New Report and Order

[Carmine5]

I don't know if any of you have been reading the FCC's newest NPRM: Report and Order in In the Matter of
Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the Broadcasting Services.

There's a lot to digest in this document.

A couple of interesting highlights, such as this one on page 31:

B. Share-Time Proposals
87. DCS proposes that the Commission afford FM licensees that broadcast in HD using IBOC
technology the voluntary option of assigning the right to operate anHD radio stream to an SDB.164 As
proposed by DCS, the SDB operating the HD radio stream would receive a license under the
Commission’s share-time rule.165 DCS further proposes that the Commission use share-time procedures
to permit the bifurcation of a single-channel, analog FM station into an “Entertainment Station” and a
“Free Speech Station” Such a “Free Speech Station” would be independently owned by an SDB, have at
least 20 non-nighttime hours per week of airtime, and be primarily devoted to non-entertainment
programming. We seek specific comment on these proposals. In particular, we seek comment on the
extent to which, if the SDB (or eligible entity) becomes a Commission licensee, these proposals may
provide the non-SDB entity a way to circumvent our ownership restrictions.

And page 35:

H. Reallocation of TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM Service (76.1 through 87.9 MHz)
100. In its Supplemental Comments, DCS urges the Commission to give a “hard look” to a
proposal advanced by Mullaney Engineering, Inc. (“Mullaney”).189 Mullaney proposes that the
Commission reallocate TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM broadcasting, thereby creating a “staggering
expansion of the existing FM band.”190 We agree with DCS that this proposal could yield tremendous
opportunities for new entrants, and we seek comment on it.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-217A1.pdf

Overall, there's some pretty exciting stuff in this proposed rulemaking.

C5

 

[davideduardo]

We agree with DCS that this proposal could yield tremendous
opportunities for new entrants, and we seek comment on it.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-217A1.pdf

Overall, there's some pretty exciting stuff in this proposed rulemaking.

C5

Yeah, if half of all stations were not profitable from the 60's through the 90's, now 2/3 of them will be, reducing service even more.

 

[Play Freebird]

H. Reallocation of TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM Service (76.1 through 87.9 MHz)
100. In its Supplemental Comments, DCS urges the Commission to give a “hard look” to a
proposal advanced by Mullaney Engineering, Inc. (“Mullaney”)

Mullaney proposes that the Commission reallocate TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM broadcasting, thereby creating a “staggering expansion of the existing FM band.”

We agree with DCS that this proposal could yield tremendous opportunities for new entrants, and we seek comment on it.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-217A1.pdf

Well, I suppose it makes perfect sense to give this VHF spectrum away to "new entrants", rather than allow existing AM licensees to migrate there.

After all, the experts keep telling us AM IBOC works just fine, the 20-whatever-k codec makes AM sound as good as FM, the present AM HD Radio system completely eliminates static, clicks, and pops, reports of harmful nighttime skywave interference have all been fabricated, and daytimers have no legitimate reason to provide fulltime service to their listeners.

I've also heard that most AM station owners would prefer to keep paying property taxes on large parcels of land for multi-tower directional arrays that require lots of routine maintenance (not to mention the ongoing need to replace stolen or corroded copper radials), rather than move to a VHF band which allows much more flexibility to secure antenna space on existing structures.

The naysayers are crazy; AM IBOC has no flaws, the digital rollout is proceeding at breakneck pace, and if you aren't fully committed to it, you're part of the problem. Besides, the FCC refuses to allow broadcasting in the 76-88 range.

 

[Carmine5]

H. Reallocation of TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM Service (76.1 through 87.9 MHz)
100. In its Supplemental Comments, DCS urges the Commission to give a “hard look” to a
proposal advanced by Mullaney Engineering, Inc. (“Mullaney”)

Mullaney proposes that the Commission reallocate TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM broadcasting, thereby creating a “staggering expansion of the existing FM band.”

We agree with DCS that this proposal could yield tremendous opportunities for new entrants, and we seek comment on it.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-217A1.pdf

Well, I suppose it makes perfect sense to give this VHF spectrum away to "new entrants", rather than allow existing AM licensees to migrate there.

After all, the experts keep telling us AM IBOC works just fine, the 20-whatever-k codec makes AM sound as good as FM, the present AM HD Radio system completely eliminates static, clicks, and pops, reports of harmful nighttime skywave interference have all been fabricated, and daytimers have no legitimate reason to provide fulltime service to their listeners.

I've also heard that most AM station owners would prefer to keep paying property taxes on large parcels of land for multi-tower directional arrays that require lots of routine maintenance (not to mention the ongoing need to replace stolen or corroded copper radials), rather than move to a VHF band which allows much more flexibility to secure antenna space on existing structures.

The naysayers are crazy; AM IBOC has no flaws, the digital rollout is proceeding at breakneck pace, and if you aren't fully committed to it, you're part of the problem. Besides, the FCC refuses to allow broadcasting in the 76-88 range.

Well, you've got 30 days to make your concerns known. I think they should open this band up to AM station owners who want to swap in addition to new entrants and LPFM.

But I like the fact that, at least, they're seriously considering expanding the FM band, and none too soon in view of the approaching DTV transition which is less than a year away.

While the agency is in a generous mood, why not consider a domestic SW service with DRM? BTW, has the FCC received any proposal for this?

C5

 

[Play Freebird]

While the agency is in a generous mood, why not consider a domestic SW service with DRM? BTW, has the FCC received any proposal for this?

I hope to make it to the SWL Fest in Kulpsville this Friday, where one of the presenters (Bennett Kobb, who maintains the 26mhz.us website) will discuss DRM in the HF band. Here's the program preview:

1530 – Domestic DRM – Bennett Kobb

A focus on the introduction of new U.S.-based HF stations using DRM to broadcast to domestic audiences. Not a technical talk about DRM, it concerns the steps by which the FCC can be persuaded to authorize experimental DRM operations and license new community, regional and national stations.

I recall that someone in California filed an experimental DRM test station application last year, but for some reason the FCC denied it.

 

[Carmine5]

While the agency is in a generous mood, why not consider a domestic SW service with DRM? BTW, has the FCC received any proposal for this?

I hope to make it to the SWL Fest in Kulpsville this Friday, where one of the presenters (Bennett Kobb, who maintains the 26mhz.us website) will discuss DRM in the HF band. Here's the program preview:

1530 – Domestic DRM – Bennett Kobb

A focus on the introduction of new U.S.-based HF stations using DRM to broadcast to domestic audiences. Not a technical talk about DRM, it concerns the steps by which the FCC can be persuaded to authorize experimental DRM operations and license new community, regional and national stations.

I recall that someone in California filed an experimental DRM test station application last year, but for some reason the FCC denied it.

This seminar sounds really interesting. Please recap for us some of the highlights when you return from it.

C5

 

[vsa]

We agree with DCS that this proposal could yield tremendous
opportunities for new entrants, and we seek comment on it.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-217A1.pdf

Overall, there's some pretty exciting stuff in this proposed rulemaking.

C5

Yeah, if half of all stations were not profitable from the 60's through the 90's, now 2/3 of them will be, reducing service even more.

And those suicidal HD radio FM multicasters also want to add HD-2 and HD-3 stations to further reduce service.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

Well, I suppose it makes perfect sense to give this VHF spectrum away to "new entrants", rather than allow existing AM licensees to migrate there.

How many times have people on this and other forums complained about the stunning lack of ownership diversity??

Now that there's a faint glimmer of hope that the Commission might actually do something about opening up 76-88 MHz......NOW is definitely not the time to tie this to any ideas about specifically helping out the AM community. Something like that could get interpreted (whether rightly or wrongly)......as just more corporate welfare by the general public.

This 'new entrants', minority ownership, and LPFM angle just might be a way to convince the Commission that this band expansion would at least partially address the diversity problems caused by the Telcommunications Act of 1996.

In short......do absolutely nothing that could cause this possible band expansion to grind to a halt.

Once it's granted......THEN present the case for relief for the AM community. For once, let's try playing this smart.

 

[Play Freebird]

Now that there's a faint glimmer of hope that the Commission might actually do something about opening up 76-88 MHz......NOW is definitely not the time to tie this to any ideas about specifically helping out the AM community. Something like that could get interpreted (whether rightly or wrongly)......as just more corporate welfare by the general public.

This 'new entrants', minority ownership, and LPFM angle just might be a way to convince the Commission that this band expansion would at least partially address the diversity problems caused by the Telcommunications Act of 1996.

In short......do absolutely nothing that could cause this possible band expansion to grind to a halt.

I think there's enough room in the 76-88 segment for some new entrants, as well as locally-focused AM stations that need a boost.

Full disclosure: I'm part-owner of a 2.5 kW standalone daytime AM station in a rural county not included in any Arbitron metro (but bordered on both sides by almost-top-50 markets.) The majority owner is also the hands-on GM and has lived in the community of license for over 20 years (and happened to attend college with me.)

We're doing live, local small-market-radio, including local news, ag reports, a daily swap shop, country music --and, yes -- turning a modest profit. Our listeners have supported the station for many years and would really appreciate extended service after sunset, especially in the winter months when high school sports are a big activity. Yet, there's no way we can have ANY post-sunset power on our AM channel, because our service area falls within the protected skywave contour of a Class A station 500 miles to the south. Pre-sunrise is only good for 15 minutes, four months out of the year. IBOC offers nothing to solve this problem, but a VHF channel certainly would.

There are three FM stations in the county, but they are all programmed from distant studios (two are on religious formats) and don't provide any significant local content other than weather forecasts. The most powerful is owned by a major corporation and fired most of the air staff several months ago to cut expenses.

I would like to think that our station still operates in the public interest, and that we still provide the kind of local service that LPFM was intended to restore. So is it fair to lump us in with Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus, etc? The FCC and proponents of this rulemaking need to make a distinction here -- otherwise "no good deed goes unpunished."

 

[Carmine5]

Now that there's a faint glimmer of hope that the Commission might actually do something about opening up 76-88 MHz......NOW is definitely not the time to tie this to any ideas about specifically helping out the AM community. Something like that could get interpreted (whether rightly or wrongly)......as just more corporate welfare by the general public.

This 'new entrants', minority ownership, and LPFM angle just might be a way to convince the Commission that this band expansion would at least partially address the diversity problems caused by the Telcommunications Act of 1996.

In short......do absolutely nothing that could cause this possible band expansion to grind to a halt.

I think there's enough room in the 76-88 segment for some new entrants, as well as locally-focused AM stations that need a boost.

Full disclosure: I'm part-owner of a 2.5 kW standalone daytime AM station in a rural county not included in any Arbitron metro (but bordered on both sides by almost-top-50 markets.) The majority owner is also the hands-on GM and has lived in the community of license for over 20 years (and happened to attend college with me.)

We're doing live, local small-market-radio, including local news, ag reports, a daily swap shop, country music --and, yes -- turning a modest profit. Our listeners have supported the station for many years and would really appreciate extended service after sunset, especially in the winter months when high school sports are a big activity. Yet, there's no way we can have ANY post-sunset power on our AM channel, because our service area falls within the protected skywave contour of a Class A station 500 miles to the south. Pre-sunrise is only good for 15 minutes, four months out of the year. IBOC offers nothing to solve this problem, but a VHF channel certainly would.

There are three FM stations in the county, but they are all programmed from distant studios (two are on religious formats) and don't provide any significant local content other than weather forecasts. The most powerful is owned by a major corporation and fired most of the air staff several months ago to cut expenses.

I would like to think that our station still operates in the public interest, and that we still provide the kind of local service that LPFM was intended to restore. So is it fair to lump us in with Clear Channel, Citadel, Cumulus, etc? The FCC and proponents of this rulemaking need to make a distinction here -- otherwise "no good deed goes unpunished."

Just out of curiosity, does your station have a web-streaming component? And, if so, is it a viable solution for servicing your community after sunset?

C5

 

[mgpt6]

12 Mhz x5channels/Mhz = 60 new channels. 60% increase in the number of FM channels. Room for new stations,LPFM, and moving class 2, 3 and 4 AMs to FM. win-win for everyone.Would hvae non -coom band increase 1Mhz 87.1-91.9.

 

[Play Freebird]

Just out of curiosity, does your station have a web-streaming component? And, if so, is it a viable solution for servicing your community after sunset?

C5
[/quote]

We are moving in that direction, however it's a rural area (dairy farming is probably the biggest employer) so unlike New York City, it will take several years before broadband and wireless internet are in place. Podcasts of the swap shop and local news should be going on line in the next couple of months.

 

[w9wi]

12 Mhz x5channels/Mhz = 60 new channels. 60% increase in the number of FM channels. Room for new stations,LPFM, and moving class 2, 3 and 4 AMs to FM. win-win for everyone.Would hvae non -coom band increase 1Mhz 87.1-91.9.

win-win for everyone except for those in (or near) the Philadelphia market, or the Albany market, or most of Tennessee, among others...

There will be some DTV stations continuing to operate in channels 5 and 6. (also a few LPTVs ) At this point in the DTV transition, these stations have made significant investment in arranging for permanent operation on channel 5 or 6 and are going to be REALLY displeased if they're expected to move elsewhere. (in the Philadelphia case I wonder if it's possible to move elsewhere?)

I think any scheme to expand the FM band is going to have to extend to all five low-band TV channels (54-88MHz), of course with the understanding that one or more of these five channels will not be available due to TV. I've done a quick analysis that suggests at least three channels of 54-88 spectrum will be available in all Top 10 markets - but either channel 5 or channel 6 is not among them.

 

[Carmine5]

Here is a list of full power DTV stations on Ch. 5 & 6:

DTV Channel 5 full power allotments:
21488 AK ANCHORAGE
8661 IA AMES
81570 ID SUN VALLEY
76001 MI CALUMET
24783 MI KALAMAZOO
35959 MT BUTTE
48003 NE HASTINGS
17076 OH TOLEDO
8260 OR MEDFORD
34348 SD LEAD
19184 TN MEMPHIS
36504 TN NASHVILLE
24316 TX FREDERICKSBURG
2455 VA BRISTOL
70592 WV WESTON

DTV Channel 6 full power allotments:
77496 AL TUSCALOOSA
13595 CT NEW HAVEN
23917 GA PELHAM
23937 GA WRENS
66414 KS ENSIGN
18066 MT BUTTE
73942 NY SCHENECTADY
8616 PA PHILADELPHIA
82575 WY CASPER

As mentioned, there are also LPTV stations on both 5 & 6 (both NTSC and DTV) and a small handful of NTSC Class A stations on these channels.

C5

 

[Chuck]

There will be some DTV stations continuing to operate in channels 5 and 6. (also a few LPTVs ) At this point in the DTV transition, these stations have made significant investment in arranging for permanent operation on channel 5 or 6 and are going to be REALLY displeased if they're expected to move elsewhere. (in the Philadelphia case I wonder if it's possible to move elsewhere?)

Don't these stations already have a "temporary" UHF assignment for their DTV signal? Why not just keep it?

The only channel 6 I'm familiar with plans to stay on their new UHF frequency. When the analog goes silent, they will take down the old VHF antenna, put a new UHF antenna at the top of the tower and call it a day. Even with their "temporary" antenna about 2/3 of the way up the tower, their HDTV signal seems to work fine.

It seems to me that when the transition happens, some channels should clear up, since all full power TV broadcasters are currently taking up two channels. Half of those should open up. The ones above Channel 52 will be auctioned, but the rest should still be assigned for TV broadcast. Unless Congress or the FCC steps in and makes a debacle of this like they did with the AM Expanded band, there should be "room at the inn."

Of course, this whole thing has been so poorly managed that anything could happen...

 

[Play Freebird]

Don't these stations already have a "temporary" UHF assignment for their DTV signal? Why not just keep it?

The only channel 6 I'm familiar with plans to stay on their new UHF frequency. When the analog goes silent, they will take down the old VHF antenna, put a new UHF antenna at the top of the tower and call it a day. Even with their "temporary" antenna about 2/3 of the way up the tower, their HDTV signal seems to work fine.

Of course, this whole thing has been so poorly managed that anything could happen...

You got that right....

WPVI, Channel 6 in Philadelphia does have a legitimate concern: they were assigned 64 during the transition, which falls in the 52-69 group to be taken away from TV. In a way, this is a case of "bad karma" coming back around to bite them, as their management hasn't been all that kind to the local non-comm FM broadcasters over the years. However, if no openings can be found for WPVI in UHF or high-band VHF, I would expect Channels 2, 3 or 4 could be substituted. In fact, KYW-TV is giving up 3, and their antenna is on the same tower as WPVI's.

Something about this whole thing smells rather fishy. Earlier this week, we saw the R&O stating that the Commission seriously wants to consider using 5 and 6 for an expansion of the FM band:

In its Supplemental Comments, DCS urges the Commission to give a “hard look” to a
proposal advanced by Mullaney Engineering, Inc. (“Mullaney”). Mullaney proposes that the
Commission reallocate TV Channels 5 and 6 for FM broadcasting, thereby creating a “staggering
expansion of the existing FM band.” We agree with DCS that this proposal could yield tremendous
opportunities for new entrants, and we seek comment on it.


Then, on Thursday, an MO&O was released stating the following:

27. Likewise, we also will not reallocate TV channels 5 or 6 for use by FM radio broadcasting stations because these channels must continue to be available for use by stations in the television broadcasting service. In this regard, we stand by our now well-established determination that the additional opportunities for increasing FM noncommercial coverage do not outweigh the costs of eliminating channel 6 from TV service. For these reasons and various others (see footnote 73) we have expressed in our rulemakings on these issues, we deny the petitioners’ requests that we reallocate one or more TV channels to the FM radio broadcasting service.

Footnote 73 of this paragraph provides the supposed rationale:

If the TV stations that elected channel 5 or 6 for their post-transition operation were now required to find new channels, the post-transition DTV Table of Allotments and the careful, complex process, including international coordination, that led to its construction would be significantly disrupted. Providing for the full availability of these channels for new TV stations will help enable the Commission to provide for the 175 DTV allotments for new TV stations required under the CBP Act. Maintaining channels 5 and 6 for TV service will also protect the service of the many Class A, low power TV, and TV translator stations that use the low VHF channels and are expected to continue to use those channels when they switch to digital operation.


I fail to understand why "international coordination" poses such a obstacle when so few of these stations are within the border zones. Aside from Toledo, Schenectady, the two in Michigan and possibly the two in Butte, Montana, what's the problem? Certainly new TV allotments must be co-ordinated, too... so this isn't any big deal.

As far as the LPTV and TV translator stations are concerned, has any study shown that they can't be accommodated on other channels after the transition? Keep in mind that low-power stations generally use directional antennas and have much more flexibility to be moved around than full service stations.

Full text of the MO&O can be found at:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-72A1.doc

The Channel 5 and 6 discussion begins on page 15.

 

[KB1OKL]

While the agency is in a generous mood, why not consider a domestic SW service with DRM? BTW, has the FCC received any proposal for this?

C5

DRM has not been a rousing success in Europe on shortwave, in fact some transmitters have been shut down recently, digital radio is dying all over the place over there, why don't we just take their lead or are we doomed to repeat history?

 

[R.F. Burns]

While the agency is in a generous mood, why not consider a domestic SW service with DRM? BTW, has the FCC received any proposal for this?

C5

DRM has not been a rousing success in Europe on shortwave, in fact some transmitters have been shut down recently, digital radio is dying all over the place over there, why don't we just take their lead or are we doomed to repeat history?

Yes and while we're at it let's throw out all of those useless CD's and replace our LP libraries. Vinyl is so far superior to Cd, I can't see how other people can't tell. Then there's the DVD. Lets go back to 16 mm film and MP3's... Lets bring back cassettes. By the way, here's a clue for you.. The US doesn't follow what is and what isn't successful in Europe. Another thought for you, I imagine the reason for the failing of DM on SW is that as a program delivery method, SW is outdated. Its been replaced by the internet (another digital delivery method by the way). Here's another thought to ponder, Am radio is going the way of short wave. With the value of land, many of those transmitter sites with the huge antenna systems are starting to go away. That's why diplexing is becoming more common in parts of the country.

 

[w9wi]

Don't these stations already have a "temporary" UHF assignment for their DTV signal? Why not just keep it?

Often, not one they can keep. Of the ones on the list Carmine5 posted:

- four of them have outside-core temporary UHF channels. (Ames, Memphis, Nashville, Philadelphia)
- two of them are new stations that didn't receive a second channel for DTV. (Fredericksburg, whose analog channel is 2 - they're getting their permanent DTV channel from another San Antonio station that's currently using it for analog. And Casper, Wyoming.)
- In four cases, their temporary DTV channel is also low-band VHF. For example, WDTV-5 whose temporary DTV channel is 6... Or Pelham, Ga. and Ensign, Kans. whose permanent DTV channel is 6 - and interim channel is 5.
- In one case, they *are* keeping their interim DTV channel - which is channel 6. They can't go back to their analog channel, because it's 65...

In any case, are you going to tell a station that's spent hundreds of thousands of $$ on a channel 5 transmitter that they've wasted their money & you're going to make them stay on channel 28?

(geez, I need to stop defending my competition )

Something about this whole thing smells rather fishy.

I think they're in a "throw it all at the wall & see what sticks" mode.

Witness the recent 24/7 staffing proposal. I don't believe anyone at the Commission actually believes that will ever make it into Part 73. I think they want to shut up some critics for awhile.

While the agency is in a generous mood, why not consider a domestic SW service with DRM? BTW, has the FCC received any proposal for this?

SW is pretty poorly suited for local coverage. (WWCR is running 100 kilowatts about 15 miles away, but they're not at all loud at my location...)

A domestic SW service targeting listeners 1000-2000 miles away and using appropriate frequencies could probably achieve decent coverage. Whether anyone would listen is another question.

The only channel 6 I'm familiar with plans to stay on their new UHF frequency. When the analog goes silent, they will take down the old VHF antenna, put a new UHF antenna at the top of the tower and call it a day. Even with their "temporary" antenna about 2/3 of the way up the tower, their HDTV signal seems to work fine.

It seems to me that when the transition happens, some channels should clear up, since all full power TV broadcasters are currently taking up two channels. Half of those should open up. The ones above Channel 52 will be auctioned, but the rest should still be assigned for TV broadcast. Unless Congress or the FCC steps in and makes a debacle of this like they did with the AM Expanded band, there should be "room at the inn."

Of course, this whole thing has been so poorly managed that anything could happen...

[/quote]

 

[Chuck]

In any case, are you going to tell a station that's spent hundreds of thousands of $$ on a channel 5 transmitter that they've wasted their money & you're going to make them stay on channel 28?

If it happened, it wouldn't be the first time. Just as highway projects take property from land owners, you could build a legal case for eminent domain reclaiming of spectrum. I’m sure there is a politician who would love to make that case.

If it happened, the fair thing to do would to subsidize the encroached victim, and figure out a way to accommodate a new channel for them to move to. Even though it would cost a lot of money to subsidize rebuilding a transmitter site, in the great scheme of things, it wouldn’t be all that expensive. We aren’t talking about a lot of stations. As a nation, we spend more money than that every year roads and bridges to nowhere. It is possible that in some cases there would be no possible fair remedy, but I somehow doubt it.

It may be that a simpler approach is called for: In areas where there is nobody occupying channels 5 or 6, allow FM broadcasting in 200 KHz channels. If there is an existing TV station on one of those channels, then it can't be used for FM radio. Simple. It wouldn't help everyone, but it would help a lot of people.

I do have to agree that there is something fishy going on. I've noticed that several recent FCC Reports and Orders have contained language that seems to be giving someone a break, but actually has quite a reverse effect. A good example is the proposal that radio stations be manned 24/7 so the EAS system can work properly. On the surface, that sounds like a good idea, but in reality it will just force many smaller stations to sign off over-night. Nobody is served better by that eventuality. Things like this coming from the Commission make me wonder if there is an intentional motive or is someone being just plain stupid. I guess we will find out.