What Went Wrong Here?

[Ai4i]

Apparently,
both of these stations have CP's to operate from nearly the same place and maybe not coincidentally,
their offices are across the street from each other:
WKHE & WYTG

 

[Radio Scoundrel]

The rules for translators and LPFM, from what I have read, are poorly written, and have legal loopholes that allow what your talking about, to happen. That is, LPFM's being co-located, and non profits getting ownership of more than one translator and creating mini radio networks. There has been quite a bit of chatter about it on the boards in various cities.

 

[Radio Scoundrel]

Apparently,
both of these stations have CP's to operate from nearly the same place and maybe not coincidentally,
their offices are across the street from each other:
WKHE & WYTG

That WYTG LP was throwing me off. Then I realized, WYTG 92.7 is Miami. I was confusing them with WZOP 92.7 Hollywood. WZOP on FCCdata.org HERE, as well. Too many translators, can't keep up with them all. There's almost as many, and an over-saturation of 92.7s, than there are 93.5s (the Bull 93.5 might be gone, btw, with Revolution 93.5 in Miami being carried on the 93.5 Fort Lauder dale translator, FYI. You can find the article on R.I about a month/month-and-a-half ago).

(WKHE data is also on Radio Locator as well, HERE for those who want to see it).

This is a good catch about WKHE and WTYG. Are TABERNACLE OF GLORY COMMUNITY CENTER INC of WTYG and ACTIONS FOR BETTER FUTURE of WKHE part of the same entity? I see what you are getting at. Across the street from each other is a bit odd. So, if one doesn't get it, the other does . . .and they get the station anyway?

Speaking of WZOP, I think the same thing is happening, with WZZP LP. Both stations seem to both owned by siblings of the same family, even though the non profit corporate entities are different names. WZZP also on Radio Locator, HERE.

I'd have to add the LPs WOIB / WOIB Fort Lauderdale and WJUP / WJUP Jupiter to the discussion. Now, WOIB is owned by THE OMEGA CHURCH INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY; WJUP is owned by JUPITER COMMUNITY RADIO, INC, but . . . it's the same entity. I was in the car listening to WOIB 101.9 in Fort Lauderdale, and they kept pushing/mentioning WJUP 100.3; both stations, the logos, etc, show up on their Facebook page as well.

The pictures of the studio for WOIB's office/studios inside the Omega Church are on their FB, and I have to say, pretty nice set up, good equipment. But the broadcast was awful; sounded as bad as any South Florida Pirate I've heard, it terms on quality, both technically and talent wise. Someone actually said, "hello to everyone/we want to invite everyone in radio land." That's a dial changer right there.

 

[davideduardo]

The rules for translators and LPFM, from what I have read, are poorly written, and have legal loopholes that allow what your talking about, to happen. That is, LPFM's being co-located, and non profits getting ownership of more than one translator and creating mini radio networks. There has been quite a bit of chatter about it on the boards in various cities.

The ownership rules on translators appear to be purposely written so as to not limit ownership. In theory, an entity could operate a group of translators in a large market area and, through them, cover nearly all the market.

The ownership caps for AM and FM broadcast stations do no include translators, making it seem that the FCC intentionally excluded them in the knowledge that, save for smaller towns, a translator was not a full market facility.

The translator was originally conceived when many smaller towns, particularly in the West, either had no local stations or just one or two. Translators allowed, for example, Bishop, CA, to have large market formats via community supported translators.

So the Commission has had about half a century to amend or modify the translator rules were it so inclined. That it has not done this would support the contention that they see no need.

 

[TheBigA]

So the Commission has had about half a century to amend or modify the translator rules were it so inclined. That it has not done this would support the contention that they see no need.

Then again, the Commission ignored the Congressionally required ownership review for ten years, until just doing it this year, and leaving most of it intact. Actually reviewing rules and leaving them intact is more of an indication that they feel no need. The Commission isn't very proactive when it comes to keeping its rules up to date. In fact one could say they're not very proactive about anything unless there's a fine involved.

 

[Radio Scoundrel]

The ownership rules on translators appear to be purposely written so as to not limit ownership. In theory, an entity could operate a group of translators in a large market area and, through them, cover nearly all the market.

The ownership caps for AM and FM broadcast stations do no include translators, making it seem that the FCC intentionally excluded them in the knowledge that, save for smaller towns, a translator was not a full market facility.

The translator was originally conceived when many smaller towns, particularly in the West, either had no local stations or just one or two. Translators allowed, for example, Bishop, CA, to have large market formats via community supported translators.

So the Commission has had about half a century to amend or modify the translator rules were it so inclined. That it has not done this would support the contention that they see no need.

And this LPFM chatter off the Seattle Tacoma R.D Board under “First of the Seattle LPFM’s is on the Air,” can help in the conversation about the loopholes, shells, and franchise being used . . . and the opinion of "poorly written rules" for LPFMs.

“I believe it's one to a customer, so there shouldn't be any "sister stations.”

“The way it was intended to be: there is only one LPFM per group. The FCC said "See? This is solid policy...NOBODY will be able to bend the rules to their favor if we only permit one LPFM per applicant!" However, that does not preclude either of these loopholes --

- A "franchise" of a church or non-profit opens up a new LPFM. According to the FCC, the "franchise" is the licensee, even though it may not have much (if any) autonomy from central offices. I'm pretty sure the Seventh-Day Adventists have been playing this game a lot recently in the Southeast. Most end up affiliating with LifeTalk Radio 24/7 (even though its not local in origin, so probably a FCC LPFM violation...if they could be bothered to care) and . . .

- A shell company or re-named group applies for the LPFM separately from another radio station. In this case, KDXB-LP is to be owned by "KMIH.org Radio Booster Club". Ditto with their 94.5 translator. KMIH itself is owned by "Mercer Island School District #400". According to the FCC, this is A-OK even though in all reality they will likely be "sister stations". , just a chance for the well-heeled parents of Mercer Island High students to have their own programming. Regardless, I'd be shocked if KDXB isn't co-located and/or co-managed with KMIH (or KMIH/94.5 gets sold off with Hotjamz going to 101.1). This is also how KGHO-LP got their chain of translators...I'm pretty sure a LP is only allowed one translator, so they have another non-profit "organization" apply for the rest (which is completely legal).”

 

[b-turner]

Actually a LPFM can have two co-owned translators, then can lease as many as they desire or even get their programming carried by a full power station. A LPFM cannot carry a full power station's program. There are a few groups of LPFMs, unconnected by ownership, that carry programming offered by one of the stations. That is tricky in how it is organized since the rules say the originating LPFM cannot 'control' any of the other stations. I know of one such situation and the LPFM that carries the programming of the other LPFM station can change, alter or discontinue at any time for any reason without penalty and without required notification to the originating station.

As for programming, the FCC has never regulated programming of broadcast stations. Sure, there are rules about obscenity and such but nothing about a station's format. You might be getting confused by the LPFM point system that only applies if there are competing applications for the same frequency in the same place. One of those points is to offer 8 hours a day of local programming. Again, the point system never comes in to play unless there is a competing application.

Stations can cooperate (as in sharing) if they are careful in doing so. I'd be scared to without having a Communications Attorney drawing up the arrangement (full power example: sales agreement between a California non-commercial FM that had another entity selling Underwriting). A LPFM can offer a programming service is the programming side is set up as a separate entity in which case the stations are affiliates...think Rush Limbaugh as in distributed nationwide via affiliates or American Top 40 back in the day with Casey Kasem). Many time share stations share. It might be a common news department, engineer, even equipment and tower. One group of time share stations uses a common office and studio.

 

[Ai4i]

The main point of this thread has been overlooked by everyone:
I was not asking about ownership or programming.
Look closely, both stations share essentially the same footprints,
but are on the same frequency, 92.7, channel 224.
They should be mutually exclusive.

 

[b-turner]

It seems they are Mutually Exclusive: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=57262

 

[Radio Scoundrel]

It seems they are Mutually Exclusive: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getimportletter_exh.cgi?import_letter_id=57262

Nice find!

WKHE & WYTG are both on Rec Network's list of LPFM Expiring Construction Permits between September to December 2016. All three non profits on the FCC document you found, expire on 10/16. WYTG is pretty much ready to go, format/music wise, they are already running their "station" as a phone app right now, per their site. Guess all they need is the LPFM to spread their reach, as it were. Very impressive.

There is even a few more South Florida non profits who applied for stations I never even heard of or seen before on the above linked Rec List.

 

[Ai4i]

So, the simple answer is that the commission is now allowing stations to work out timeshare agreements and/or to impose their own,
but how did two CP's wind up getting issued in the first place?
Did someone in DC get their computer files mixed up?

 

[b-turner]

No. Yes competing LPFMs work out timeshares or the FCC does it.

If any number of groups files for the same frequency in the same place, there is a point system used to determine the best candidate or candidates. Let's say 5 apply. 2 of the 5 can take all 5 points. If any number of applicants are equal in qualifications for the same frequency in the same area, the FCC does not choose. The two get the frequency as a time share. Obviously in this case, both applicants were tied and now must share the frequency. It's all explained in the FCC's part of the LPFM Rules. There are a good number of timeshares, mostly in big cities.

 

[Ai4i]

There are a good number of timeshares, mostly in big cities.

I hope the applicants will cooperate to share single facilities and save at least $20K apiece.

 

[b-turner]

Sometimes they work well together like in Knoxville where 3, I think, maybe 4, applicants share a frequency. I think it's the same equipment, studio, etc.

For some, there's so much bad blood trying to beat out the other applicant for the frequency or the groups are so different, they can't stand each other.

Initially the FCC was going to have timeshares divide the years on a license (ie: say two applicants, one has it one year, the other the next).

Timesharing is happening in Austin, Texas at two non-comm FMs that split the broadcast week and it's been that way for years.

I never knew until recently that an applicant must take 10 hours a week, minimum, for a timeshare.

It appears the two groups here did not submit an agreement to the FCC. Usually if neither party can work it out the FCC assigns those hours. Since these are both CPs maybe they're waiting to see if either will actually come on the air.

 

[TheBigA]

Timesharing is happening in Austin, Texas at two non-comm FMs that split the broadcast week and it's been that way for years.

I think time-sharing works better in noncom. I ran a non-com at 90.9 that time-shared with another licensee. We didn't see it as competitive. Commercial radio is structured as competition. For ratings and money. The frequency is your store. Sharing space is hard to do with a competitor.