Interesting Proposals for LPFM From Chairman Martin

[dbdigital]

If any have not read Chairman Martin's opening remarks at today's localism hearing, here's a quote on what he proposes for LPFM:

"As a result, in January of this year, I proposed that the Commission amend its
LPFM rules to:

 

[jegrant]

Let me post the extended version of Chairman Martin's remarks:

As a result, in January of this year, I proposed that the Commission amend its LPFM rules to:
* Eliminate the rule prohibiting LPFM transfers and assignments and allow the sale of LPFM licenses, subject to certain limitations(such as a three year holding period).
* Reinstate the original LPFM rule that all authorization holders be local to the community and limit ownership to one station per permittee.
* Clarify that repetitious, automated programming does not meet the local origination requirement.
* Prohibit programs from being broadcast more than twice to meet the local origination requirement.
* Expand the definition of local for rural communities.
* Permit AM broadcast station to operate on FM translator stations.
* Permit sudden changes of more than 50 percent of the membership governing board.
* Impose a cap on the number of applications accepted from the 2003 translator filing window, thereby protecting LPFM service.

In practice, it appears that the FCC has already waived the LPFM transfer/assignment rule by administrative fiat. The new rule might let groups sell an LPFM for "real money" however.

I wonder how the "one to a customer" rule will be applied to M&M Community Development (aka JamCentral.com) and "Insert Religious Denomination Here" Of "Insert Community Here" applications.

I would also love to see the definition of "repetitious, automated programming" - this one might get a few LPFMs in trouble.

If they are going to expand the definition of "local" for rural areas, will they also license some LPFMs at 250 watts in these areas? After all, if a distant translator could run 250, why not an LPFM?

What does AM on FM TX have to do with LPFM, other than reduce the available number of FM channels for LPFM? I'd like to see AM broadcasters bound to the same local programming rules as LPFM if they want to use an FM TX (8 hours of local programming daily, programs broadcast no more than twice, nothing "repetitious/automated" allowed).

Isn't the Great Translator Invasion of 2003 already "out of the bottle"? How can the FCC put it back in now? They could delay all the FM translator MX groups and let potential LPFM operators apply for those channels, but are they really going to take away any translator CPs that are on the air, or that are granted on paper?

 

[Chuck]

In practice, it appears that the FCC has already waived the LPFM transfer/assignment rule by administrative fiat. The new rule might let groups sell an LPFM for "real money" however.

As you point out, they are already being traded. I guess this would keep some sellers from being included in the "Liar's Club."

I wonder how the "one to a customer" rule will be applied to M&M Community Development (aka JamCentral.com) and "Insert Religious Denomination Here" Of "Insert Community Here" applications.

The original R&O prohibited ownership of more than one LPFM for the first two years. After that, it was capped at a maximum of 10 stations. I don't think changing this to "one to a customer" is fair to those who signed on to the "original deal." Realistically a single LPFM can't cover many communities. There are lots of instances where more coverage is necessary.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with requiring the stations to be located in the same general geographic area. In fact, I'd favor that since it would favor localism. Even limiting the maximum number to 5 or even less might be acceptable, however I think the laws of physics and the reality of channel availability are fairly well self-governing. It would be hard to force fit 10 stations in most areas that could be considered a "community."

I would also love to see the definition of "repetitious, automated programming" - this one might get a few LPFMs in trouble.

That is going to be very hard to enforce. Just what constitutes "repetitious, automated programming?" Maybe we should ask the folks at Clear Channel or XM Satellite? If the programming is compelling enough to attract an audience, the station must be doing something right. Without automation, most LPFM stations could not stay on the air. Perhaps that is the Commissioner's intent?

Let's throw the LPFM folks a bone, but make it imposible for them to use it???

If they are going to expand the definition of "local" for rural areas, will they also license some LPFMs at 250 watts in these areas? After all, if a distant translator could run 250, why not an LPFM?

Good question. 250 watts at 200 feet is substantially more effective than 100 watts at 100 feet. 250 can actually do a decent job of serving many communities.

What does AM on FM TX have to do with LPFM, other than reduce the available number of FM channels for LPFM? I'd like to see AM broadcasters bound to the same local programming rules as LPFM if they want to use an FM TX (8 hours of local programming daily, programs broadcast no more than twice, nothing "repetitious/automated" allowed).

It looks like it is another win for NAB. Let's throw it in and see if anybody notices? It seems that many AM broadcasters think this is already a "done deal." Recently I've had phone calls from two AM broadcasters who wanted to know how to get a translator, or if I knew of any for sale.

If a translator is required to receive the originating signal off the air (that's the current rule for the commercial band stations), how does it do that if the originating station signs off at sundown? And who'd want to rebroadcast AM fidelity on FM. It sounds like some rules will need to be changed.

Isn't the Great Translator Invasion of 2003 already "out of the bottle"? How can the FCC put it back in now? They could delay all the FM translator MX groups and let potential LPFM operators apply for those channels, but are they really going to take away any translator CPs that are on the air, or that are granted on paper?

It is possible that they could retroactively put a cap on the number of applications they will grant as a provision to lifting the existing freeze. Taking a hard line approach, they might argue that applicants would need to accept the cap and maybe get something, or all frozen applications will be dismissed, leaving nothing.

The recent NCE Filing Window had a limit of ten applications. I think that is a reasonable number for parties on both sides of the argument. As you point out, there already exist many GTI translators that far exceed that maximum ownership cap. I don't know how you fix that. Perhaps the Commission grandfathers whatever has been awarded and moves on with a new cap. Any objections and the lawyers can figure it out. That's the American Way, isn't it?

 

[jegrant]

I wonder how the "one to a customer" rule will be applied to M&M Community Development (aka JamCentral.com) and "Insert Religious Denomination Here" Of "Insert Community Here" applications.

The original R&O prohibited ownership of more than one LPFM for the first two years. After that, it was capped at a maximum of 10 stations. I don't think changing this to "one to a customer" is fair to those who signed on to the "original deal." Realistically a single LPFM can't cover many communities. There are lots of instances where more coverage is necessary.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with requiring the stations to be located in the same general geographic area. In fact, I'd favor that since it would favor localism. Even limiting the maximum number to 5 or even less might be acceptable, however I think the laws of physics and the reality of channel availability are fairly well self-governing. It would be hard to force fit 10 stations in most areas that could be considered a "community."

Now this is a good idea. I could certainly live with a limit of 5 LPs to an organization, and, say, something like a rule that no two of them could be further apart than 100 km.

What does AM on FM TX have to do with LPFM, other than reduce the available number of FM channels for LPFM? I'd like to see AM broadcasters bound to the same local programming rules as LPFM if they want to use an FM TX (8 hours of local programming daily, programs broadcast no more than twice, nothing "repetitious/automated" allowed).

It looks like it is another win for NAB. Let's throw it in and see if anybody notices? It seems that many AM broadcasters think this is already a "done deal." Recently I've had phone calls from two AM broadcasters who wanted to know how to get a translator, or if I knew of any for sale.

If a translator is required to receive the originating signal off the air (that's the current rule for the commercial band stations), how does it do that if the originating station signs off at sundown? And who'd want to rebroadcast AM fidelity on FM. It sounds like some rules will need to be changed.

This does seem like a way to throw NAB a bone. But then, I read somewhere that an FCC rep appeared at a recent NAB conference and implied that any AM stations applying for an STA to have an FM translator would be "rubber stamped" so to speak.

Isn't the Great Translator Invasion of 2003 already "out of the bottle"? How can the FCC put it back in now? They could delay all the FM translator MX groups and let potential LPFM operators apply for those channels, but are they really going to take away any translator CPs that are on the air, or that are granted on paper?

It is possible that they could retroactively put a cap on the number of applications they will grant as a provision to lifting the existing freeze. Taking a hard line approach, they might argue that applicants would need to accept the cap and maybe get something, or all frozen applications will be dismissed, leaving nothing.

The recent NCE Filing Window had a limit of ten applications. I think that is a reasonable number for parties on both sides of the argument. As you point out, there already exist many GTI translators that far exceed that maximum ownership cap. I don't know how you fix that. Perhaps the Commission grandfathers whatever has been awarded and moves on with a new cap. Any objections and the lawyers can figure it out. That's the American Way, isn't it?

While I'll admit that the limit of 10 applications did almost seem to be a Solomon type of approach (cut the baby in half) - I think it is the best thing the FCC could have done given the circumstances.

One big problem with the translator situation is that so many of them are already on the air or have CPs. And is it just me, or are some entities applying for translators within their primary coverage area that are not really needed to improve reception, just for the purpose of spectrum warehousing, which can keep out competition and/or allow them to play the waiting game for FCC policy to change and allow local origination or AM to FM translating?

I would like to see for-profit entities seeking fill-in translators to be required to show that the translator(s) proposed will actually solve a reception problem.

 

[Chuck]

One big problem with the translator situation is that so many of them are already on the air or have CPs. And is it just me, or are some entities applying for translators within their primary coverage area that are not really needed to improve reception, just for the purpose of spectrum warehousing, which can keep out competition and/or allow them to play the waiting game for FCC policy to change and allow local origination or AM to FM translating?

I would like to see for-profit entities seeking fill-in translators to be required to show that the translator(s) proposed will actually solve a reception problem.

It seems the real problem is the folks who filed for "speculative" translators. There are a lot of them. I don't have a lot of problems with most of the entities that applied for a translator and actually have plans to use them, but about 50% (maybe more) of the applications were from people who intend to traffic the Construction Permits. You'd be amazed at how many applications were made, purporting to rebroadcast a particular station, and the owner of said originating station had no idea that an application had been filed. Likewise, many translator apps were made using existing tower locations as listed under antenna registration public files. Frequently, the applicant has never even visited the tower site. Very often the tower owners (mostly cell phone companies) have no idea that their site was listed as a new FM broadcast facility, and they turnout to be virtually unbuildable at that location.

I'm not wild about the "satillator" guys either. The original idea of a translator was to fill in to extend the range of a local station. That is why the "received off air" requirement came to pass. It seems to me that if, under normal circumstances you can receive the originating station off the air using a good antenna and tuner, then a translator is warranted, regardless of how the signal is actually delivered. Past that point, I believe they are not complying with the original purpose of the translator service.

It also seems to me that translators should be allowed to originate some local programming. With all the FCC talk about “localism” this would be an easy way to do it. It wouldn’t cost much to do and might bring back a little local flavor the he radio dial.