntary transaction. If the FCC is about to expand the FM band, and the only stations in that expanded band will be non-com, then the non-coms squatting in the commercial part of the spectrum MUST move to the protected part of the band. Otherwise, don't restrict the new band to non-com. It's unfair and discriminatory to the commercial applicants.

 

[Michi]

My view is this would not be a voluntary transaction. If the FCC is about to expand the FM band, and the only stations in that expanded band will be non-com, then the non-coms squatting in the commercial part of the spectrum MUST move to the protected part of the band. Otherwise, don't restrict the new band to non-com. It's unfair and discriminatory to the commercial applicants.

I still disagree that the noncoms are "squatting" in the commercial band. Those broadcasters paid a pretty penny for those stations and even those that were picked up in auctions still paid for them. If a NCE shows interest in a channel up for auction and there's also commercial applicants, then either the NCE has to participate in the auction or else they are eliminated off the top. The only time when a channel is reserved for an noncommercial use above 92 is when a showing can be made that because of channel 6 or other factors, no channel is available below 92 and the proposed allotment would provide first or second NCE service to at least 2,000 people. The FCC just recently "unreserved" a bunch of allotments that were reserved for NCE use. These allotments were originally asked for before the DTV transition and there were a lot more full-service TV stations on Channel 6 (there are only 8 now). The NCE broadcasters on non-reserved commercial allotments can take those stations commercial (or sell them) if they want. They only choose not to carry commercials.

Let me make it clear that I do not support any realignment of the legacy 88~108 band to react to the potential new spectrum. There is a disparity of available channels in the NCE band and the FCC put us into that position by going with the "bigger is better" policy. My petition for rulemaking for second and third adjacent relief for new small locally-controlled stations in the reserved band in rural spectrum congested areas as well as my waiver request in the 2021 window (which is still under consideration at the time I write this) are part of the reason why we need more than 20 channels for NCE and low power FM use. What the FCC needs to do is put more controls on ownership of NCE stations through national ownership caps. No single organization should be allowed to own over 100 NCE stations, or 40 for that matter.

I am working on my plan for the concept of expanding the FM band, which I will announce in the future. Our spectrum belongs to the people and not the corporations, whether they are driven by commerce or a higher power from above... It's time for locally controlled radio to make a comeback.

 

[TheBigA]

They only choose not to carry commercials.

It's more complicated than that. They're owned by non-profit companies that pay no taxes on the money they make. If they sold commercials, they'd have to change their corporate status and pay taxes, and that would change their business model. Some companies are willing to do that. WTTW was willing to set up a profit-making part of their business in order to own WFMT and a local magazine. But I have no reason to believe EMF is interested in doing that.

What the FCC needs to do is put more controls on ownership of NCE stations through national ownership caps. No single organization should be allowed to own over 100 NCE stations, or 40 for that matter.

At the same time, the FCC should allow commercial companies to own one more FM per market. Had that small change been in place a few years ago, I believe Cumulus would have had more offers for the stations they ended up selling to EMF.

 

[Kelly A]

Let me make it clear that I do not support any realignment of the legacy 88~108 band to react to the potential new spectrum. There is a disparity of available channels in the NCE band and the FCC put us into that position by going with the "bigger is better" policy. My petition for rulemaking for second and third adjacent relief for new small locally-controlled stations in the reserved band in rural spectrum congested areas as well as my waiver request in the 2021 window (which is still under consideration at the time I write this) are part of the reason why we need more than 20 channels for NCE and low power FM use.

But to what end? LPFM was supposed to serve that purpose, but probably at least half were never built or failed due to under-funding or equally poor management.

What the FCC needs to do is put more controls on ownership of NCE stations through national ownership caps. No single organization should be allowed to own over 100 NCE stations, or 40 for that matter.

You mean like EMF? Religious ownership is a third rail for government agencies. The FCC gets into that game, and they'll have Congresspeople and Senator's aid's demanding why the FCC discriminates against Christianity. And guess who's in charge of the purse strings?

I am working on my plan for the concept of expanding the FM band, which I will announce in the future.

Good luck with that. Radio has enough struggles competing with streaming smartphones and the gold rush that is digital ads. Adding more channels for LPFM's to fail, or more esoteric formats that struggle, doesn't do anything for radio. Commercial or non-commercial.

Our spectrum belongs to the people and not the corporations, whether they are driven by commerce or a higher power from above... It's time for locally controlled radio to make a comeback.

Great, time to put your money where your values are. There are plenty of small market stations available at bargain prices without petitioning the Commission to expand the band. You should get out there and show all of us greedy bastards how it's done.

 

[TheBigA]

Our spectrum belongs to the people and not the corporations, whether they are driven by commerce or a higher power from above... It's time for locally controlled radio to make a comeback.

Tell that to the telecom companies. They're able to buy spectrum while radio is only allowed to license. The radio side is a public-private partnership, which was once how this country used to work in a lot of areas, including water and mineral rights. The partnership has been very good for both sides. The government needs to stop holding spectrum hostage from radio companies, while selling it at bargain basement prices to telecom. That's a dirty deal that doesn't benefit the public.

 

[ContinuousWave]

The average car today is 12 years old. That means it will take a decade to get even half of all cars able to hear the new band extension. It will take a quarter century to replace all vehicles.

While some radios may be re-programmable via software, I suspect that is not a major percentage of cars and trucks.

The movement to streaming and on-demand services is moving much faster. By the time there is sufficient in-car reach of a band extension, nobody will be using terrestrial radio FM services any longer.

Actually the average age of cars on the road in the US is 17 years!!

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

The worst outcome of this proposal is the FCC expands the FM band into what was once the video frequency of TV Channel 6 and moves all LPFM down to where there are no FM receivers. This has been proposed before.

LPFM is then replaced by K-Love translators in the commercial band . Thus, LPFM is ruined and the Low Power FM stations all go dark because no one can hear them anymore.

Could this happen? Sure. I've been involved in the FCC rulemaking process many times before. And, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

 

[gr8oldies]

Let's review this point-by-point, now that I've come off that "expanding the FM band" high.

I will keep that in mind. Since the FCC requests comment, how do I respectfully reach them?

From what I have seen, the new tests have been highly successful. Several stations, including WTBS, KXDP, WRME, and KBKF (all LD) have noted that their NextGen signal does not interfere with the 87.7 frequency, and vice versa. In addition, the signals achieve the same distance (which is to be expected, because of the HEVC codec in ATSC3 that wasn't available in ATSC1.

So, most of today's Franken FM's such as KXDP and WNYZ, serve a Spanish-speaking audience, so I think it is in the interest of minority groups to continue these operations to run. It is expensive to afford a radio-station, get the licensing out and everything, and these Channel 6 FM's have afforded these minorities an opportunity to broadcast their culture. This is what LPFM's were supposed to solve, but IMO the LPFM's have become a landing spot for churches, which half the time doesn't provide things a "community" would expect from a "community" station, such as a calendar, locally inspired music/talk, and lost/found support services. That is not to say that all religious LPFM's are bad, because some, like KWYG-LP in Wyoming, do a very good job of adding that local element while carrying what is truly a regional if not national format. It should be in the public interest to provide a small section of the band dedicated to helping local interests and Ethnicities get on radio, who might otherwise not have a voice, or resort to piracy. Not all pirates are jerks, they just can't afford to broadcast anywhere else. Hopefully, the FCC will consider small groups when deciding either to keep Franken FM's, or expand the FM band. Without such groups, actually, the Franken FM's are otherwise a repeat of what you can find elsewhere on the band. It might also be in the public interest to give LPFM's their own chunk of the band, in a similar fashion to Franken FM's, but without the hassle of being on Channel 6.

One thing in favor of Franken FM's is that you get a TV signal and an FM signal packed into one, which may serve doubly. When one tunes into WRME-LD (at least before they switched to Jewelry TV), there was a constantly updating weather map. Useful! On WDCN-LP, local ads ran on the screen. Useful! However, not all Franken-FM's do this. There was one in Florida that just put a blank screen on channel 6. Not useful! The one in Georgia, WTBS-LP, stopped broadcasting the audio-carrier altogether, I kid you not. However the advent of the ATSC 3.0 signal has uniquely given these stations to broadcast as many video streams as they wish, while having the 87.7 audio broadcasting something else. There is mixed implications here, and as I mentioned earlier, WRME-LD Chicago now runs Jewelry TV on virtual channel 33, while still having "Me-TV audio" on 87.7.

As I have mentioned before, the current tests have ran very well. Because FM6's are practically FM from the perspective of a reugular listener, they should be held to similar standards regarding Legal ID's, advertisements, and what not, however we do need to give them financial leniency, otherwise it's just another part of the FM band, and these LP's probably will go away if that were to happen, with maybe one of them finding a forever home after going off channel 6.

Talk about maintaining the status quo here, are possibly putting those FM6's on life-support here.

This option excites me, because the FM band is getting overcrowded as it is, and we eventually need to welcome AM move in's. Being forced on to translators is rather unfair to AM's used to covering several markets at once, and if we are going to make the move to FM permanent, we have to do it right the first time. Also, I counted, and NPR's statement is correct. You will receive 30 new FM channels, assuming that they get rid of Channel 6. Of those 30, I would say the first 5 (82.1-82.9) goes to a new breed of LPFM's that are up to 150 watts, and they have reduced qualifications for application, which would help the FrankenFM's and other LPFM's find a permanent home. The next 23 channels (83.1-87.5) would be home to Non-Commercial applications, which would shift the current NCEFM band (88.1-91.9) over to, the aforementioned 83.1-87.5 area, and there would be three extra channels in this new bandplan. The Next 22 channels (87.7 through 91.9) would be home to AM move in's, prioritizing first-service, at perhaps a Class A or Class C2 level, as to help reduce interference on the new band, but allowing entire metros to be within the 50-60+ dbu coverage. This should mainly prioritize the large cities first. Rural AM's should be allowed to move onto the regular FM band at full power, if spacing allows for it. Stations like KOA, KLZ, KHOW, and KDFD should go to the designated 88 Mhz band, whilst stations like KFBC should be allowed to expand their power on their current frequency if they wish.

Continued in Part 2...

How many years before a station at 82 mHz has a single listener?

 

[Harvey_Dogg]

How many years before a station at 82 mHz has a single listener?

Some time back, I visited all the stores in town and not one of them could sell me a portable radio for the existing FM band. Lots of smart phone and smart speaker options though.

I had to go on eBay to find a new radio.