> > The rulemaking would make city of license changes minor
> > changes, though apparently you would still have to
> > demonstrate the town you are leaving still has some kind
> of
> > service (which could be a daytime AM or non-com FM) and
> that
> > the new city is an identifiable community and separate
> from
> > the metro city.
> >
> > Since the Commission has been allowing most of the changes
>
> > proposed by the big boys anyway, the rule change simply
> > eliminates a step & allows the few of us left not owned by
> a
> > major conglomerate to make these changes without buying a
> > new yacht for some Washington legal beagle.
> >
> > Also avoids protracted legal battles over these channnel
> > moves.
> >
> > Whether it is good policy is another question. The
> > developing trend is for Clear Channel to spin off the
> > smaller markets, to improve their cash position and Wall
> > Street prospects. But this will simply equalize the
> holdings
> > among the first tier companies, these clusters will
> probably
> > be sold as groups instead of individually. We will still
> > have too many markets where one or two companies control
> > most of the viable stations in the market. This
> rulemaking
> > will simply allow greater opportunities for concentration
> of
> > voices among fewer players.
> >
> > The LPFM question arises in a different rulemaking. I see
> > merit in protecting LPFM's against new translators.
> > Especially since most of the new translators are nothing
> > more than added outlets for satellite fed "God Boxes." I
> > would have mixed feelings about allowing new LPFM's to
> bump
> > existing translators, since I rely on several for coverage
>
> > here in hill country. Especially where the only LPFM's
> that
> > have gotten off the ground locally are also religious
> > stations.
> >
> > However, many of the translator applications in the 13,000
> +
> > flood of recent apps would not work as LPFM channels. For
>
> > that matter, about half of these applications should be
> > dismissed if the Commission would follow its own rules.
> > Unfortunately, the Media Bureau has decided to carve an
> > exception to the interference rules that swallows the
> rule,
> > allowing translators inside the protected contours of
> other
> > stations.
> >
> > Giving LPFM's protected status against future moves of
> full
> > power stations also has some merit. It has been
> established
> > practice to allow one station to displace another's
> > frequency (but not coverage) in order to improve the first
>
> > station's service. So, in many cases, especially where a
> > full power must move because a site is lost, there may
> well
> > be an alternative channel available for the LPFM. A new
> > antenna & engineering for a substitue channel for the LPFM
>
> > is a minor cost to the full power FM.
> >
> > The HDTV transistion required many full-power FM's to move
>
> > off TV towers. But most of these displacements have
> already
> > worked their way through the system. Most of the futures
> > moves that would bump up against an exisitng LPFM would
> > likely be these moves into metro areas from suburban
> > locations. I would argue the value of protecting existing
>
> > LPFMS over new 10th or 20th full power service in those
> > cases, especially where there are no alternative channels
> > available for the LPFM
> >
> This NPRM 05-210 is a bunch of horsepucky, plain and simple.
> This is First Broadcastings' latest attempt to circumvent
> the whole process, and establishing a swift "move-in"
> process in light of all of the trouble they have had
> recently.
> Just take a look at MB Docket 02-136 (Covington, WA) and
> 02-376 (Sells, AZ). This has to do with using "backfilled"
> vacant allotments to cure and remedy a loss of service in
> areas left by a moved station. And it gets even better,
> thinking that they will lose these cases (because this is
> Commission policy right now....."backfilled vacant
> allotments are NO SUBSTITUE FOR ACTUAL SERVICE"), what did
> they do? Why they purchased an allotment in Condon, Oregon
> (pop 745)and now they've "cured" the problem of leaving no
> service for 1800 people. Yet First Broadcasting is on the
> record in RM-10960 admitting that they will not build out a
> station in a very small town. This is very crafty, I'd say.
> FCC staff, don't fall for this behavior. Thank god the Staff
> saw through this recently in dening the issue of removing
> "non-viable" allotments in this NPRM. So they move into an
> urban area from 133 miles away, backfill with allotments
> that won't be built out, leave 1800 people with absolutely
> no radio service, buy an allotment in po-dunk Oregon (Condon
> is described as a semi-ghost town), and petition the FCC to
> remove allotments (non-viable) that they themselves are
> creating. What a bunch of nonsense. See for yourselves. I
> hope some staff members are looking at this board, because
> we are just not going to take it anymore.
>
>
> Here are the sources: You might need to plug in 02-136 and
> 02-376 under "proceeding" .
http> ://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts
>
>
> And here's the Condon, Oregon allotment owned by the
> majority owner of......First Broadcasting.
>
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=164221
> It's 100,000 watts at 288 meters HAAT. Would YOU build a
> 100,000 watt facility in the middle of friggin' NOWHERE?
>
Try this link:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi