Thursday, February 04, 2010

FCC announces July broadcast auction

FCC to hold broadcast auction





The FCC today announced an auction will be held in July to award 13 FM
permits, two FM translators, and three AM stations.




The FM permits:



















Location:FrequencyApplicantsMinimum opening bid
Greenwood, Ark.101.5AGeorge S. Flinn, Jr.; Ramsey Leasing, Inc.; Jem Broadcasting Co., Inc.$60,000
Durango, Colo.105.3AEB Needles LLC; Four Corners Broadcasting LLC; Arkansas Valley Broadcasting LLC; KRJ Co.; Steven Dinetz; Rocky Mountain Radio Co. LLC; Lancer Media; Robert Durango LLC$20,000
Steamboat Springs, Colo.98.9AYampa Valley Broadcasting Inc.; George S. Flinn Jr.; EB Needles LLC; Harry Media; Colo. Alpine Broadcasting Co.; Boat of Steam Broadcasting; Rocky Mountain Radio Co. LLC; Ramsey Leasing Inc.$7,500
Bloomfield, Ind.101.1ARobert M. McDaniel; Sarkes Tarzian Inc.; Mid-America Radio Group Inc.; Music Ministries Inc.; Willtronics Broadcasting Co.; William S. Poorman$20,000
Traverse City, Mich.104.5ACentral Michigan University; Good News Media Inc.; Salija Bokram/Michael J. St. Cyr; The MacDonald Broadcasting Co.; WTCM Radio Inc.$45,000
Oxford, Miss.105.1ADarby Radio Enterprises; Southern Cultural Foundation; Oxford Radio Inc.; George S. Flinn Jr.$20,000
Rosendale, N.Y.102.5ARosen Broadcasting Inc.; Sacred Heart University, Inc.; Marist College; Eric P. Straus; Radio Rosendale; David Fleisher & Melissa Krantz; Hawkeye Communications Inc.; Aritaur Communications, Inc.$100,000
North Madison, Ohio93.7AMusic Express Broadcasting Inc.; South Shore Broadcasting Inc.$75,000
Santa Isabel, P.R.98.1AS.I. Broadcasting; La Capra Corp.; Peace Broadcasting Network; Amor Radio Group Corp.$100,000
Idalou, Tex.107.7AAlbert Benavides; George S. Flinn, Jr.; MTD, Inc.; Directel Inc.; Ramar Communications Inc.; Big Sky Company; Metro Broadcasters-Texas Inc.; Ramsey Leasing Inc.$75,000
Shawsville, Va.102.5APositive Alternative Radio, Inc.; George S. Flinn, Jr.; Poor Mountain Broadcasting; Grace Communications L.C.$75,000
New Holstein, Wis.92.9AEvandel Ministries Inc.; Michael R. Walton Jr.; KM Communications Inc. ; Metro North Communications Inc.$25,000
Two Rivers, Wis.98.9ATri-County Radio, Incorporated; Michael R Walton Jr.; Evangel Ministries, Incorporated; BBK Broadcasting$35,000




The FM translator permits:








Location:FrequencyApplicantsMinimum opening bid
Coyote, Calif.104.1Educational Media Foundation; Coyote Communications Inc.$15,000
Manahawkin/Warren Grove, N.J.102.5CTS Communications Development Corp.; Penn-Jersey Educational Radio Corp.$500




The AM permits:









Location:FrequencyApplicantsMinimum opening bid
Terre Haute/ West Terre Haute/ Shelburn, Ind.640Contemporary Media Inc.; Fort Bend Broadcasting Company Inc.; Powell Meredith Communications Company; KM Communications, Inc.; Bott Broadcasting Company; Word Power, Inc.; Birach Broadcasting Corporation$50,000
Terre Haute/ West Terre Haute/ Shelburn, Ind.1230Fort Bend Broadcasting Company Inc.; Contemporary Media Inc.; Powell Meredith Communications Company; KM Communications, Inc.; Bott Broadcasting Company; Word Power, Inc.$50,000
Lansing/South Hill, N.Y.750Romar Communications Inc.; KM Communications Inc.$75,000

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

South Carolina station being patriotic!

AM DXers are reporting WBSC-1550 (Bennettsville, South Carolina) is continuously looping the Star-Spangled Banner, interspersed with occasional station identification announcements.

FCC establishes licensing preference for Native Americans (and other changes)

From FCC-10-24A1:

The FCC today adopted a number of changes in their treatment of applications for new radio stations. The most dramatic changes involve an attempt to promote the construction of tribally-owned stations in Native American areas. However, some other changes were also made. A Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was also issued, calling for further inquiry into two questions.

TODAY'S ACTIONS:

A. Establish a preference for Native American groups for stations serving tribal lands.

A Tribal Priority will be issued if:
- The applicant is a federally-recognized Tribe; a consortium of several Tribes; or an organization 51% or more controlled by one or more Tribes, [0] and:
- At least 50% of the city-grade coverage area of the station (daytime only, for AM stations) would cover tribal lands, and:
- The station would provide first or second radio service to a non-negligible population, or would be the first station licensed to a community on tribal lands.

(“Tribal lands” are defined as “Indian Reservations” and areas adjacent to reservations which have been designated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as appropriate for the extension of Native American social services.)

For AM applications:
An application with Tribal Priority will have precedence over non-tribal applicants unless a non-tribal applicant proposes to cover an area that would not be served by the tribal applicant and is not served by any other station. (the FCC will not allow Tribal Priority to deny an area any radio service)

Once a license is awarded through Tribal Priority, the station must operate[1] for at least four years with an ownership that is at least 70% tribally-controlled. For this period, the community of license may not be changed, and no technical changes could be made which would cause more than half of the principal-community (“city-grade”) coverage area to fall off tribal lands.

For commercial FM applications:
A proposal to allot a channel to a community on tribal lands would take priority over a proposal to allot a channel on non-tribal lands. For example, if the Menomonee Tribe proposed to allot 92.3A to Keshena, Wisconsin on their reservation, while Cumulus proposed to allot the same channel to off-reservation Shawano, seven miles away, the channel would go to Keshena.

Any applicant, whether qualified for a Tribal Priority or not, could file for a permit to use the channel. (while the Menomonee Tribe may succeed in getting the channel allotted to Keshena, Cumulus could well end up receiving the permit to use the channel.) Any station thus awarded would be prohibited from changing its city-of-license for four years,[1] and would be prohibited from making technical changes that would cause more than half of the principal-community coverage to fall off tribal lands.

For non-commercial FM applications:
Tribal Priority would trump all other applications except those which propose to provide the first radio service to a population that would not be served by the tribal station.

The holding requirements would be the same as for AM – the station must operate[1] for at least four years under at least 70% tribal control; the community of license must not be changed for that period; and no technical changes that would cause more than 50% of the city-grade coverage to fall outside tribal lands would be permitted.

B. Limit downgrades to AM permits after receiving a fair-distribution preference.

When awarding an AM permit, applicants who propose to serve a significantly greater number of people receive preference. The Commission fears applicants may propose a certain level of service in order to “trump” other applicants and win the permit – and then amend the permit to specify a lower level of service.

The Commission has decided that applicants who win a permit this way must serve[1] at least 80% of the originally-proposed population for at least four years. Further, such licensees may not change their city of license for four years.

C. Require applications for new AM stations (or major changes) be “Technically Eligible for Auction Processing at Time of Filing”.

In recant AM Auction #84, the FCC found 14% of the applications filed were defective. In the 321 cases where preliminary applications were not mutually-exclusive with other applications, 91 applicants never filed the complete technical data necessary to finish processing – and of the 230 applicants who did file, nearly 30% filed technically-deficient applications.

The Commission has ruled that in future AM auctions, for applications to be accepted they must show:
- The principal community (city of license) will receive the required signal level day and night.[2]
- Existing stations, existing permits for new stations, and previously-filed applications for new stations or changes to existing stations will be protected from interference day and night.[3]

Applications that do not meet one or more of these criteria will be placed on Public Notice as “Technically Ineligible for Filing”. Applicants will be given a single chance to amend the power, antenna parameters, or tower site in order to come into compliance. Amendments to frequency or city-of-license will not be accepted. The Public Notice will set a deadline for such amendments – today's action suggests this deadline is likely to be on the order of 30 days.

D. “Permanentize” the acceptability of technical modifications and settlements that don't clear all mutual exclusivities.

Usually, when broadcast applications are accepted, two or more mutually-exclusive applications will be filed. It may be possible to resolve the mutual exclusivity if two or more applicants agree to make technical changes, or to have one or more applicants withdraw their application(s). The rules had only required the Commission to accept these settlements if they resolve all the mutual exclusivities.

It had, however, been Commission practice in recent auctions to accept such settlements if any of the mutual exclusivities is cleared – if at least one application becomes immediately grantable as a result. The FCC has decided to codify that practice in their regulations.

E. Establish authority to limit the number of AM applications that may be filed in a window.

In AM Auction 32, 171 applicants filed 258 proposals; in Auction 84, 460 applicants filed 1,311 proposals. The Commission fears many of these applications may have been speculative – the applicant filed a large number of proposals in the hopes that one or more would be granted, but without intention of building all of them.

The Commission has decided to allow the Media Bureau staff to decide whether to set a limit on the number of applications any party may file in any given AM auction, and to establish what that limit should be.

F. Provide flexibility in the deadline for filing long-form applications after an auction.

Applicants file a “short-form” application before going to a broadcast auction. Those which win the auction then have 30 days to file a complete “long-form” application. Some FM auctions have closed just before Thanksgiving – requiring winning bidders to complete their long-form paperwork during the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday season.

One commenter made the obvious suggestion: that the Commission should avoid scheduling auctions to close just before a holiday! What they actually did do... was to delegate authority to the Media Bureau to extend the filing deadline.

G. Clarify the New Entrant Bidding Credit Unjust Enrichment Rule.
H. Clarify the Maximum New Entrant Bidding Credit Eligibility.


These still need clarification – I don't know what they're talking about even after they clarify things! This has to do with a credit provided to auction participants who don't already own broadcasting stations.

FURTHER PROPOSALS:

A. Implement a Tribal Bidding Credit.

While the proposals to promote broadcast ownership among Native American Tribes are pretty generous for non-commercial operations, they are not nearly so generous for commercial stations. Tribes may receive a preference for the allotment of channels on their lands, but non-tribal entities will compete, at auction, with the tribes for the right to use those channels.

The New Entrant Bidding Credits discussed above would likely benefit most tribes. Still, they'll find it difficult to compete with well-heeled large broadcast groups. Two entities suggested the FCC provide a further bidding credit to qualified Tribes. The Commission asks whether such a credit should be provided, and if so, whether it should be in addition to, or replacing, the New Entrant credit.

B. Extend the Tribal Priority to tribes with no reservations.

While there are 563 Native American Tribes in the U.S., there are only 312 reservations. (and some Tribes have more than one) This means there are more than 250 Tribes which do not control any “tribal lands” on which Tribal Priority would apply.

The Commission asks whether they should make provisions for Tribal Priority for Tribes which do not have tribal lands. Should a minimum population density of members establish “tribal lands”?

===============================================================================

[0] Any such Tribes must have a portion of their tribal lands within the proposed station's city-grade coverage area. Other Tribes may be part owners, but their participation is on the same basis as non-Native people.

[1] Four years' service means the station must be on the air for at least four years while meeting the requirements. The duration of an unbuilt construction permit doesn't count.

[2] Principal community coverage is not required at night for class D stations. However, no new Class D licenses are being granted.

[3] Class D stations need not be protected at night.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Major Canadian stations off the air

50,000-watt stations CINF-690 and CINW-940 Montreal both left the air Friday night. The shutdowns are permanent. CINF had been a French-language all-news outlet; CINW had the same format in English, though they'd flipped to oldies a few months ago.

This is the second time these two frequencies have gone silent. They were originally launched by the CBC, as their stations for English-language Radio 1 (940) and French-language Radio-Canada. (690) Both CBC stations moved to FM.

The 690 facility has the best coverage of any Montreal station - you might expect one of the smaller AM facilities to express interest in taking it over.

But both frequencies are currently silent and will likely remain so for months. When the CBC abandoned the frequencies for their Montreal stations, their 690 station in Vancouver was heard over a fair part of the continent. There is also a French-language station on 690 in Saskatchewan.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Remember this post?

"Anonymous" posted this comment.

Looks like (s)he knew what they were writing about... as the KBUG license has also now been canceled... Reason is pretty much the same.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Temporary domestic-band broadcasts in Haiti

The Milcom Monitoring Post is reporting the Pennsylvania National Guard's Commando Solo airborne broadcast station has been dispatched to Haiti.

See also this page at the Department of Defense.

Shortwave Central reports the frequencies in use are 1030 AM and 92.4 and 104.1 FM. Obviously, one would expect programming to be in Creole.

AM callsign changes

Lithonia, Ga. 1360 WHRH (new station)
Savannah, Ga. 1520 WSHX (new station)
Pleasantville, N.J. 1490 WBSS from WTAA
Concord, N.C. 1410 WTIX from WEGO
Cramerton, N.C. 730 WZGV from WOHS
Winston-Salem, N.C. 980 WEGO from WTIX

Thursday, December 31, 2009

New AM station on the air

Jackson, Wyoming: 1450KHz:
New station KJCV on the air.
1,000 watts day & night, non-directional
43-27-45N/110-47-37W

Friday, December 18, 2009

Long-haul TV moves denied, but new channels anyway...

The FCC has denied the applications of two Western TV stations to move to large East Coast cities.

The FCC has denied PMCM's requests to move KVNV-3 Ely, Nevada to Middletown Township, New Jersey and KJWY-2 from Jackson, Wyoming to Wilmington, Delaware. They ruled that the definition of "reallocation" is the move of a channel from one place to another place **when the channel cannot be used in both places simultaneously**. Provisions of the "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" **required** the FCC to approve such a reallocation if the station requested and it would place a commercial VHF channel in a state that didn't already have one. (New Jersey and Delaware were the only two such states)

The result of (and the reason for) the 1982 Act was to allow WOR-9 New York City to move to Secaucus, New Jersey and thus escape the revocation of its license due to misdeeds at the station's corporate owner.

Obviously, the use of channel 2 in Jackson, Wyoming does NOT preclude the use of the same channel in Wilmington, Delaware!

========================================

HOWEVER...

The 1982 Act also mandates that "It shall be the policy of the Federal Communications Commission to allocate
channels for very high frequency commercial television broadcasting in a
manner which ensures that not less than one such channel shall be allocated to
each State, if technically feasible."

In 1982, it was *not* "technically feasible" to allocate new VHF channels to New Jersey or Delaware, without moving an existing station.

In 2009, due to the widespread abandonment of low-band VHF with DTV, it *is* technically feasible.

(and yes, New Jersey is again without a commercial VHF station. WOR -- now WWOR -- elected to leave its permanent DTV facility on its interim channel 38. No Philadelphia station ever took advantage of the 1982 Act to move to Delaware, so Delaware has never had a commercial VHF station.)

The FCC feels they're required to allocate at least one VHF commercial station to each state. To that end, they have on their own motion proposed to allot:

Channel 4 to Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware.

Note that the PMCM proposals would have the channel 3 transmitter in NYC and the channel 2 transmitter in Philadelphia. (leaving no doubt as to which cities they *really* proposed to serve!) The FCC-proposed communities are far enough from NYC and Philadelphia that the NYC/Philly tower farms could not be used -- a transmitter in NYC could not provide a city-grade to Atlantic City, and a transmitter in Philadelphia could not provide a city-grade to Seaford.

It *might*, however, be possible to site a transmitter *between* Atlantic City and NYC such that a city-grade could be provided over both cities simultaneously. (and likewise with Seaford and Philadelphia) In both cases, rabbit-ears reception would be unlikely in either city, but cable must-carry might be possible...

New AM station (not)

Battle Mountain, Nevada: 1450KHz:
New-station permit canceled.
IHR Educational Broadcasting has requested the cancellation of their permit for a new station here.

More LPFMs

On Wednesday, the Local Community Radio Act was passed by the House of Representatives in a voice vote.

Nearly identical legislation is in the Senate, which is regarded as almost certain to pass it, and probably before Christmas. President Obama has indicated he will sign the Act.

===================================================

When the LPFM service was first created, FCC engineers proposed to allow LPFM stations at any distance from full-power stations on the 2nd and 3rd adjacent frequencies. (0.4 or 0.6MHz from the full-power station) The Commission itself established distance separation requirements for stations 0.4MHz from full-power operations, but felt requirements for 0.6MHz separation were unnecessary.

Lobbying by the National Association of Broadcasters resulted in the enactment by Congress of a rider on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 which required the FCC to subject LPFM stations to the same 0.6MHz separation requirements as full-power stations. The bill covered a wide variety of topices beyond LPFM. Then-President Clinton opposed the LPFM restrictions, and had said he'd veto a standalone bill enacting them. However, he felt couldn't veto the entire wide-ranging Appropriations Act over the LPFM provisions.

The result was to make licensing of new LPFM stations FAR more difficult in all but the most rural areas. Here in Nashville, several of the most suitable frequencies for LPFM were placed off-limits. 94.9 and 103.9 would probably be the best choices -- but WSM-FM 95.5, WKDF 103.3, and WGFX 104.5 make the use of those frequencies illegal. A resourceful group did manage to win a permit for a LPFM here. But they had to use 98.9, a frequency where they suffer greatly from interference from a full-power station 35 miles east of town, and where they must locate their transmitter well to the west of the city to avoid interfering with the full-power station. 103.9 would have been a much better choice, if only it had been permissible.

===================================================

Ironically, the Congressional action applies only to LPFM stations. It does not apply to FM translators. These translators may operate on 0.6, and even 0.4MHz separation. And they may use up to 2.5 times the power of LPFMs and even higher antennas.

An example I like to use is that of 90.5MHz at West Memphis, Arkansas. If a West Memphis church wished to build a station to broadcast their services and provide a service to religious youth in the community... they could not use the 90.5 frequency to do so. It's too close to stations across the river on 89.9 and 91.1.

However, if a firm 250 miles up the river in St. Louis wished to use 90.5 to relay programs originating in Missouri, that's perfectly permissible.

Here in Nashville, we have a translator station on 90.7. It's located less than a mile from Nashville Public Radio's transmitter on 90.3. And 100% of its programming arrives via satellite -- from Idaho.

===================================================

This week's House action will remove the requirement that LPFM stations separated by 0.6MHz be fully protected. (the Appropriations Act never did establish a requirement for the FCC to provide 0.4MHz protection. The Commission had already done so by its own motion; apparently it never dawned on Congress that the FCC might repeal that requirement!)

The move will make 94.9 and 103.9 usable for LPFMs in Nashville. (offhand I can think of four more frequencies that may also become usable) It looks like four new frequencies will become available for LPFM in Milwaukee. Other cities will benefit similarly.

Third-adjacent protection does not disappear completely. Provisions will require:

- Third-adjacent protection is not relaxed if the full-power station is a non-commercial operation carrying a radio-reading service for the visually-impaired on an analog subcarrier. (many NPR affiliates do this)

- The FCC must address 3rd-adjacent interference to the stations being relayed by FM translators. (in practice it is hard for me to imagine this will be a significant problem)

- Third-adjacent LPFMs must announce the possibility of interference and tell affected listeners to report interference to the station. (which then must address it and notify the FCC)

A provision will also require the FCC to ensure licenses are available for both LPFMs and FM translators, "based on community needs". A story on a website for radio businesspeople colors that provision "The FCC is also instructed to make sure that LPFMs are not granted to the exclusion of FM translators and boosters."

I would tend to read that the other way around: that when deciding whether an available frequency goes to a LPFM or a translator, the FCC must consider whether the proposed facility will address the needs of the local community. Translators carrying signals from 250 miles away are unlikely to trump LPFMs under this test.