• 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

High School station fights FCC action

> Less community radio discussed on 'all things considered'
> today on NPR story. Looks like the FCC is trying to
> squeeze out the few remaining class D licience holders. see
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181109
>
>
> JohnA
>
On the face of it this is just nuts. There may be more going on than the NPR story reported or that I know but it appears that our US airwaves are now the best that money can buy.

If this is the case, no license is secure.

Neil
 
I had heard elsewhere that a compromise solution was reached in this case. Due to community support for the high school station in question, WAVM Maynard MA, I heard that the FCC may have agreed to allow WAVM to stay on the air and increase their power to 100 watts with a directional antenna beamed away from Lunenberg MA, the location of "Living Proof's" competing co-channel appliction for a repeater for their satellite Christian programming, which would also be directional away from WAVM. I don't know if this idea has been accepted, or simply only proposed.

> Less community radio discussed on 'all things considered'
> today on NPR story. Looks like the FCC is trying to
> squeeze out the few remaining class D licience holders. see
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181109
>
>
> JohnA
>
 
> Less community radio discussed on 'all things considered'
> today on NPR story. Looks like the FCC is trying to
> squeeze out the few remaining class D licience holders. see
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181109
>
>
> JohnA
>

As I understand it, the problem is that there is no safe path for a Class D to upgrade to minimum Class A without risking the license. The rules are written in such a way to open the Class D up to competing apps just to get to Class A status. There needs to be protection for the station that is trying to migrate to Class A.
 
One has to keep a couple of things in mind...The process the FCC looks at does not look at programming. It lloks at technical issues first, and on "paper", Living Proof won. Secondly, and one should keep this in mind, and if it sounds overly harsh, it is not meant to be, but this could have all been avoided, if WAVM had built their 100 watt upgraded when it had a CP for it. For whatever reason, it didn't, and the permit expired.

Also, according to other posts, a compromise was proposed, but rejected by WAVM. I beleive this was also mentioned in the NPR story.
 
> One has to keep a couple of things in mind...The process the
> FCC looks at does not look at programming. It lloks at
> technical issues first, and on "paper", Living Proof won.
> Secondly, and one should keep this in mind, and if it sounds
> overly harsh, it is not meant to be, but this could have all
> been avoided, if WAVM had built their 100 watt upgraded when
> it had a CP for it. For whatever reason, it didn't, and the
> permit expired.
>
> Also, according to other posts, a compromise was proposed,
> but rejected by WAVM. I beleive this was also mentioned in
> the NPR story.
>
As I stated in my post, unless something else is going on this action seemed to be the result of money forcing out the little guy. I posted before the above posts expanded on the original post and NPR story. I recall the NPR story mentioned some compromise was offered, but details weren't presented.

If they had upgraded to 100 watts, would the Living Proof application have been denied?

Is it correct to interpret the situation that the very low power station does not cover a large area but it does require that the frequency remain clear for protection for quite a distance thus making that part of the spectrum wasted beyond their coverage area?

If so, it would appear that all micropower licensed FM stations are at risk.

Neil
 
> If they had upgraded to 100 watts, would the Living Proof
> application have been denied?

WAVM did apply for the upgrade for 250w (BPED-19990726MA).

The problem is that the FCC looked at WAVM's gain area and did not count the listeners they currently served. They compared it to the Living Proof application.
 
> Also, according to other posts, a compromise was proposed,
> but rejected by WAVM. I beleive this was also mentioned in
> the NPR story.

Yes, the compromise that I mentioned above involving directional antennas was rejected by WAVM, which was a smart move (in my opinion) if WAVM has indeed garnered enough local community and political support to win their petition to the FCC against Living Proof and get their new 250 watt Class A application granted (and this time, follow through and get it on the air in a timely manner).

If that happens, WAVM's rejection of Living Proof's directional antenna compromise may result in no Living Proof station coming on the channel in Lunenberg at all.

Also, the Living Proof compromise allegedly would have created an opening on the frequency closer to Boston in Lexington MA, about fifteen miles northwest of Boston, for yet another religious broadcaster Calvary Satellite Networks (CSN International) to apply for another 100 watt station also on the same frequency which would have imposed severe interference on two adjacent channel non-commercial stations, U. Mass. Boston's WUMB and Tufts University's WMFO, in many northwest Boston suburbs which are just immediately outside both stations "protected" contours, yet in which their signals can be heard on any quality receiver and in which reside a significant portion of their listenerships.

If I understand the situation correctly, WAVM being granted their 250 watt application would prevent the CSN International application in Lexington, which was dependent on acceptance of the Living Proof proposed compromise with WAVM. WAVM's rejection of Living Proof's directional antenna compromise in farther outlying Lunenberg may have prevented CSN's Lexington application.

The 250 watt WAVM application would cause increased adjacent channel interference to WUMB in the outlying farther west Boston suburbs around Maynard (WMFO's weaker directional signal does not get out that far), however WUMB has tentatively arranged a time-share agreement with WAVM to rebroadcast their programming at times when Maynard High School students are not on the air.

Currently as a Class D, WAVM has been off the air mid-days, late overnights, weekends, and during any high school breaks. They would need to fill out their program schedule to help validate their Class A application, and the time-share with WUMB will provide them with 24/7 programming, as well as provide WUMB with a part-time repeater for that outlying metro-west area of Boston's suburbs.

I don't know whether or not WUMB consulted with WAVM to suggest that they reject Living Proof's directional antenna compromise, but it appears that, if the FCC goes their way, the rejection would benefit both stations as well as potentially keep two interfering religious satellite broadcasters off of that part of the dial in the Boston northwest suburbs.

Considering my personal bias against infiltrating religious satellite broadcasters interfering with locally programmed non-commercial and public radio stations, I think WAVM's rejection of Living Proof's compromise was the best decision they could have made given the situation.
 
> ...if WAVM had built their 100 watt upgraded when
> it had a CP for it. For whatever reason, it didn't, and the
> permit expired.

Another thing I've heard about high school owned stations is, believe it or not, they find out that they have barely enough money to keep a 10-watt transmitter on the air, but they don't have enough for a 100-watt transmitter. So, even when they have the green light by the FCC, the school board rejects the request (in some cases, because the school board just voted to give themselves a huge raise).<P ID="signature">______________
Jason97... regularly contributing on the <a target="_blank" href=http://www.radio-info.com/mods/posts?Board=oregon>Oregon</a> Board.</P>
 
Maybe community donations could be used.

> > ...if WAVM had built their 100 watt upgraded when
> > it had a CP for it. For whatever reason, it didn't, and
> the
> > permit expired.
>
> Another thing I've heard about high school owned stations
> is, believe it or not, they find out that they have barely
> enough money to keep a 10-watt transmitter on the air, but
> they don't have enough for a 100-watt transmitter. So, even
> when they have the green light by the FCC, the school board
> rejects the request (in some cases, because the school board
> just voted to give themselves a huge raise).
>
It would be a shame that they could not raise their power due to costs. Perhaps the community could have a bake sale or othewise raise the money. It would seem that once the upgrade costs have been met, operating will cost about the same. I don't know what impact going to 24/7 with WUMB would have.

Neil
 
What about AM stations?

This may be a stupid question, but what about an AM station? Let's say there is a Station (example) AM 900 WXXX licensed for 1000 watts day/50 watts at night and they apply to upgrade to 2500 watts day/100 watts at night. Could someone file for a new station on 900?
 
Re: What about AM stations?

Not likley. This would be a monor change, vs a whole NEW application. Part of the issue is that the change in class of the FM, and the MX situation that also involved other applicants. This was a MAJOR change, thus it could open up to competing applications. I am not clear on the AM station rules 100%, but if the AM station was a major change, it would have a window open, for competing applicants.

> This may be a stupid question, but what about an AM station?
> Let's say there is a Station (example) AM 900 WXXX licensed
> for 1000 watts day/50 watts at night and they apply to
> upgrade to 2500 watts day/100 watts at night. Could someone
> file for a new station on 900?
>
 
> > Also, according to other posts, a compromise was proposed,
>
> > but rejected by WAVM. I beleive this was also mentioned in
>
> > the NPR story.
>
> Yes, the compromise that I mentioned above involving
> directional antennas was rejected by WAVM, which was a smart
> move (in my opinion) if WAVM has indeed garnered enough
> local community and political support to win their petition
> to the FCC against Living Proof and get their new 250 watt
> Class A application granted (and this time, follow through
> and get it on the air in a timely manner).
>
> If that happens, WAVM's rejection of Living Proof's
> directional antenna compromise may result in no Living Proof
> station coming on the channel in Lunenberg at all.
>
> Also, the Living Proof compromise allegedly would have
> created an opening on the frequency closer to Boston in
> Lexington MA, about fifteen miles northwest of Boston, for
> yet another religious broadcaster Calvary Satellite Networks
> (CSN International) to apply for another 100 watt station
> also on the same frequency which would have imposed severe
> interference on two adjacent channel non-commercial
> stations, U. Mass. Boston's WUMB and Tufts University's
> WMFO, in many northwest Boston suburbs which are just
> immediately outside both stations "protected" contours, yet
> in which their signals can be heard on any quality receiver
> and in which reside a significant portion of their
> listenerships.
>
> If I understand the situation correctly, WAVM being granted
> their 250 watt application would prevent the CSN
> International application in Lexington, which was dependent
> on acceptance of the Living Proof proposed compromise with
> WAVM. WAVM's rejection of Living Proof's directional antenna
> compromise in farther outlying Lunenberg may have prevented
> CSN's Lexington application.
>
> The 250 watt WAVM application would cause increased adjacent
> channel interference to WUMB in the outlying farther west
> Boston suburbs around Maynard (WMFO's weaker directional
> signal does not get out that far), however WUMB has
> tentatively arranged a time-share agreement with WAVM to
> rebroadcast their programming at times when Maynard High
> School students are not on the air.
>
> Currently as a Class D, WAVM has been off the air mid-days,
> late overnights, weekends, and during any high school
> breaks. They would need to fill out their program schedule
> to help validate their Class A application, and the
> time-share with WUMB will provide them with 24/7
> programming, as well as provide WUMB with a part-time
> repeater for that outlying metro-west area of Boston's
> suburbs.
>
> I don't know whether or not WUMB consulted with WAVM to
> suggest that they reject Living Proof's directional antenna
> compromise, but it appears that, if the FCC goes their way,
> the rejection would benefit both stations as well as
> potentially keep two interfering religious satellite
> broadcasters off of that part of the dial in the Boston
> northwest suburbs.
>
> Considering my personal bias against infiltrating religious
> satellite broadcasters interfering with locally programmed
> non-commercial and public radio stations, I think WAVM's
> rejection of Living Proof's compromise was the best decision
> they could have made given the situation.

The trouble with CSI and Living Proof is they apply for translator/LPFM licenses en masse. Looks more like community radio domination than merely spreading the Gospel.

Besides, EVERY city in America has a religious station it can pick up clearly with ease. We need to keep the non-commercial band stricty for active LOCAL broadcasters - not little "networks" of religious translators.

Besides, with the internet, such translator networks are redundant anyway. Those frequencies should be turned over to LOCAL community broadcasters - where they belong.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
"If I were in this business only for the business, I wouldn't be in this business." Samuel Goldwyn

[email protected]


</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom