LPFM HYPE- BUT THERE IS SOMETHING BETTER

[joshzz]

The FCC is going to open another window for LPFM. With that said, in my opinion, a much better way for someone to invest their time would be to buy time on a full power radio station.

Instead of having to worry about running a radio station 24 hours/7 days a week, you can become programmer/director/dj/fund raiser/marketing director/public relations rep/sales person/receptionist/voice talent for one-two hours a week and still have lots of time to attend to your regular routine matters while relishing your time on radio.

Being an LPFM owner (you never really own it as it is a noncomm) of sorts is a time intensive obligation that most people don't understand what they're getting into. That is why so many LPFMs have gone under and many of those still on the air are on their last breath.

Everyone says, "We'll bring in volunteers to do the work." In all honesty, that won't last very long- you might have one or two dedicated souls that hang in a year or so but in the end - unless you pay people for their time , you

I'm not trying to sound like the voice of DOOM but we run a mildly successful LPFM operation and without paid help, the operation, would go belly-up quickly.

There are great opportunities to buy time on radio and to get in major markets like Philadelphia for about $100 an hour (an LPFM will cost at least 30,000 or more if done cheaply). This is the time. Indeed, that is how famed dj, Jerry Blavat started and he is still brokering time on many stations.

 

[TheBigA]

There are a lot of rules about obtaining a license. It's not the kind of thing some former commercial radio PD can do. You need to run a non-profit community group. The FCC's goal is to serve the community, not play music and compete with commercial stations. If the goal is to compete with commercial radio, Josh's idea is better.

 

[bossbill]

Most of the LPFMs of which I am familiar, while operating under the guise of being educational, or community service, do in fact operate as a music jukebox. And some are using the "educational" aspect to operate FM translators, not as fill-ins, but to extend the range. Not a bad deal, operate a 100 watt LPFM and a few 250 watt FM translators, and you cover a market fairly well.

It need not take $30k to build an LPFM.

 

[TheBigA]

Not a bad deal, operate a 100 watt LPFM and a few 250 watt FM translators, and you cover a market fairly well.

If I'm understanding the law properly, you can't do that. If the goal was to cover a market, it wouldn't be licensed as low power.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Not a bad deal, operate a 100 watt LPFM and a few 250 watt FM translators, and you cover a market fairly well.

If I'm understanding the law properly, you can't do that. If the goal was to cover a market, it wouldn't be licensed as low power.

What is currently being done in some markets probably needs to be reviewed. If it is good public policy to allow an LPFM to have a 250 watt translator, just go ahead an authorize 250 watt LPFMs and free up the other channel for some other useful purpose. I am hearing too many reports about the difficulty of generating enough revenue to keep a traditional LPFM functioning. If those reports are accurate, then it could be viewed as squandering resources to own and operate two transmitters.

That then leaves us with another scenario that I am seeing. (Josh, when I looked up your LIFT.FM several months back, you had a second frequency/transmitter serving a second nearby geography. Your station is not alone in doing that. Maybe the time will come when the FCC can address that kind of situation. I personally see it as legitimate and viable in some cases. Regarding the rule that requires most of the governing board to live within 10 miles of the station (of the transmitter?) would living within 10 miles of the second transmitter qualify one for board membership? Should there be a rule that at least one-third of the board represent the second community? Hey! I don't want to unnecessarily complicate anybody's life... but I see these as reasonable questions to deal with.

My home county in Arkansas has an unusual situation. There are TWO county seats. They have two courthouses. It would be an ideal scenario for a two-transmitter situation. Two transmitters is not as expensive as also having two of everything else. But keeping long time community rivalry out of the operation might prove to be the killer.

 

[HowardMBurgers]

What confounds me is why the FCC would ever consider adding more LPFM's to the table of allocations, when so many of them are going silent? I mean- look at the list on the FCC web site.

To my knowledge, there are no true 'community embraced' LPFM's as the politicians had hoped. More like starry-eyed folks who have either limited, or no broadcasting experience wanting to gain admiration from the community. The problem is, the 'community' is actually listening to stations from the likes of Clear Channel or Citidel.

 

[Carmine5]

If community broadcasting is truly the goal one underutilized resource are TIS stations. Granted, as currently regulated they are limited in power, who can own them and what content can be broadcast. But if these rules can be amended, particularly in the area of content, it could expand the usefulness of these stations while still maintaining (and probably improving on) their primary function.

In my area, we have several TIS stations. With one exception these stations are either silent much of time or run a loop that is infrequently changed. To me this represents a total waste in licensed spectrum usage.

c5

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What confounds me is why the FCC would ever consider adding more LPFM's to the table of allocations, when so many of them are going silent?

Out of something like 840 licensed or authorized LPFMs 10 are listed as silent. I don't guess I find that so alarming. Of the 10 silent stations I think maybe seven a readily identifiable as broadcasting religious programming. We don't know if they are silent because the station is a failure in broadcasting, or if the sponsoring church has financial problems not related to broadcasting.

Now RECNET does have 3 or 4 more on their list that are new enough that the paperwork system has yet to add to the FCC list. RECNET has numbers that would indicate that maybe another 10 stations are silent which they do not explain. I assume they are Construction Permits which not gone on the air yet which have not been cancelled.

I fully understand the controversial nature of the LPFM topic. Starting up additional LPFMs needs to be done with caution and consideration, just like we council our teenagers that they need to consider whether they are ready for parenthood before they start making babies. That's why if you follow my Blog on LPFM, you will find essays that are not pep talks about jumping on the bandwagon. Many of them will be heart-to-heart confrontations with the realities of parenthood..... of a new station.

There is one reason I would offer you on why the FCC would consider adding more LPFMs to the spectrum. The real target for these micro-stations has not been touched. When you look at the groups who have promoted and lobbied for the creation of LPFM, they really had in mind reaching segments of cities, communities within the larger community. With the third adjacent frequency protection, there was no way for people to get stations in metro areas to find out if that is a viable scenario.

 

[gr8oldies]

I volunteer for one of the few LPFM success stories, not that we're beating the pants off Clear Channel but we are holding our own and keeping the bills paid. We have a nice office location and and a good number of volunteers for sports and DJ positions. In our particular case we have a translator, and since the main station covers cornfield outskirts, the translator, in a more populated area, is where the audience actually listens.

Dropping the third adjacent protection opens up some possibilities and challenges, and I don't know if limiting the coverage of full power stations is an entirely good thing to do. Should audiences 35-50 miles away from a city center be able to recieve the bifg market's stations, or should those frequencies all be covered up by local LPFM? Before you say "screw the big boys, my iPod in that town all the way"...what if it's six religious broadcasters that now make it impossible to recieve the nearby bigger market, because they're parked co-channel or first adjacent?

 

[TheBigA]

It doesn't take much to change the good guys into the bad guys. All it takes is power. So the minute these stations become powerful, they will start to take on all the characteristics of the big, powerful corporate stations. Money corrupts. The law here is an attempt to keep money out of it, and make these stations strictly community service. Personally, I believe you can't create a law that will prevent folks from wanting to get bigger and more powerful. We all can see the results of that.

 

[bossbill]

In fact, the commission is allowing LPFM stations to operate translators that extend outside the LPFM coverage contour. I don't think this was the intention, but that's what's happening. Case in point, KGHO-LP, Hoquiam, Washington. The translator in question is K224DR, Aberdeen, Washington. In the engineering exhibit is the following statement:

"The translator site and proposed 60 dBu contour lie in part outside of the KGHO-LP 60 dBu contour, however this is allowable as KGHO-LP is an educational LPFM station and the proposed translator is an educational non-fill-in translator. A map of the proposed service area in relation to the primary station service contour has been included in Exhibit 13.4".

This particular LPFM has yet another translator located even further away from the contour. The LPFM is owned by "Grays Harbor LPFM" while the translators are owned by "Northwest Rock N Roll Preservation Society". In fact they are all the same principal.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

To my knowledge, there are no true 'community embraced' LPFM's as the politicians had hoped. More like starry-eyed folks who have either limited, or no broadcasting experience wanting to gain admiration from the community.

I would agree with you that many of the LPFMs do not fit the picture hoped for. But some do. Take a look at KFOK in Georgetown, CA. There is also WRFN at the edge of Nashville, TN. Here is a station that is not on-line so I haven't been able to listen but WIDE in Madison, WI may well be one of the "poster children" for what the politicians had in mind.

 

[Chuck]

My LPFM was successful enough that we were able to purchase an under utalized Class A FM commercial station in the area. The LPFM format moved there, and the LPFM frequency has been donated to a community based church that is broadcasting Classical and Jazz - no religion. It is picking up where a former full power classical and jazz station left off when it was purchased by EMF and turned into K-Love. That was a great loss for the community

Although replacing a 60,000 watt signal with a LPFM is hardly the same thing, a lot of people seem to be much happier. LPFM can work, but it is a difficult battle. My hat is off to those who figure out how to make it reasonably successful. It is possible.

 

[w9wi]

To my knowledge, there are no true 'community embraced' LPFM's as the politicians had hoped. More like starry-eyed folks who have either limited, or no broadcasting experience wanting to gain admiration from the community.

I would agree with you that many of the LPFMs do not fit the picture hoped for. But some do. Take a look at KFOK in Georgetown, CA. There is also WRFN at the edge of Nashville, TN. Here is a station that is not on-line so I haven't been able to listen but WIDE in Madison, WI may well be one of the "poster children" for what the politicians had in mind.

I heard WIDE for a few minutes when I was there back at Thanksgiving. It's hard to fully evaluate their operation on the short time I was able to listen, but it indeed sounded like what they had in mind.

The proposed changes in FCC regulations aren't really that much about creating new LPFMs in places that don't already have them. It's about making LPFM possible in places where none were possible under the old regulations. Yep, a lot of these will be wastes of spectrum. But again, we'll probably see some success stories.

 

[joshzz]

It's great that LPFM gives opportunity for everyone to get on the air with a wide array of formats -- but having listening to other, numerous LPFM stations including some located near our region, I would believe some have very few listeners if any.

There's a public television station in our area that tries to do the same with video- they broadcast programs that are very fringe type shows while there are a couple of PBS stations in our area that do television right.

It would be good thing if the FCC required that each board of directors of every LPFM actually talk to real broadcasters.

 

[Chuck]

It's great that LPFM gives opportunity for everyone to get on the air with a wide array of formats -- but having listening to other, numerous LPFM stations including some located near our region, I would believe some have very few listeners if any.

I suspect you could make that case for a lot of full power stations too. You could also include the bulk of translators in that same grouping. In fact, there are a lot of stations that have very few listeners. That is not necessarily bad, if some segment of the population is being served and the station is able to keep its head above water.

The problem with low listenership occurs when it becomes obvious that it is a losing proposition. It takes work and perseverance to make a radio station work, regardless of its power level. A lot of LPFM applicants have been very surprised at the amount of effort it takes. Add to that the low power level and low antenna height, and it is hard to serve enough people to be viable. 250 watts at 200 feet (the same requirements and restrictions as translators) would be much more useful, but sure to incur the wrath of the commercial broadcast industry.

As for adding more stations, the real world technical aspects of LPFM are no different than those for any other class of radio. The current technical problem is LPFM has been strapped with some unrealistic restrictions, at least, when compared with other more powerful services. It really isn't that hard to figure out if a station will "fit" in a particular piece of spectrum. Getting Congress involved with physics is a bad idea. They are lawyers, not engineers. It is pretty obvious most have flunked basic math. We are all painfully aware that balancing a check book is beyond them. Figuring out what will and what won't cause significant interference problems is totally beyond their skill-set, so they were lead (or mislead) by broadcast lobbying groups. Perhaps this new legislation will correct that injustice. Hopefully, it won't create a new one to replace it.

While it is probably that the third adjacent restrictions will be lifted for LPFM, it does not insure that any of these stations will be successful. I hope they will, but if history is any teacher, only a little more than half the 1300 or so LPFM stations who received a Construction Permit are currently on the air. Running one is hard work.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It would be good thing if the FCC required that each board of directors of every LPFM actually talk to real broadcasters.

I have to chuckle over that one, Josh. LPFMs are phony or cardboard or makebelive, but other operators of radio stations are REAL. ;D

In every business there are people who know what they are doing, people who can be trusted as role-models, and there are people in every business who don't have a clue! From my years as a broadcaster and since then my years as an "independent" observer I have to respond to you: This is the problem of trying to make law, of trying to write regulations. Who would decide which broadcasters can be talked to for FCC credit, and which broadcasters are so off-center that they do not qualify for this "vetting process" for LPFMs and LPFM wanna-bees.

What if a REAL broadcaster dislikes the whole concept of not-for-profit broadcasting and refuses to make himself/herself available for LPFM consultation? Would there be a penalty against the REAL broadcaster?

What is to prevent the real broadcaster from giving phony advice in hopes of causing the LPFM to fail? Who decides whether the advice was valid or phony, and what is the penalty?

Now, on the other hand.... let's assume that ALL "real broadcasters" are pure as the driven snow, have the heart of a Boy Scout when it comes to holding out a helping hand.... Do REAL broadcasters know ANYTHING about fund raising and revenue generation for a charitable, educational not-for-profit organization?

I think you are reaching in the right direction. When I got in broadcasting the application to build new or acquire an existing station was quite different than today. The FCC was rather patronistic about the whole thing. What was the rule of thumb they used... I think you had to document that you had cash on hand to operate for at least one year with zero income or you didn't get the CP. You had to specify what your programming format would be and offer some kind of proof there was a demand in your community for that programming. And it had to be different in some way from what any existing station in the market was doing. (The FCC was in the business in the 1940s and 1950s of enforcing the idea we aren't going to have two pop station or two country music stations. Find something new to program or you haven't demonstrated there is a need for an additional station in your market.

The FCC doesn't want to be in that mode any more. Congress is not going to support that mode any more. Broadcasters today have no intention of standing by and letting the government decide what is valid programming. So do we really expect the FCC today to apply 1950s type regulation to LPFMs and other NCE licenses while applying 21st century laize faire to REAL broadcasters. Not likely.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what would be a valid requirement, a valid "hazing event" for new LPFM ... and existing LPFM licensees and their boards.

 

[joshzz]

You make some good points Goat Rodeo Cowboy.

I was thinking more on the lines of the FCC making it a strong recommendation as opposed as to requiring by law that LPFMers contact real broadcasters.

In my experience, I have found that many owners are more than happy to serve us as my mentors. Over the last few years we've been in existence I have made numerous friends in the broadcast industry- Many of these people are owners of full power stations or engineers.

These owners have always been honest and forthright in their assistance.

One instance comes to mind - It happened just as we were getting the station turned on for the first time. I'm talking to my friend John, an owner of a full power station. I said to John, "John, you know what I think I'm going to do. I'm going to let every Pastor of every church that wants his services to broadcast on our station to come on the radio for free. We'll get lots of donations and support from listeners and we'll be successful".

He chuckled and said, "Josh give me your keys."

I said, "WHAT?"

He said once more, "Josh give me your keys."

"Why?" I asked as I fiddled through my pockets looking for them.

He replied, "Josh because you will be bankrupt in less than a year. Josh, you will never get enough donations to survive. You have to require that churches pay, give a donation or whatever you call it to be on the radio."

I LEARNED A VERY IMPORTANT LESSON THAT DAY.. HE WAS RIGHT! My ideas, looking back were so ridiculous, I could have written a book entitled, "A FOOL AND HIS RADIO STATION".

Unfortunately, many of the LPFMs are being run based on a my initial mindset. ....

I'm no expert but in order to succeed it radio you have two ways of being successful - run a brokered format radio station (great for AM) OR offer a format that's live, local and connects with listeners... and the jocks better have talent.. not ole' Aunt Mimi..

 

[Chuck]

I'm no expert but in order to succeed it radio you have two ways of being successful - run a brokered format radio station (great for AM) OR offer a format that's live, local and connects with listeners... and the jocks better have talent.. not ole' Aunt Mimi..

Actually, I think what you need to offer is programming that is otherwise not available in your market, AND a format that appeals to a reasonable number of people.

If there were five country stations in your market, why would anyone listen to you and your challenged signal? You’d better be able to do something that is exceptional, and you still won’t win that battle. The same goes for any other format. It is unlikely that you will win a rating war against a seasoned broadcaster, unless they are doing a terrible job. That does happen, but it is not the norm.

The most popular format for LPFM is religiously oriented programming. That is largely due to the fact that churches own many of them. So what makes them compelling to listen to? Let’s be realistic. Running every preacher's daily diatribe is probably not going to attract many listeners. It may pay a lot of bills, and I suppose that is OK, but that is not the reason LPFM came into existence in the first place. The whole idea was to provide alternate programming to underserved audiences.

Take a long hard look at your market and see what is being done well, and see what isn’t being done at all. You will probably find several viable formats that aren’t being served. I suggest you focus your energy on filling one of those voids. In fact, it may be one of your personal least favorite genre’s that will work best.

It is pretty common for LPFM licensees pick a format that plays their personal favorite music style, despite the fact that similar commercial formats already exist in their market. That is a formula for disaster. With a 100 watt or less signal, you aren’t going to win that battle. Your effort is much better spent if you can come up with something that actually encourages listeners to go to Radio Shack and buy an outdoor antenna so they can hear you. People who respond to niche formats can be very loyal (and supportive) listeners.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Josh- I am happy to hear that you have been able to develop some good relationships with traditional commercial broadcasters. In the legislative actions that have worked their way through congress, we know the NAB has had a strong lobby effort to shape LPFM in ways that were of concern to them. I can't verify this but in the most recent action in the House, (H.R. 1147) I gather that NAB was supportive of the current language.

Here is one of the things I think LPFM folks need to "sell" as they have contract with commercial broadcasters: we can be your ally. We can relieve some of the public pressure on you by some local interest groups that you don't know how to serve, or fear backlash from listeners or sponsors. But the big thing that should be said is this: Modern day automated and syndicated programming is not a good training ground. LPFM can be a place where a future generation of broadcasters get their start. LPFM can be your "farm club" as they say in baseball.

The other thing LPFM licensees and boards need to keep on the tip of their tongues: There are too many commercial stations compared to market needs. When LPFM occupies a space on the dial that can become one less opportunity for someone to squeeze in an un-needed commercial station. Under the current rules and policy, the LPFM can find itself booted out. I hear hints that the direction of the latest legislation, the FCC could set a new policy that an LPFM has a much "right" to peacefully occupy a channel as any other class of service.

Going back to life in the 1950s.... Sometimes a new AM station would pop up in a market that seemed a bit small, and owned by someone you thought didn't have the finances to get it done. You would ask around and someone would say: Oh, that's a "blocking action". The guy owning the station in the town of 20,000 population knew that was an open channel that would fit his market and create competition. He would become a silent partner in getting that frequency "blocked" by getting it built in a town 30 or 40 miles away.

There has always been a lot of ways to "skin the cat" in this business.