That is incorrect. I had a translator on 101.3 and the day after the existing local LPFM construction permit expired on 100.9 I filed for it and it was mine. LPFM CP to FM translator CP - no "allocation change" needed
-
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
Silent LPFMs should be required to go to auction after a year
- Thread starter nd2023
- Start date
Totally agree. I did a survey about 5 years ago when I took a road trip from Knoxville to Orlando and stopped at every LPFM that was within a reasonable distance of the interstate. Basically I-75 through Georgia and Florida and back up I-95 through Jacksonville and back across southern Georgia. Visited almost 30 stations that had active licenses and no STA - 12 were not on the air and 6 of those didn't even exist. Another one was playing straight up commercials, and a few had signals so small I am not sure what the point of it existing even was. I would bet that this ratio would hold up throughout much of the country. We are almost 20 years into the LPFM experiment, and I agree that it has been lass than successful. Fun fact - I manage a successful LPFM station, so I am speaking from some experience.
Case in point, Loudon, Lenoir City, TN area. There are 3 LPFMs and one AM with translator all combined here. Radio Loudon RedskinRadio.com
I know of at least two LPFMs that are licensed to the same group of people but with different corporate names. They run plenty of advertising, mostly for local night clubs and concert venues. Each announcement is tagged by "We woul like to thank XYZ for their generous contribution to 123.4 FM." Not sure on which side of legal that comes down on.
Not that I'm generally into 'radio vigilantism', but it would really help the cause if when folks hear blatant examples of LPFM stations running full-on spots, rather than appropriate enhanced underwriting, to take a moment to record it on their phone in a form which could be E-mailed or transcribed in a complaint to the Commission. Building and operating these 'stations' under false pretense is one thing, but in tight advertising headwinds for real radio stations, the last thing we need are NCE/LPFM stations selling against full class stations that rely on advertising to survive. LPFM's running spots=illegal poaching.
There are many LPFM stations that are actually not operating from their licensed site as well as many that are not on the air.
That would require an act of Congress (repeal of a portion of the Local Community Radio Act).
I totally disagree. Why should we deny opportunities to good organizations because of a few bad apples?
The problem here is past precedence and due process. Unless you come to the FCC with solid evidence of wrongdoing, the FCC can't do anything. This includes cases where there are obvious patterns in applications like in the 235+ cases that happened during the 2013 LPFM window that were identified by REC based on the involvement of Antonio Cesar Guel (yes, I will name names). While most of the applications that resulted in REC Informal Objections did eventually get granted because of process and policy, it did make the FCC, stop, think and in some cases, launch investigations which lead to issues such as lack of site assurance.
In the few cases that REC was able to subsequently back up with physical evidence, we were successful in either (1) having the application dismissed or (2) the applicant, realizing that they had been outed, throwing in the towel and voluntarily dismissing their application.
I do agree with one of the posts on here that LPFM stations should be required to file biennial ownership reports.
One of the major problems that happened in the 2013 window was that there were so many applications filed, the FCC literally went into autopilot mode and as long as the application met the technical requirements, it was rubber stamped as a grant, regardless of the weakness of the organization's educational statement or an evaluation of the organization's structure.
Since the 2013 window, for assignment applications, I have noticed that the FCC staff has cracked down on weak educational statements and assuring that stations have at least the minimal amount of board members that are appropriate for nonprofit organizations in that state. While this additional scrutiny may be taking place since the volume of applications to review has dropped drastically since we are not in a filing window, I do hope the FCC keeps this level of evaluation through to the next LPFM filing window.
Trust me. There are also FM translators that mess around too. This is not just an LPFM issue. Hector Guevara. There, I am naming more names. Of course, Cesar is also involved with this stuff too.
I support filing complaints against noncompliant LPFM (as well as full-service and FM translator) stations as long as solid evidence can be provided.
Let me make one thing clear. Just because a station has an -LP on the end of their call, does not mean they get a "Get out of jail free" card from REC. REC does not normally file complaints, because anything we hear about would be heresy.
There are many LPFM organizations who work hard on their stations. There is no reason that they should be lumped in with the few individuals responsible for the bad stations.
I am getting sick of all of this broad brush LPFM bashing. If this continues... moderation will be stepped up.
... by this moderator, also.
So calling out LPFM stations that haven't/don't meet the proper structural requirements, playing commercials, silent without authorization, or unauthorized ownership transfer of control is considered bashing?
Outing the bad guys is fine. Just don't call every LPFM worthless or a bunch of rule breakers. There are a good deal of LPFMs not doing the right thing but there are a good deal that actual do a superb job of covering their area with programming that responds to the area. And there have been statements against all LPFMs.
Keeping in mind that I realize your position as a lobbyist for LPFM/community radio/whatever term you prefer, and so I understand you have a significantly different point of view on the subject...
I have no idea what this is in reply to. I re-read the thread and am totally puzzled. The subject of the thread seems totally germane, and the replies seem germane. Can you be more specific? I don't wish to step over your line.
Ab attorney in the audio division says the problems mentioned here are not limited to just LPFM. Our country has just been through a pandemic that has killed over a million. I know several engineers, GM's and station owners who have died. The FCC is more understanding than some here. Two days ago, the founder of a community station in a major market passed away. I'm sad. I helped him apply for that station.
Report them with your evidence to the FCC. If that government agency doesn’t do its job, at least you did yours.
Send your evidence to the FCC.
Not at all. Specific stations that are doing this should be called out (both here and with the FCC). However, placing all LPFM stations together (i.e. the service in general), including the good stations with a broad brush as being a bunch of lawbreakers and should be denied rights, privileges and a future as a whole. That is bashing the service.
I hope you told that attorney has a duty to enforce the FCC's rules. The person he's being lenient towards is literally dead, so they can't even appreciate it.
EDIT: If not, give me his phone number and I will do it for you.
- Status