• 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

REC Networks Proposes Series Of ‘Safeguards’ For Next FM Translator Filing Window.

davideduardo

davideduardo

Moderator/Administrator
Staff member
Radio Discussions "own" Michelle Bradley says today in Inside Radio's morning bulletin:

"Even as the Federal Communications Commission gears up for this fall’s filing window for new low-power FMs, some are already looking beyond that to when it is expected that the FCC will move to open a new FM translator window. When it does so, the consulting engineering firm REC Networks says the agency should begin to take steps now to avoid the “abuses” and “gamesmanship” that marred the last general filing window for FM translators two decades ago."

Michi goes on to add,

"During the 2003 window, REC says the sale of unbuild noncommercial FM translators resulted in what amounted to the “trafficking” of construction permits in a frenzy that allowed commercial radio users to bypass filing fees and auctions. The result was a decade of delay for some translator applicants. REC founder Michelle Bradley has devised a series of what she says are “safeguards” that will prevent similar abuses in the next filing window.https://www.insideradio.com/free/rec-networks-proposes-series-of-safeguards-for-next-fm-translator-filing-window/article_dd478202-14bb-11ee-adba-5f610cd0d9d0.html

More at REC Networks Proposes Series Of ‘Safeguards’ For Next FM Translator Filing Window.
 
Sometimes I think the FCC created the LP service just because they needed the fine money. One of the real reasons given was LPs were supposed to decrease the number of pirates. How is that working out? I also wonder how many of the licensed LPs are still operating or operating only sporadically. What percentage are operating within licensed parameters?

Just a rant from someone tired of having to deal with some of the problems generated by the service.

Thanks fir listening.
 
Red Plume said:
The article is not about LPFM. It's about a 2022 petition submission with ideas on how to improve the next translator window.
Click to expand...
Although the LPFM window will be opening again too. Bigdonho makes a good point, and I plan on sending an E-mail suggesting that the Commission do more due diligence on whether applicant's actually meets the NCE requirements or their application gets rejected.
Totally agree with Michelle that the Commission needs to do more due diligence here for different reasons; making sure that applicant's intend on using the translator for what they're intended, not for leasing to other stations.
 
Kelly A said:
Totally agree with Michelle that the Commission needs to do more due diligence here for different reasons; making sure that applicant's intend on using the translator for what they're intended, not for leasing to other stations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read through this a while back, and I found it difficult to disagree with the points she made. It's well thought out.

Kelly A said:
I plan on sending an E-mail suggesting that the Commission do more due diligence on whether applicant's actually meets the NCE requirements or their application gets rejected.
Click to expand...

That's great, and as we've discussed in another thread, many of those stations fail even the most basic requirement, which is to exist as a legal entity. Would love to hear your bullet points for that email (in another thread of course).
 
bigdonho said:
Sometimes I think the FCC created the LP service just because they needed the fine money.
Click to expand...
The forfeitures that are collected from LPFM stations are just a drop in the bucket compared to other broadcast services. Not saying that all LPFM stations are angels (and some are definitely not, and I will be the first to tell you that). I am just saying, "people in glass houses...".
 
Kelly A said:
Bigdonho makes a good point, and I plan on sending an E-mail suggesting that the Commission do more due diligence on whether applicant's actually meets the NCE requirements or their application gets rejected.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with that and I support better vetting of applicants. As I have said many times in the past, just because you have an "-LP" after your call letters, does not mean that you have a Get Out of Jail Free card with the Michi. :) I am an equal opportunity informal objector.
 
In Scott's NERW on Monday he alluded to the fact that there were a lot of shenanigans the last time around and IMHO the FCC needs to get with it and make sure it does not happen again
 
Michi said:
The forfeitures that are collected from LPFM stations are just a drop in the bucket compared to other broadcast services. Not saying that all LPFM stations are angels (and some are definitely not, and I will be the first to tell you that). I am just saying, "people in glass houses...".
Click to expand...
You are correct. I have worked with some LPFM that were really good operators and operations. However, when they go bad they are really bad. How many times do you hear of a non-LPFM with a transmitter operating at many multiples of the licensed power, with a different antenna than the one on the CP, or having a transmitter miles from the licensed site?
 
bigdonho said:
How many times do you hear of a non-LPFM with a transmitter operating at many multiples of the licensed power, with a different antenna than the one on the CP, or having a transmitter miles from the licensed site?
Click to expand...
Most recently:
6-27-23 WIN Radio Broadcasting W232DE (wrong antenna, excessive TPO) $7,500 NAL
5-31-23 Gendreau Broadcast LLC KCLN(AM) (operating less than authorized power) $11,000 NAL
12-14-22 Zwerling Bc. Sys., Ltd. KSCO(AM) (DA night AM station, operating nondirectional at night) $20,000 FO
10-28-22 CTC Media Group WECU(AM) & W298BX (operating reduced day power, failing to maintain logs, continuing to run translator when silent) $8,000 Consent Decree
9-30-22 King Bc. Corp. K269GT (originating programming on translator) $1,500 consent decree
There are more. Check out REC's Dingers Database for all enforcement actions from 2018 to today.
 
Michi said:
Most recently:
6-27-23 WIN Radio Broadcasting W232DE (wrong antenna, excessive TPO) $7,500 NAL
5-31-23 Gendreau Broadcast LLC KCLN(AM) (operating less than authorized power) $11,000 NAL
12-14-22 Zwerling Bc. Sys., Ltd. KSCO(AM) (DA night AM station, operating nondirectional at night) $20,000 FO
10-28-22 CTC Media Group WECU(AM) & W298BX (operating reduced day power, failing to maintain logs, continuing to run translator when silent) $8,000 Consent Decree
9-30-22 King Bc. Corp. K269GT (originating programming on translator) $1,500 consent decree
There are more. Check out REC's Dingers Database for all enforcement actions from 2018 to today.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I am wrong. It just seems like every time I turn around there is an LPFM getting dinged for what a lot of people would say is a bone head mistake. I hear LPFMs running what would be considered straight advertisements everyday in south Florida. Ones you know are running over power because 100 W just won't go that far. I am sure others could add more.

It would be better if more of the LPFMs made use of what REC provides to be better educated on their limits and responsibilities. Some people, just like traffic laws, won't care but maybe others might.
 
The problem is that there are some who went for LPFM for the wrong reasons and they intentionally did so that way. They thought they could make a profit off of the stations and that's why we have stations that run commercials. Florida is one of the worst breeding grounds for this form of LPFM cancer. The problem with LPFM is that it is too easy to get a station. Any time REC has tried to add some technical complexity, not necessarily to address the issue with bad actors, the FCC pushes back because they want to keep the service simplistic. This is why we are stuck using distance separation. We had to change our LP-250 plan twice because the FCC felt it was too complex.. not for their staff, but for applicants. This is despite the fact that a majority of LPFMs that filed in 2013 used hired help. RM-11909 (Simple250) took out the complexities of the what we had proposed previously that included a hybrid distance separation and contour element (distance separation because the LCRA requires, and contours to extend out while keeping the minimum distances the LCRA requires). As long as our FCC continues to insist that LPFM remain a "consumer" service, we will have these issues.
 
From someone who has very little knowledge of the FCC filing rules/practices, just to be clear, the last window for translator applications was 20 years ago?! Even 10-15 years ago, outside of religious stations, translators weren’t that common on the dial. Now they’re all up and down the dial being run as commercial FM “stations” by major operators fed by HD channels in most small and midsized radio markets.

So all of these translators that seemed to appear in the 2010s were actually licensed 20 years ago? Wow.
 
101tm said:
From someone who has very little knowledge of the FCC filing rules/practices, just to be clear, the last window for translator applications was 20 years ago?! Even 10-15 years ago, outside of religious stations, translators weren’t that common on the dial. Now they’re all up and down the dial being run as commercial FM “stations” by major operators fed by HD channels in most small and midsized radio markets.

So all of these translators that seemed to appear in the 2010s were actually licensed 20 years ago? Wow.
Click to expand...
The last general window was in 2003 (there were two more windows in 2008 & 2009, but those windows were limited to translators rebroadcasting AM stations). In that window, over 13,000 applications were filed with about one-third of all applications filed being attributed to the same person. REC discusses that 2003 filing window and what lead up to the explosion of translators throughout our Petition for Rulemaking for Translator Reform.

There has been an uptick in secular to faith-based assignments. A lot of this can be attributed to the current financial statuses of radio broadcast companies and faith-based organizations. Simply put, current broadcasters want to sell and ministries want to buy. The growth of faith-based stations, especially EMF (K-Love & Air1) is only a reflection on the financial states of companies like Audacy, Salem and many of the big companies as well as the strong desire for universities to rid themselves of their radio station while a trove of ministries are waiting in the wings to bid high. Out here in Delmarva, we recently lost our WAMU satellite to a ministry that paid well over the station's real value (IMHO). Delmarva is getting another NPR station coming soon from a different operator than WESM. Hopefully the new station will carry more NPR than WESM. (they serve different parts of the peninsula, but Riverton is located in the middle..)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom