FCC wants to delay LPTV transistion (again) and more screwups

[ContinuousWave]

The FCC issued a 3rd NPRM in the LPTV/translator issues and what a screwed up proposal it is...
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1010/FCC-14-151A1.pdf
They "conclude" to delay the digital transition of the LP and translators to digital (was supposed to happen Sept 1 2015 but not Class As)....and even to propose take comments on allowing Franken FMs to operate separately from the LD TV programming ...which is ridiculous..a 87.76 carrier in the LD 6 passband? like that will work...

What a mess....they also propose channel sharing....and would only allow a LP sharing to have enough bandwidth to only carry a single SD channel....so what about those currently carrying HD content (like 2 720s or a single 1080 with an SD)??

$$$ evidently buys you a lot of the FCC.......lawyers making more $$$ and screwing the average American

 

[TheBigA]

$$$ evidently buys you a lot of the FCC.......lawyers making more $$$ and screwing the average American

How does the "Average American" benefit from LPFM?

 

[ContinuousWave]

How does the "Average American" benefit from LPFM?

(I didn't mention LPFM but I'll answer anyway)

They usually don't!!! Religious groups have a stranglehold on LPFM...the ones like KCYB in the Houston area have brought back some legends from KLOL's heritage days but how long can it stay on the air, especially since it is now on a different and likely more expensive tower...but KCYB is a rare one...there are LPFMs calling for them to be allowed to run paid advertising...(Sorry you got into it knowing what the deal was..dont like the rules; get them changed or get out)...Nope nope nope.....

Personally, the FCC has allowed too many signals on the FM band already...with the translator overload from the early 2000s...and the recent window where everyone and their brother filed...

 

[TheBigA]

(I didn't mention LPFM but I'll answer anyway)

You're right...I meant LPTV.

Personally, the FCC has allowed too many signals on the FM band already.

I agree.

 

[nathannah]

How does the "Average American" benefit from LPFM?

If your average American works for the Educational Media Foundation/K-Love and has a bunch of business dealings with Clear Channel/iHeart to throw on hashmark niche HD channel rebroadcasts and get a full-power K-Love signal...quite well.

In most markets though, it's all religion. These days even the full power school district FM's pretty much have to find any full-time programming source like a public radio network so the FCC doesn't award them to a religious broadcaster by default come renewal time. And unfortunately they also always go up on a shared community tower, so if you're close to it, you get many stations you don't care about blocking out the full-power signals you do want to listen to.

 

[TheBigA]

In most markets though, it's all religion. These days even the full power school district FM's pretty much have to find any full-time programming source like a public radio network so the FCC doesn't award them to a religious broadcaster by default come renewal time.

I agree. At one point I started two community-owned LPFM stations, and they were so expensive to run, and such a pain to operate, that we ended up shutting them both down. The way we did it was basing the stations in local high schools. After a while, the school districts needed the space back, and didn't want to pay the other costs. I really don't know what in the world these folks were thinking when they rammed this thring through Congress. It definitely isn't encouraging diversity of ownership or involving new people in broadcasting.

 

[fordranger797]

I think just about everyone can agree that these religious LP's need to go. Here where I live we happen to have a very good, full power christian contemporary radio station that ranks very well in the ratings. We don't need a bunch of small LP stations taking up bandwidth.

 

[Avid Listener]

I think just about everyone can agree that these religious LP's need to go. Here where I live we happen to have a very good, full power christian contemporary radio station that ranks very well in the ratings. We don't need a bunch of small LP stations taking up bandwidth.

Yeah! God forbid that any Christians other than the fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostals get to have their messages on the air.

 

[TheBigA]

I think just about everyone can agree that these religious LP's need to go.

It's not going to happen. The way the LPFM law was written makes non-profit religious groups pretty much the only people who qualify. Originally, a lot of out-of-work former commercial radio folks thought LPFM would be a way for them to get back on the air playing music again. The problem is none of those people had ever run a radio station. The minute they were faced with the cost and bureaucracy of owning radio, they walked away and moved online. That's what most people have done. Even educational institutions like colleges are selling their OTA stations to religious groups. So religious radio won't be going away.

 

[Carmine5]

The FCC issued a 3rd NPRM in the LPTV/translator issues and what a screwed up proposal it is...
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1010/FCC-14-151A1.pdf
They "conclude" to delay the digital transition of the LP and translators to digital (was supposed to happen Sept 1 2015 but not Class As)....and even to propose take comments on allowing Franken FMs to operate separately from the LD TV programming ...which is ridiculous..a 87.76 carrier in the LD 6 passband? like that will work...

What a mess....they also propose channel sharing....and would only allow a LP sharing to have enough bandwidth to only carry a single SD channel....so what about those currently carrying HD content (like 2 720s or a single 1080 with an SD)??

$$$ evidently buys you a lot of the FCC.......lawyers making more $$$ and screwing the average American

There are about 6800 LPTV CPs waiting to be built. Most are already on their second extension. So delaying the deadline makes total sense since none of these CP holders want to rush into building their stations only to be forced later into doing a double or maybe even a triple build because of the repack.

I am a LDTV station owner and know most of the low power station owners throughout the country and am a member of a couple of LPTV associations. And I can tell you that no one in the low power community has ever talked about broadcasting an analog audio signal on channel 6. That proposal came way out of left field and I'm sure the NCE FM community will have plenty to say about it.

There has been a push to let LPTV experiment with flex-use technologies. But, of course, such technologies could encroach on the business plans of Obama's and Wheeler's friends in the wireless industry. So naturally the NPRM doesn't consider that issue.

Channel sharing, as a whole, is a disastrous idea. It might work with some CPB-member stations and a few have expressed interest in doing it. But there are so many questions surrounding CS and, of course, the NPRM doesn't address any of them. Most of us station owners see problems arising between stations and no chance for future growth or flex-use.

But what the government is proposing to do with the incentive auction and repack will effectively end much of free TV. So far, the research we're seeing shows a loss of coverage and severe interference issues should the FCC auction off the full 120 MHz or even 84 MHz.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Channel sharing, as a whole, is a disastrous idea. It might work with some CPB-member stations and a few have expressed interest in doing it. But there are so many questions surrounding CS and, of course, the NPRM doesn't address any of them. Most of us station owners see problems arising between stations and no chance for future growth or flex-use.

But what the government is proposing to do with the incentive auction and repack will effectively end much of free TV. So far, the research we're seeing shows a loss of coverage and severe interference issues should the FCC auction off the full 120 MHz or even 84 MHz.

Have any of you raised your concerns with the FCC, not that it'll change what they do one iota, and I'm sure you have done so multiple times?

I kind of wish there was a plain-English way to explain the issues surrounding the incentive auction to the layman, but while John Oliver may have complained about how hard net neutrality is to understand, it's child's play compared to the incentive auction. And it's not even completely guaranteed that even some of those that benefit from broadcast television would care if they did know, that America as a whole still cares about free broadcast TV at all; there's a "cord-cutting" podcast I follow where the hosts, while they've never directly mentioned the incentive auctions to my knowledge and have occasionally talked about stuff they watch OTA and even recommend antennas, will occasionally talk about what a waste of spectrum broadcast TV is and how it should all be given over to the Internet. I've attempted to explain why I think broadcast television is still important in the age of the Internet and why net neutrality and issues facing broadcasting go hand in hand, but explaining the effect the incentive auctions will have on it is a whole other level. In all likelihood, getting Americans to care about the issue the way they care about net neutrality is the only way to avoid the outcome you lay out, but it's not guaranteed they would even if they were made to understand everything at stake, given how many of them subscribe to cable and wireless services.

 

[Carmine5]

Have any of you raised your concerns with the FCC, not that it'll change what they do one iota, and I'm sure you have done so multiple times?

I kind of wish there was a plain-English way to explain the issues surrounding the incentive auction to the layman, but while John Oliver may have complained about how hard net neutrality is to understand, it's child's play compared to the incentive auction. And it's not even completely guaranteed that even some of those that benefit from broadcast television would care if they did know, that America as a whole still cares about free broadcast TV at all; there's a "cord-cutting" podcast I follow where the hosts, while they've never directly mentioned the incentive auctions to my knowledge and have occasionally talked about stuff they watch OTA and even recommend antennas, will occasionally talk about what a waste of spectrum broadcast TV is and how it should all be given over to the Internet. I've attempted to explain why I think broadcast television is still important in the age of the Internet and why net neutrality and issues facing broadcasting go hand in hand, but explaining the effect the incentive auctions will have on it is a whole other level. In all likelihood, getting Americans to care about the issue the way they care about net neutrality is the only way to avoid the outcome you lay out, but it's not guaranteed they would even if they were made to understand everything at stake, given how many of them subscribe to cable and wireless services.

There is a lot of information breaking down the particulars of the incentive auction. Here is one source that explains it in simple, impartial but thorough terms:

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...oadband-users-the-details-of-the-legislation/

And there have been 100's of comments filed for proceeding 12-268: "Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions" with the FCC, both pro and con, many having been filed by broadcasters. The NAB's team of engineers submitted several comments to the FCC as to the damage the repacking will do to broadcast television and several independent engineers have done so as well. You'll need to comb through the FCC database to read them but it's all there. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=12-268

There is a great deal of dishonesty surrounding the claim by wireless companies that they need more spectrum. Forecasts on future spectrum usage--upon which rests the justification for reassigning broadcast spectrum and as found in the National Broadband Plan--was based on old 3G technology. Fourth-generation LTE networks are twice as spectrally efficient as 3G networks and there is the promise of even greater efficiency going forward. Then there is the estimate that wireless companies are already sitting on some 16 billion dollars worth of unused or warehoused spectrum. For example, TWC COO Rob Marcus, said the company “has no plans to sell, lease or use its AWS spectrum licenses.”

What people forget is that once this spectrum is sold, all public interest obligations and accountability for it is gone, unlike with broadcast licensees. It is no longer part of the public airwaves. There will also be no more free TV service on that spectrum and whatever free TV remains on a repacked band will be of limited choices (no more Me-TV, This-TV, Antenna TV and most of the other diginets) and nearly impossible to receive without an outdoor antenna.

It's too bad, Morgan, that you didn't realize all this sooner, as you could have registered your (concern, disgust, anger--pick one) to the FCC on the incentive auction. The comment period went on for months.

The ironic thing is that as more people get fed up with cable and satellite, more are discovering FOTA TV. At our station, I get at least one caller a day asking how they can get free TV. It's estimated that 16-19% of U.S. households rely exclusively on OTA TV and that number is growing. By contrast, cable and satellite TV subscriptions are dropping at the rate of 300K per quarter. The days of Pay-TV are just about over. Too bad the government didn't get the memo.

 

[ContinuousWave]

There are about 6800 LPTV CPs waiting to be built. Most are already on their second extension. So delaying the deadline makes total sense since none of these CP holders want to rush into building their stations only to be forced later into doing a double or maybe even a triple build because of the repack.

I am a LDTV station owner and know most of the low power station owners throughout the country and am a member of a couple of LPTV associations. And I can tell you that no one in the low power community has ever talked about broadcasting an analog audio signal on channel 6. That proposal came way out of left field and I'm sure the NCE FM community will have plenty to say about it.

There has been a push to let LPTV experiment with flex-use technologies. But, of course, such technologies could encroach on the business plans of Obama's and Wheeler's friends in the wireless industry. So naturally the NPRM doesn't consider that issue.

Channel sharing, as a whole, is a disastrous idea. It might work with some CPB-member stations and a few have expressed interest in doing it. But there are so many questions surrounding CS and, of course, the NPRM doesn't address any of them. Most of us station owners see problems arising between stations and no chance for future growth or flex-use.

But what the government is proposing to do with the incentive auction and repack will effectively end much of free TV. So far, the research we're seeing shows a loss of coverage and severe interference issues should the FCC auction off the full 120 MHz or even 84 MHz.

Carmine, the Franken FMs on LP6 would be shocked to read your statement.....I know of one 100miles to the east of me...one in Atlanta, GA recently signed on under a STA (using WTBS-LP as the callsign!)..Chicago has had a Franken on 6 for some time...it is now carrying WGN 720's audio!!

Any LP switching to digital on RF6 will want to keep the analog audio anyway they can..Personally, I think they are illegal under the rules but people keep saying there is a loophole that allows them...I disagree but the FCC has allowed them to operate as a FM and not a TV station which they are licensed as...

I agree about the repack, etc.....I cannot see major markets already full of signals not losing stations..I cannot see a lot of them doing channel sharing....whatever they are smoking at the Commish must be some heavy stuff

 

[Carmine5]

Carmine, the Franken FMs on LP6 would be shocked to read your statement.....I know of one 100miles to the east of me...one in Atlanta, GA recently signed on under a STA (using WTBS-LP as the callsign!)..Chicago has had a Franken on 6 for some time...it is now carrying WGN 720's audio!!

Any LP switching to digital on RF6 will want to keep the analog audio anyway they can..Personally, I think they are illegal under the rules but people keep saying there is a loophole that allows them...I disagree but the FCC has allowed them to operate as a FM and not a TV station which they are licensed as...

I agree about the repack, etc.....I cannot see major markets already full of signals not losing stations..I cannot see a lot of them doing channel sharing....whatever they are smoking at the Commish must be some heavy stuff

For me, the radio bands are for radio, TV for TV.

There is a caveat with the Franken FM proposal; the FCC is asking if LDTV stations that opt to broadcast an analog FM channel, should be regulated as FM stations. This means that these LPTV stations are going to have a whole bunch of new items to add in their public files and a bunch of new public service obligations that they didn't have formerly. Also, the FCC is asking for a 5% gross yearly fee on ancillary services which it categorizes LPTV-FM as being. It wouldn't surprise me if, in time, they assess spectrum usage fees for LPTV Franken FMs on a per pop basis like regular FM stations, instead of a blanket fee as they do for LPTV stations.

There is some speculation that allowing Franken FMs on LPTV ch. 6 may open the door to flex-use policies for all low power stations. The real future for LPTV may not be as television broadcasters but in using their spectrum in new and creative ways as information pipelines. We'll see how far that goes.

The one word that has often been used to describe the regulatory policies of the Obama administration is "unserious." The word applies here, too. Channel Sharing is an "unserious" solution to a very serious problem this administration will create if it goes through with the spectrum auction and repack.

 

[MarioMania]

Just make 87.7 a frequency done and done