-
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
NO LPFM WINDOW IN 2012
- Thread starter fccman
- Start date
M
MickeyD
Guest
fccman said:
Yes I had heard that too. Apparently the FCC had done all of the allocations on the 100/250 watt model. They have been receiving many comments that a 10 watt LPFM should be included. That means back to the drawing board but unfortunately they no longer have the man power to do that. In my professional opinion, an 10 watt LPFM is a waste of time and resources. If 100 watts isn't enough power a ten watt, even in a larger market won't cut it either. From a technical (reception) and financial standpoint a 100 watt LPFM is risky at best. A 10 watt LPFM is a losing proposition. With the cost of the new EAS/CAP equipment it doesn't make sense to drop 10 to 15K for a lousy 10 watts.
If the FCC has to go back to the drawing board an LPFM window may never happen. The FCC has no staff and no money to pursue this a second time. It is no longer on the front burner. What I plan on doing is opposing it and I recommend that anyone that wants one, does engineering work, provides legal service do the same.
If you want an LPFM window this year send your comments to the FCC and tell them to drop the 10 watt LPFMs. The FCC dropped the 10 watt stations and increased the power to 250 watts because 100 watts wasn't enough.
I have a feeling that any open frequencies are proving to be much more valuable and utile as translators for existing, signal challenged broadcast stations. Upping powers to 250 watts will only increase the desirability of using these frequencies as translators instead of LPFM. I'm not seeing much need for LPFM in most markets. OTOH, there are many stations in dire need for a translator to help make them more viable. There are areas where an LPFM serves a good purpose. I believe that if the vast majority of LPFMs went dark, nobody would even notice.
-
-
M
MickeyD
Guest
iyiyi said:
Very good. Actually what the broadcasters plan is buying up LPFMs that go off the air and turning them into translators. The new proposd rules are aimed directly at this. The days of the large conglomerates is over. If radio wants to survive it's only change is to be local. The advertising rates are more in line with what a local advertiser can afford and it targets their community. Local advertisers can't afford to advertise on stations owned by large groups because you arent buying a station, you are buying a market. Does a pizza place in a small town really have to reach an audience that si 30 miles away?
The deadline for comments on the rule change isn't until May 7th. No matter what, I would have been surprised if a window happened in 2012 because while they're still working through the 2003 translator apps (one was approved yesterday) there's still a long way to go. The translator apps need to be dealt with (approved or dismissed) before anything real can happen with a new LPFM window.
I seriously doubt the 10 watt provision will remain. There's never been a window, and the stations just wouldn't be worthwhile as stated by others above.
As w9wi stated there isn't currently any provision to convert an LPFM into a translator, nor is one proposed. The new rulemaking does propose that an LPFM can rebroadcast on a translator, if one already exists. In fact, the new rules will clarify that not only does an original applicant need to be an organization, any owner MUST be a local established organization.
I seriously doubt the 10 watt provision will remain. There's never been a window, and the stations just wouldn't be worthwhile as stated by others above.
As w9wi stated there isn't currently any provision to convert an LPFM into a translator, nor is one proposed. The new rulemaking does propose that an LPFM can rebroadcast on a translator, if one already exists. In fact, the new rules will clarify that not only does an original applicant need to be an organization, any owner MUST be a local established organization.
M
MickeyD
Guest
w9wi said:
No not at the moment but it will happen. The power increase to 250 watts wasn't approved by the NABm I mean the FCC for nothing.
M
MickeyD
Guest
reelyreal said:
The FCC actually planned on an LPFM window by the end of the year. This from the guy at the FCC that has a handle on it.
MickeyD said:
It's not going to happen. It's not. You have absolutely no evidence or anything to back up that statement other than a pessimistic outlook.
LPFM was implemented for a reason, and the trend has been toward more protections and opportunities for LPFM stations. There's not even a HINT of a breakdown of the concept.
the power increase was implemented to make these stations more viable by providing a better signal. That's why the 10's will never see the light of day. If translators can go to 250, it's only fair that LPFM's go to 250.
MickeyD said:
If they had planned on it, they would have set the wheels in motion and you would have seen public releases. Wishful thinking and hoping for a window in 2012 is different. That's what happened. If it was a PLAN, they would have said so. By not saying anything, they knew it was far from a sure thing.
MickeyD said:
I see very little chance the current FCC will change its policy on this. I'm not so sure they *could* change their policy even if they wanted to. They're obligated by Congress to provide licensing opportunities for both LPFM and translators. Allowing conversion risks decimating the opportunities for LPFM and arguably is a violation of the LCRA.
That, and I think any 2003 translator window applicants who found their applications dismissed in the interest of ensuring LPFM opportunities would be VERY offended if resulting LPFMs -- whose applications were filed later -- were allowed to convert to translators. I can pretty much guarantee you'd see them in court, and they'd have a pretty good case.
The 250-watt increase hasn't been approved yet. It may not be approved. (I'm not going to venture a guess on how likely it is to happen, but I don't think it's a 100% slam-dunk.)
I am not at all sure 10-watt LPFMs are pointless. There are plenty of 10-watt translators serving small communities. A 10-watt LPFM would probably be just about right to provide local service to the town I live in. (which has roughly 4,000 residents and no locally-based station. The only station in the county doesn't reach my town at night - it's a Class D AM.) I can think of a couple of ethnic groups in Nashville which would be very well served by a 10-watt LPFM.
Look at it this way, This will be the last window anything that is left will be a translator and all the LPFMs who don't make it the NAB will ask the FCC to allow them to be sold as translators.
Do you see why the NAB wants LPFMs to have 250 watts. In fact the NAB wants translators to be allowed 500 watts.
Remember the NAB gets what it wants.
Do you see why the NAB wants LPFMs to have 250 watts. In fact the NAB wants translators to be allowed 500 watts.
Remember the NAB gets what it wants.
M
MickeyD
Guest
reelyreal said:
You haven't dealt with the FCC much have you? They pretty much do as they please and are driven by the NAB. I have no evidence that I can share with you right now.
fccman said:
Lobbyists and image. Both sides of the LPFM debate have powerful lobbyists (NAB is of course more powerful) but the image of helping out the "small town" guy over the "700 station corporate behemoth" is also a powerful motivator on both sides of the aisle.
Both houses of congress have continued to make it clear that they support more protections and freedoms for LPFM as recently as last year.
I don't think anyone needs to worry about LPFM. There's no evidence to support worrying.
I would highly doubt that. You're forgetting that LPFM's are licensed as non-commercial and allocated according to a specific scheme. Most are in the commercial band. Commercial-band Translators are allocated by a completely different allocations scheme, one that BY LAW must go to auction.
I've had extensive discussions with the FCC on this. I know a Class D FM that could benefit greatly (signal-wise) from operating under the Part 74 translator rules instead of under the grandfathered Class D rules in Part 73. The idea would be that they could lease an HD2 from a sympathetic nearby broadcaster to serve as the primary. If they could do this, they'd be able to move their signal to a location, height and ERP that would let them add at least a decimal point to their potential audience served. Possibly two decimal points.
But the rules just don't allow it. The school would have to turn in the license, apply for an allocation, and the allocation would go to auction, and there's not a chance in hell the school would beat out the hordes of people who would bid millions to get this new allocation.
The only concession is that the FCC would be likely to grant the allocation and grant it quickly because there's already an existing signal there. But that's all; it'd still have to go to auction where anyone could be the winning bidder.
M
MickeyD
Guest
reelyreal said:
Well I haven't dealings with the FCC on radio but I was responsible for the licensing of the affiliate stations for the DTV transition and when you speak to them on a daily basis you get to know people and how things really work.
When the WTC was bombed the first time, I had a license for Channel 4 in NYC in less than 2 hours from the roof of what is now the News Corp building. Routine rulings are one thing but special interest groups and large corporations still make the rules in DC.
I had the same sort of discussion when I made the outrageous claim that LPFM's and Translators were technically the same. People pulled out their rule books on how they were different missed the point completely. Congress has much more on it's mind than LPFM licensing it is at the bottom of it's to do list. I guess we will have to see how baseless my claim is won't we?
Not to be nasty to my colleagues at the NAB, but they, too, are "small potatoes" to the FCC these days. Looking at the NAB's track record, they haven't been too successful in their lobbying efforts in the last ten years. I would opine that a major reason for that is because while the NAB is a lot bigger than, say, Prometheus Radio (LPFM), both are small change compared to Verizon Wireless, AT&T, T-Mobile and even Sprint. Whoooooole lot more money involved with wireless services (i.e. internet over cellphone and wifi/wimax) than can possibly be involved with one-way broadcasting like radio/TV. And that's before broadcasting had all its "financial issues" of the last four or five years.
In a sense, this has led to a great leveling as far as Congress is concerned. Sure the NAB can drop a C-note when the LPFM crowd can barely scrape together a few pennies for lobbying...but wireless services are like a Scrooge McDuck Money Vault in this analogy. THAT'S what Congress and the FCC really care about. Viewed in that light, it's better PR to throw some bones at the LPFM crowd than to chase a few extra dollars from the NAB.
Granted, this is armchair analysis at best, but I don't think I'm wrong. Other opinions are welcome. ;D
M
MickeyD
Guest
aaronread said:
You are correct! They can't get away with pulling the plugs on all of the TV stations because people are back on them because cable companies are out of control and the economy. Whe stations double and triple up of the same channel, HDTV will have to go by the wayside and if you want HDTV you will have to buy it.
- Status