KHGV-LP to go silent

[Fieldtech1]

Because LPFM licensees are supposed to be non-commercial, educational organizations. Michelle at REC sums it up well:
"LPFM radio services are only licensed to educational organizations to advance an educational purpose, new LPFM licensees must demonstrate that they are truly educational organizations. This does not mean that the organization must have classrooms. LPFM applicants need to provide descriptions of the nature of its proposed station programming, and if possible, program schedules. The LPFM applicant should also demonstrate how the proposed station programming will be used to advance its educational purpose."
Playing your favorite oldies ultimately doesn't qualify.

So educational, like giving out math problems over the air? Talk shows about geometry? Perhaps "Periodic table element of the day" bits?

 

[Kelly A]

The reality on the ground (or 30 meters up in the air) is that regardless of what Kelly or Dutchman think the rules "should" mean, the FCC has accepted and will continue to accept almost anything that looks like a statement of educational purpose, so long as the applicant is a not-for-profit entity of pretty much any kind.

Don't forget your fellow moderator Michelle/REC. She also agrees with the letter of the rules.
Seems like you may be outvoted on this one.

Why? Politics, history, the First Amendment. There have been some fairly serious attempts over the years to narrow the definition of "educational" broadcasting that have run up against strong opposition. But they've come in the context of trying to exclude Christian preaching formats from qualifying for NCE status - and inevitably, the FCC has backed down, because why would it want to get in the middle of that kind of a fight?

So in this case, would you honestly argue the point that some guy playing his favorite oldies would be serving, by definition, an educational mission? That's like the argument in this thread about airing USFS PSAs about forest fires as somehow qualifiers.

That, in turn, makes it difficult if not impossible for the FCC as a regulator to even think about trying to draw any kind of line that would allow a Daystar or a 3ABN or an EWTN to qualify as NCE while ruling out the "Oldies Preservation Society" or what have you. And, really, how would you draw a line like that that would hold up to the inevitable court challenges? The FCC has been adamant that it does not want to be in the business of regulating program content unless Congress gives it a law to enforce (hence the 3 hours of mandatory E/I programming for TV stations - that's a law passed by Congress, not an interpretation of something in 47 CFR).

And yet, the Commission still defines what constitutes an NCE. I suspect moreover that the Commission accepts applications and as you say, isn't bothering to dot all the I's and cross tees. If nobody objects based on defined terms, then the application goes through the process. As I've said before; if some commercial or public broadcaster of a full-class station were to pull the kind of shell game many LPFM'ers to, they'd risk losing their license or being banned from ever applying again.

As a broadcaster, I don't particularly want this (or any) FCC wading that deeply into regulating program content, either. That should be a job for broadcasters, not for the government.

I don't disagree entirely, especially for commercial and public stations, but it was Congress and the Commission who established the ground rules for LPFM as being local non-profit, educational, community-serving stations. I can't see a way where one could define the requirement for serving a community or educating in certain ways without crossing the line into programming.

So: do you disagree with that? Great. The FCC isn't interpreting its rules based on repetitive arguments on R-D.

Got it, but this is a discussion board. And unlike other discussions, we're debating a radio subject. You'd think as a moderator you would welcome that sort of discussion, rather than appear annoyed. But I understand, you have skin in the LPFM game and might be feeling defensive.

See an LPFM that isn't playing by the rules, as they're currently interpreted? The FCC listens to petitions to deny renewals or new CPs when there's cause. If you really believe that only bona fide educational programs (whatever your definition of those may be) are qualified to hold these licenses, you've got the chance to file against 500 or so applications right this very minute if that floats your boat. But unless you can show that an applicant isn't actually a nonprofit or has violated any other rules, it's highly unlikely that you'll get the FCC to deny a CP grant.

In this particular example; this was a station whose principal was playing oldies and had filed for a Silent STA. My take was, as a lot of failed LPFM's; good riddance.

It was a hell of a lot more effective than posting the same thing over and over and over again on a message board.

Again, the name of this site is: Radiodiscussions.com, not Radioagreements.com

 

[fybush]

Don't forget your fellow moderator Michelle/REC. She also agrees with the letter of the rules.
Seems like you may be outvoted on this one.

I know better than to speak for Michi.

If the letter of the rules requires a bonafide educational. Institution, where does "Riverton Radio Project" fit in?

That's Michi's nonprofit, which applied for a CP in this window:

REC Filing Window Application Tracking System | REC Networks

recnet.com

The board is Michi and one family member. How would you distinguish this application from "some guy playing his favorite oldies" without getting into the weeds of content regulation? Or would you deny this application based on a narrow reading of the rules

Got it, but this is a discussion board. And unlike other discussions, we're debating a radio subject. You'd think as a moderator you would welcome that sort of discussion, rather than appear annoyed. But I understand, you have skin in the LPFM game and might be feeling defensive.

I have a little bit of skin in a lot of different games. Yes, I work with LPFM applicants. I also work with full-power NCE and commercial broadcasters of all kinds of sizes. And I should clarify I'm speaking here only for me, not as a moderator. I'm not closing the thread. I'm just adding my insight and experience to the discussion, including my personal opinion that the constant bashing of all LPFM gets tiresome.

We agree completely that some LPFM operators don't follow the rules very well or at all. I've already told you what I did about one that was occupying a frequency in my market while not playing by any of the rules. That's skin in the game, too. It neither makes me an implacable opponent of LPFM nor a cheerleader for all LPFMs.

In this particular example; this was a station whose principal was playing oldies and had filed for a Silent STA. My take was, as a lot of failed LPFM's; good riddance.

Again, the name of this site is: Radiodiscussions.com, not Radioagreements.com

Sure. And I disagree with you on some, but not all, of your opinions and interpretations, as I'm sure you do with mine.

I've listened to a lot of LPFMs in my travels and worked with a few. It was designed as a low-stakes service to open the airwaves to a larger number of potential broadcasters. On balance, my opinion and experience is that some LPFMs live up to that in various ways. Others don't. I'm just not going to tar all of them with the same brush.

My contribution, then, to the discussion: if the FCC isn't going to restrict LPFM ownership as narrowly as you'd like - and they're just not! - I would like to see a more frequent application window. We know (and expected) that the service is going to have a high mortality rate.

So, good: if I were FCC czar, I would put a bigger burden on LPFMs at renewal time, along with making license terms shorter. Let the stations that do succeed show evidence that they've been operating properly. Clear out the ones that never built or stopped operating and let the frequencies be available again for new operators who might want them.

But keep the regulatory touch light - if the service is a niche, which it is, and if it's designed to over-protect full power stations from interference, which it is, then if stations come and go and provide some new service along the way, I'm just not likely to get as worked up about the whole thing as some here seem to be.

 

[fybush]

Oh, and one more quick thought on the way to dinner:

Radio is still supposed to be fun. Some of my LPFM work is just work - a few new clients approached me ahead of the window for advice and help. But some of it is also just plain enjoyable. I'm helping a local Hispanic nonprofit provide some much-needed Spanish-language service to a community that can't quite support a full-power commercial signal. I get to hear lots of weird music on a couple of other stations in town that have small but loyal audiences keeping them going.

I'm hanging an antenna on the bell tower of a winery to bring some local content to a suburb that mostly gets "served" by the big city next door, and having a blast figuring out how to make it work for them on a tight budget.

Will all these stations be around in five or ten years? Dunno. But they're adding new voices to the airwaves for now, and it's often more live and more local than whatever the big clusters are feeding out of automation.

 

[bturner1]

It seems the negative comments about LPFMs mirrors the negativity about Christian radio posted here and elsewhere. The LPFMs are of all flavors just as the Christian stations are of all flavors. To say all all bad/worthless is just a lack of knowledge.

 

[Engineering]

This is very much a pattern for failing LPFM's who either don't have the capital to return after a significant equipment failure or don't have the operating dollars to maintain even basic operations.

So you’re just guessing because they filed a Silent STA, they are about to fold. Thank you for clearing that up.

You never answered my question, so I'll ask it again: What makes an LPFM like KHGV-LP qualify as a non-commercial educational public safety, or transportation?

They meet the eligibility requirements as a nonprofit organization, just as I mentioned above.

 

[bturner1]

From my understanding (and I may be wrong), the early LPFMs has less strict educational requirements than current applicants.

LPFMs are unlike full power stations. They tend to run their course with their operators (financial failure; non-profit's redirection; board members age out without new replacements; cannot be sold as other classes of stations when it's purpose is complete). Way too many fail due to lack of knowledge or finances for sure but there are some that have been around since the first window and still doing well. In fact, a few have applied for full power non-commercial frequencies and graduated up to a full power NCE.

 

[fybush]

From my understanding (and I may be wrong), the early LPFMs has less strict educational requirements than current applicants.

There's been no change, either in the letter of the rules or in FCC practice, in who can qualify for an LPFM license. The rules are, in fact and in practice, identical to those for full-power NCEs. It's the exact same language and exhibits on NCE qualification for both services.

 

[Mediafrog+]

The argument that LPFMs have to have an “educational” purpose would fly in the face of the glut of religious stations that are part of that service. Are they “educating”? Or just proselytizing?

Perhaps LPFMs running an Oldies format should claim they are educating people about mid-20th Century music history?🧐😆

 

[Greg Goodfellow]

I would hope that LPFM’s could partner up with local school systems to create local and compelling programming. Certainly not full-time, but knowing that the local station wishes to partner with the school system is valued added to both.

 

[Engineering]

You keep leaving out the educational (highlighted many times) requirement.

You keep referring to Michi’s opinion regarding eligibility. He is wrong.

 

[Kelly A]

You keep referring to Michi’s opinion regarding eligibility. He is wrong.

She's a she, so you're the one wrong on that point.

And as far as saying Michi is wrong, other than your opinion, you've cited no legal or rule examples where the education, or educational requirement can be just disregarded. Saying something or someone is wrong over and over because that's how you feel, does not make it a fact.
Today I'll refer you again to verbiage from Cornell Law:

"noncommercial educational broadcast station
(6) The terms “noncommercial educational broadcast station” and “public broadcast station” mean a television or radio broadcast station which— (A) under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on November 2, 1978 , is eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast station and which is owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association; or (B) is owned and operated by a municipality and which transmits only noncommercial programs for education purposes."

So the question remains: What part of an individual playing his favorite oldies music constitutes educational programming, or the education of students?

 

[Mediafrog+]

So the question remains: What part of an individual playing his favorite oldies music constitutes educational programming, or the education of students?

Are you arguing that LPFMs should not play any music?

Also the question remains: How does the playing of religious music and the broadcasting of proselytizing religious speech constitute educational programming?

 

[Kelly A]

Are you arguing that LPFMs should not play any music?

No, I'm stating that a station has filed, and been assigned a license should be operating within the rules. Some dude playing his favorite oldies like a personal jukebox doesn't fulfill the requirements of being a true NCE station. Suppose this had been a school station that played music, as many remaining 'school stations' do. In that case, they're at least affiliated with a licensed or accredited learning institution with potentially some radio curriculum. So, that would classify as an NCE.

Also the question remains: How does the playing of religious music and the broadcasting of proselytizing religious speech constitute educational programming?

Because technically churches or religious organizations 'teach' things about their particular religious sect. Things like bible verses, or flat-out preaching are considered teaching. Now I get it, those who don't care for any particular form of Christianity or radio preaching don't like that opinion, but members of Congress have embraced and protected certain forms of Christian or evangelical sects, mainly because those voters vote, and donate to campaigns. Guess who has oversight of the FCC?
Life isn't always fair.

 

[bturner1]

And churches do charitable things in their communities. In my town the Ministerial Alliance (virtually all of the area churches) have a food pantry, pay utility bills, offer financial assistance in emergencies and sometimes help folks learn how to rejoin mainstream society. Those are the sorts of things that help them qualify for their IRS non-profit status. Mostly people never hear about the things that happen beyond the pews.

 

[kevtronics]

Because technically churches or religious organizations 'teach' things about their particular religious sect. Things like bible verses, or flat-out preaching are considered teaching. Now I get it, those who don't care for any particular form of Christianity or radio preaching don't like that opinion, but members of Congress have embraced and protected certain forms of Christian or evangelical sects, mainly because those voters vote, and donate to campaigns. Guess who has oversight of the FCC?
Life isn't always fair.

That's why non-religious families are forming Satanic Temples and After-School Satan clubs -- not because they actually worship the Devil, but because it allows them to access benefits and opportunities that are only afforded to religious organizations, and are excluded from secular ones. Essentially it's "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

So who's going to be the first to license a Satantic LPFM?

 

[Kelly A]

So who's going to be the first to license a Satantic LPFM?

Well, let's take a look at your question and add some deductive reasoning:
* Would a satanic group intend to educate the general public, albeit with a small footprint, about their particular form of religion?
* And would such a group be interested in reaching primarily an older audience found through traditional radio, or more likely for recruiting younger potential 'devil worshipers' more available through social media which doesn't require licensing and operating a flea power radio station?

I mean, come on...

 

[kevtronics]

Well, let's take a look at your question and add some deductive reasoning:
* Would a satanic group intend to educate the general public, albeit with a small footprint, about their particular form of religion?

Yes. Satanism does have its own form of Commandments to be educated:

THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS

Instead of commandments, The Satanic Temple has The Seven Tenets and are based on compassion for people, the fight for justice, inviolability of the body, respect for the freedoms of others. Read here →

thesatanictemple.com

I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III
One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

* And would such a group be interested in reaching primarily an older audience found through traditional radio, or more likely for recruiting younger potential 'devil worshipers' more available through social media which doesn't require licensing and operating a flea power radio station?

I believe those tenets can appeal to radio listeners. Especially now that Millennials -- the last generation to grow up actively using AM/FM radio -- are statistically not getting more conservative or religious as they get older.

 

[Cold Coffee]

That's why non-religious families are forming Satanic Temples and After-School Satan clubs -- not because they actually worship the Devil, but because it allows them to access benefits and opportunities that are only afforded to religious organizations, and are excluded from secular ones. Essentially it's "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

So who's going to be the first to license a Satantic LPFM?

Not me. That LPFM would go down in flames.

 

[lanceventa]

Now that we're getting into tenets of Satanism, I think the thread has veered enough off course to close it.