97.7 Cross City

That's interesting. So, if one sucessfully bids at auction and pays the bid but fails to prosecute the permit, is there any sanction imposed by the FCC? In other words, could someone, theoretically, sucessfully bid for a station (but fail to construct) several times in a row over a period of something like 10 years?

Once the allocation goes back to auction, it should be interesting to see who the bidders will be.

That is a great question for an FCC attorney. However, the only way I see the allocation being deleted from Cross City is if someone else petitions to have the allocation moved to another community; in which case the allocation is reassigned. In the case of WURB, once the CP is cancelled due to the station not being constructed, or any effort being made towards placing the station on the air, as a close friend once said "it's goneded" in terms of the initial CP. The allocation is still there and the FCC will place it back on the auction block at some point (Who knows when, but the FCC loves getting those highest bidder checks). If the CP is in fact cancelled, it may be possible that Mr. Johnson can petition for reconsideration in getting the CP reinstated and extended for another 18-months; however, it is highly doubtful the FCC will grant such a request because, as far as I know, NOTHING has been done toward actually placing this station on the air. On the other hand, if the station IS on the air and we just haven't realized it yet, then all is well.

First, the FCC will have to deal with a petition for reconsideration that was filed on the 24th by WURB. The petition seeks to reverse an earlier FCC ruling that WURB's permit could not be tolled (thereby extending the CP's deadline). While an interesting attempt, the permittee gives no valid reason why they failed to build the authorized CP, nor do they put forward any public interest argument whatsoever. Such an argument has a very low survival prospect, but must be answered.

Kmagrill said:

First, the FCC will have to deal with a petition for reconsideration that was filed on the 24th by WURB. The petition seeks to reverse an earlier FCC ruling that WURB's permit could not be tolled (thereby extending the CP's deadline). While an interesting attempt, the permittee gives no valid reason why they failed to build the authorized CP, nor do they put forward any public interest argument whatsoever. Such an argument has a very low survival prospect, but must be answered.

Click to expand...

If that be the case, then the CP is GONE and the allocation will be placed in a future spectrum auction.

Edit.

After looking through all the letters on the FCC site, this appears to be why he proposed an alternate to the original Bell tower:

"to relocate its permitted tower site after it had difficulties obtaining access to its current site, which access was controlled directly by the tower site owner."

He then proposed putting up a new tower in Cross City but the FCC told him they couldn't process that request without FAA approval of the new tower. In his petitions he never addresses the required FAA approval.

It looks like he has been doing all this without engineers and lawyers. While you have to give it up for the little guy, this was probably a time when professional help was required. The original tower is owned by one of the big tower companies so I'm sure they wanted cash in hand (or cash and lease in hand) before they were going to let him near their tower.

Jeff2 said:

After looking through all the letters on the FCC site, this appears to be why he proposed an alternate to the original Bell tower:
"to relocate its permitted tower site after it had difficulties obtaining access to its current site, which access was controlled directly by the tower site owner."
....so I'm sure they wanted cash in hand (or cash and lease in hand) before they were going to let him near their tower.

Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, he's got an invalid reason for not building out the original CP. While the permittee is free to ask the FCC to move to an alternate location, waiting for them to approve or disapprove of such an application is not grounds to suspend the construction deadline. Also, the FCC has stated several times that lack of funding on the part of the permitee is not grounds for tolling of a CP, either. They are supposed to have factored that in before accepting the CP. Also, with 36 months to build, the FCC does not expect anyone to wait for the 34th month to start working on the project, excepting natural disasters and such.

To make matters worse, WURB filed a series of modifications to their app in the weeks following the original filing. One or more of these apps proposed an alternate set of coordinates. The last application evidently specified the first set of coordinates, again. If I were the engineer at the FCC, I'm not sure what I'd make of the flurry of apps, but I probably wouldn't be in much of a hurry to process anything unitl I was sure that there wouldn't be additional changes.

I think this CP is toast.

FCC update re: WURB-FM 97.7 CP for Cross City, FL. In a rather lengthy letter dated March 3, 2015 the FCC dismissed their last application to modify the CP and dismissed all of their many petitions that were filed over the years, right up to the last moment when the CP technically expired. All of this is still on the FCC website for now but I assume the allocation will go back into the pool for the next auction and this call sign will be deleted.

Nostalgia said:

FCC update re: WURB-FM 97.7 now but I assume the allocation will go back into the pool for the next auction and this call sign will be deleted.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The frequency allocation is once again a vacant channel awaiting the next FCC auction the Commission determines to place it in. The call letters will soon be up for grabs, too, although sometimes it takes a while for the FCC call sign database to update recognizing the call letters WURB are not in use.

Not so fast, folks. The licensee has filed a motion asking for official review from the full Commission. He claims that his rights are being suppressed by white DC lawyers that are oppressing him based on his race because "they don't want to rock the boat". He further claims that the FCC intentionally misplaced his payment for his STA request so that it would not be granted in time. Apparently, the FCC staff is conspiring with the lawyers to do their bidding.

Finally, he challenges the original informal objection against him as improperly filed because the objector's DC lawyer signed it rather than the objector.

The document is full of interesting allegations and even more interesting grammar and spelling issues.

So, expect 90 to 270 more days before the FCC unravels this mess and makes the dismissal final. Then, of course, he still has the right to challenge in court, if he can find someone to fund the legal challenge, of course.

The saga continues.......

That is some interesting reading. It was going okay until the the accusations of it all being because the permit holder is a minority came out, and then it left the tracks pretty quickly. Am I reading it wrong or did he not file the STA after the permit had legally expired?

He actually filed a little flurry of things right before the end. It was kind of hard to determine if he was asking for an STA or several different versions of class A facilities at various spots around Cross City. I'm not real sure that he understands the difference. In fact, that may have gummed up the works at FCC engineering. If I were them and the permittee filed a new modification every week, I wouldn't process anything until I was sure he was done changing stuff.

In any case, an STA by itself cannot be used to satisfy an original construction permit. So, even if the STA had been granted, he'd have still lost his permit when it expired. In cases where the permittee cannot construct due to legitimate reasons beyond their control, the FCC may grant an STA and may also grant 'tolling' which is when they stop the clock to allow a reasonable additional period of time. Tolling is the more important of the two and is harder to get as well. However, even if tolling is granted, the licensee eventually has to either build the original facility or has to have received a permit from the FCC for a new facility which has to be built before the new expiration date. After tolling ends, the new expiration date is usually the amount of time that had remained on the original CP as of the date the tolling request was filed. The STA facility does not count as a credit towards official construction if it differs from the actual station authorization (which it always does).

Johnson did ask for both an STA and for tolling, but the FCC was not persuaded since he gave absolutely no useful reason as to why it was necessary. He just said that he'd lost the use of the site due to reasons beyond his control. In an earlier document, the FCC concluded that Johnson's reason was that he'd waited until the last minute to do anything and he had no money. Those are poor reasons in the FCC's eyes, so they rejected the tolling request and advised him to build his authorized facility before the original CP expired. He was warned, so now he'll pay the cost.

I checked out the new auction that began today and 97.7 Cross City was not among the CP's up for auction. I am sure it is because of all the filings that Mr. Johnson made, especially at the end, some of which are still officially pending some resolution. Eventually this frequency will be recycled and put back in the pool for future auctions.

Well, it took a year, but the end has (probably) come for the ill-fated WURB. The FCC was not persuaded, nor amused by the licensee's arguments. As far as the FCC is concerned, it's over. Expect to see the dreaded DWURB in the CDBS within the next 30 to 40 days. The only remaining recourse for the licensee is Federal court, but this is expensive, unlikely to prevail and probably beyond the licensee's ability to do.

The allocation will, eventually, be returned to the auction pool and become available at one of the upcoming auctions. Anyone want to take bets if Johnson will be among the applicants???

That is a shame. I wonder if Mr. Johnson sought out possible investors to help facilitate the build-out? Even as a C3, the signal would be limited over Gainesville, basically a rim-shot at best.

jmtillery said:

That is a shame. I wonder if Mr. Johnson sought out possible investors to help facilitate the build-out? Even as a C3, the signal would be limited over Gainesville, basically a rim-shot at best.

Click to expand...

I think the second sentence explains why there were no investors. Substantial cost to build and operate, no history, and few potential listeners due to remote location. Combine that with the comical history of the construction permit up until that point and the reason for the absence of any financial backers is apparent. As you said, it is a shame.

Actually he did have a page on one of the Go Fund Me clones, not the actual Go Fund Me website. The stated goal was to purchase the transmitter I believe. When I checked on it a couple of times the total was zero. I can only guess that one guy who may have taken a hit on this deal was Alex Media from NYC who won the allocation at auction and sold it to Mr. Johnson.