|
|
|
Graham Brock, Inc. |
|
Broadcast Technical Consultants |
| Vol. XVI, No. 5 |
R. Stuart Graham, Jr. |
| May 2009 |
Jefferson G. Brock |
|
Rural Radio Service and Other Matters |
|
While we were attending the National
Association of Broadcasters Convention last month, the
Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
entitled “Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to
Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures”. The
Notice contains numerous proposals for consideration and
asks for comments on each. The items for discussion
include changes to the present allotment priority
criteria. To be considered are 1) first full-time
reception service; 2) second full-time reception
service; 3) first local service; and 4) other public
interest matters. The FCC is considering removing
priority #3 for those proposed changes or allotments
that are located in or near an Urbanized Area, as
indicated in the US Census. They are also considering
whether priority #4 should only apply to applications
for new AM stations or major change AM applications.
Additional proposals would bring more scrutiny to
proposals that provide greater than 50% coverage of an
urbanized area or have the ability to move closer as a
second step. There is also a proposal to consider
“service indexing” for a proposed relocation. A service
index is based on the number of reception services that
already exist in an area where a new or relocated
station would provide an additional service. This index
would consider the actual gain area population. Further,
the Commission is also seeking comments on whether the
creation of any white area (an area receiving no over
the air service) or gray area (an area receiving only
one over the air service) as a result of a relocation of
an existing station should prevent the proposed change.
Comments are also being solicited regarding the AM
auction process, specifically, whether an AM station
that receives a grant based on a specific coverage area
should be allowed to downgrade the coverage and whether
the initially submitted AM auction application (short
form) should be compliant with existing stations. In the
last AM window, short form applications were filed that
did not adequately protect licensed stations or did not
contain sufficient technical data for a preliminary
review. The new proposal would require applicants to
submit valid proposals in order to be considered
eligible for the auction. The Commission is also
considering placing a cap on the number of applications
for AM stations that a single entity can submit in a
window. Additional updates to the rules
were also proposed involving the relocation of a
translator from the commercial band into the
non-commercial band (band hopping); adding data
regarding the use of supplemental showings for FM
stations; standards for nighttime AM mutual exclusivity;
and new entrant bidding credits. The comment deadline
for MB Docket # 09-52 is July 13, 2009, and the reply
comment deadline is August 11, 2009. |
|
Partial Freeze for FM Auction 79 |
|
The Commission has issued a Public Notice regarding
rule makings or other filings that impact any of the
122 channels in the September 2009 FM Auction.
Effective with the issuance of the notice, no
application seeking to alter the allocation
reference coordinates of an auction channel will be
considered, and no proposal that would change the
channel, class, or community of an auction channel
will be considered. Further, the FCC announced that
between June 16, 2009 and June 25, 2009 no minor
change applications (commercial or non-commercial)
will be accepted. This period has been set aside for
the submission of FCC Form 175 applications, which
indicates an entity’s desire to participate in the
auction. These applications will also allow
prospective auction participants to designate a
preferred site for its selected channels. |
|
LPFM Station Fined |
| A recent inspection of
an operating LPFM station in Florida revealed a
series of issues for which the licensee was fined.
These included the failure to install EAS equipment
and the operation of an STL system without a
license. The former resulted in a fine of $5,600,
and operating the STL without a license cost the
LPFM licensee $4,000. You thought you made it
through a newsletter without an STL reminder, didn’t
you?. |

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|