FCC Policy Suggestions

[olmjax]

Here are some of my policies of the FCC that could be changed or modified:


1) There should be a 3 year limit for all applications for construction permit for all media services including TV, AM and FM radio. If the company wants to keep their application for construction permit but the construction permit license is still pending, they must file for an extension application with the FCC or their application will be dropped altogether and they will have to apply for a new one. For instance, there are so many applications that are still on file from the last filing window for FM translators, which was in 2003 (9 years ago) and the majority of these translators have never been granted a construction permit license. If a company with a licensed, on-the-air translator wants to upgrade their facilities, they must consider those proposed stations, many of which have never received a construction permit license within the past nine years and probably never will, which prevents companies with existing translators from upgrading their facilities so they can serve a larger listening audience and it is also unfair to those companies who want to upgrade their facilities.

2) I believe the FCC should require HD Radio receivers in all radios manufactured or imported into the United States.

3) Furthermore, the FCC should expand the FM band down to 76 MHz and require and make sure that all new radios manufactured or imported to the United States are able to tune down to these new frequencies before there are any stations built in the expanded FM band.

I would like to know what are some of your policy changes that you want the FCC to implement.

 

[w9wi]

1) I think you may be misinterpreting what's going on with the 2003 translator window. The FCC has not acted on most of those applications -- the applicants can't build anything until the FCC grants them a construction permit.

Once the FCC does grant a CP, stations have 18 months to build it. A single extension can be granted upon request and showing of good cause. (in other words, it's already FCC policy for a 3-year limit for construction of newly-authorized facilities)

Now, if you're suggesting the FCC itself needs to be faster at processing applications, I'm in complete agreement. It's insane that it's taking the Commission nearly ten years to act on these applications. They need to find a way to accept applications for each class of station at least once a year, and to process those applications within a year.

That will likely require they firm up & expand the policy they've recently introduced with regard to FM translators, where they're only processing ten applications per applicant.

2) I think you're going to face a big uphill battle on this...

3) I don't see going down to 76MHz doing much good. 76-82MHz is useless in a number of markets, including throughout most of Tennessee; 82-88MHz is useless in Philadelphia and bordering markets. Do not expect the FCC to expel TV stations from this spectrum; the only place to send them is UHF, and they'd far rather auction that end of things.

Going down to 54MHz might be worthwhile. Although any station firing up below 88MHz would have zero audience for a LONG time.

_________________________________________________

The one thing I'd do (besides what I mentioned under #1 above) is to be less tolerant of stations that remain off the air for lengthy periods. I'd expect a station to meet the minimum operating schedule requirements, at licensed (not STA) facilities, for at least 26 weeks a year in order to retain their license.

The AM band is FAR too crowded; IMHO anything that clears out failing AM stations will only benefit the stations that remain.

 

[Darth_vader]

"Going down to 54MHz might be worthwhile. Although any station firing up below 88MHz would have zero audience for a LONG time."

Nice idea, yes, except that would probably result in a LOT of HAMs screaming "foul" as the possible interference from any badly-implemented stations might just barely touch the far upper fringes of the 50 MHz HAM band, which of course would render the whole band completely unusable by their "standards". Not like anybody really even uses 50 MHz HAM these days.....

Nevertheless, you can bet the ARRL and its pundits would kill that idea fast.

 

[w9wi]

"Going down to 54MHz might be worthwhile. Although any station firing up below 88MHz would have zero audience for a LONG time."

Nice idea, yes, except that would probably result in a LOT of HAMs screaming "foul" as the possible interference from any badly-implemented stations might just barely touch the far upper fringes of the 50 MHz HAM band, which of course would render the whole band completely unusable by their "standards". Not like anybody really even uses 50 MHz HAM these days.....

Nevertheless, you can bet the ARRL and its pundits would kill that idea fast.

Speaking as a longtime ham.. I'd far rather have FM radio stations up there than analog TV. Analog TV stations had some amount of trouble keeping their signals in the channel.. The weak-signal stuff that's subject to interference all happens at the bottom (50MHz end) of the band anyway. Operation near 54MHz is usually FM & benefits from the capture effect.

When there's a bit of sporadic-E going on, the 50MHz band is far from dead.

 

[Tom Wells]

I'd suggest the FCC begin to enforce the part 15 untintentional radiator rules, starting with switching power supplies,
and any device which utilizes switched-AC sinewave conduction regulation.

Industry/business destroys radio communications and has for the last 40 years with no repercussions.

I think it is time those who interfere with rf should either pay heavily for the privilege, or clean up their power-using devices.

The FCC IS empowered to regulate (and fine) those whose pollute with rf noise (if they cared to).

I'm not talking about anyone who tries to put on a signal with actual human-decodable info, but typically the 60 or 120 hz buzz-crud.

I can barely make this laptop wireless 3G card work where I need it most.

It's not just the AM mediumwave that's being ruined.

 

[TheBigA]

The FCC will not be expanding any bands for more free radio stations. Why give away spectrum space when you can sell it?

It's not in the interest of anyone but iBiquity for there to be an HD Radio mandate. So the FCC won't require it. Once their patent expires, there may be a chance.

In addition, the FCC isn't looking to increase its workload. Any work increase requires more funding from Congress. Congress keeps talking about cutting back on agency spending. If the GOP gets in, look for Reagan-esque cuts to the FCC again.

 

[olmjax]

Here are some additional FCC policy suggestions regarding LPFMs and FM Translators:

1) LPFMs should have the same technical rules and regulations as FM Translators, which means they will have the same limit in terms of ERP (250 watts) and they won't have a limit on HAAT just like the current FM translator rules. However, LPFM will remain non-commercial, community-oriented entities just as they are right now.

2) When the next LPFM filing window opens up, the FCC should allow applications for frequencies that are currently a part of TV Channel 6 and are available on most of today's radios (87.5, 87.7, and 87.9 MHz)

3) For analog LPTV stations that are licensed as TV Channel 6 but primarily operate as radio stations on 87.75 MHz, they should be allowed to apply in the next LPFM filing window so they can continue to operate when the analog TV stations cease broadcasting as they transition to digital broadcasting. However, they must apply as non-commercial stations just like the other LPFM applicants and the new station must be within the technical parameters the FCC currently has put in place for FM translators, which is a maximum ERP of 250 watts with no limit on antenna height.

4) LPFMs should be allowed to acquire FM translators in order to convert them to Low Power FM stations and vice versa. However, there is just one caveat, the LPFM station is not allowed to broadcast on a FM translator until the FCC approves the sale transaction and they have been granted the appropriate call letters designated for low power FM stations (i.e.: WXXX-LP or KXXX-LP). The same rules will apply if a company wants to buy a LPFM station and convert it into a translator.

Since both services are considered "secondary services" according to the FCC, they should be allowed to co-exist without any complications or problems but the FCC should give first priority because they provide local programming and serve the local community more effectively than distant FM translators, some of which rebroadcast stations from thousands of miles away.

 

[MarioMania]

The FCC has coal up there a**

Time to expand down to 76MHz, FM is going to explode..I don't know why the FCC is sitting on this

 

[Navion]

IMHO... If the FCC

1) Eliminated the exemption for EAS for translators. They should have local monitoring assignments like everyone else.
2) Required that translator operators had staff and local phones in (or within 25 mi of) the city of license of these translators.
3) That their be Public Files and Station logs kept at these offices like every other FM broadcaster.
4) FM translators could only be sold at a price that recovers reasonable costs.

The whole translator issue would be a non-event.

Except for #4 I can't imagine what the rational argument could be against them. If the idea is that these translators are a broadcast service meant to serve a community to which they are licensed, they should participate in the lives of their listeners as do all the other broadcasters.

I think the EAS requirement is especially valid. The FCC requires that even CATV systems have local EAS on every channel they carry. Unless the argument is that no one listens to these translators, what's the argument for exempting them from EAS? In our case, a translator could use the main station EAS since different parts of the same counties are covered by both the main station and translator stations. EAS messages from thousands of miles away probably don't have much relevance to the listener of a translator in their community.

LPFM's are required to have #2 and #3. What's the argument for translators not having them? Even if you say "We want to serve this wider community", wouldn't a local news and community office be a good thing?

Bill

 

[nocomradio]

I think that translators need to be capped or at least watched so that they don't start sprouting up like mushrooms.

One station in Crozet, VA has translators in Lynchburg (70 miles away) Richmond (almost 90 miles away) Waynesboro (30 miles away) Downtown Charlottesville (15 miles from the COL) Bedford (60 miles away) and maybe more. Its ridiculous as you can pick them up halfway across the band with the same programming, but advertisements centered around the Charlottesville area. Who is that serving?

This is just one I can think of. There are a number of others as well, most notably a religious group that has translators all over the state. When they do their TOH I.D. it sounds like they are reading from a phone book with all the numbers and calls and cities, that go on for a full minute or more.

 

[bobdavcav]

I would have to agree with the last post. If a station can cover fine, it doesn't need translators. A prime example is KMTT locally. They are a full class C station, and they have a translator in downtown Seattle rebroadcasting the main signal. Now, is that really necesary? The main 103.7 comes in just fine downtown, all that translator does is improve building penetration. So, why not sell that translator to the local AC? Before Entercom switched the HD channels around, we had smooth jaz on 100.7 hd2. To put this on the 103.3 translator would have been a much better use of that signal. My point being, the rules should clearly state that you shouldn't have a translator if you don't need one. Rebroadcasting hd is fine, but not the main station unless that is the only possible way a listenable signal can be brought to a section of the area, which is not the case here, KMTT has some static and cannot be picked up on some lower quality radios downtown, but it's no worse than any other station in town.

 

[MarioMania]

Who is using the old FM Band??

 

[nocomradio]

Analog TV Channels 5 and 6 are still shown on the frequency allocation charts for that part of the band.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...locations_Chart_2011_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.pdf

 

[w9wi]

Analog TV Channels 5 and 6 are still shown on the frequency allocation charts for that part of the band.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...locations_Chart_2011_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.pdf

It's not Analog TV channels 5 & 6, It's television channels 5 & 6. They did not go away when we went digital. 76-88 is not empty spectrum.

_________________________________________________

Going way back to Navion's #1 suggestion, fully agreed. I remember hearing an EAS alert on, was it 89.1?, on my way through Meridian, Mississippi. Sky was clear blue, wondered if there might be a storm over that ridge? Announcer said "The National Weather Service has issued a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for.....



...Marin and Sonoma Counties in Northern California." Yep, it was a satellite-fed translator of KEAR-FM San Francisco, 2,000 miles away. Of course, if there *had* been a storm over that Mississippi ridge... I would have near heard the EAS alert.

 

[nocomradio]

It's not Analog TV channels 5 & 6, It's television channels 5 & 6. They did not go away when we went digital. 76-88 is not empty spectrum.

I was under the impression that digital was taking over completely and that analog television was all supposed to switch over by a certain date.

I didn't think that the spectrum was up for grabs or anything, just that it wasn't currently in widespread use.

 

[vacuum tube]

There are full power digital TV stations on the air on channels 2 thru 6 (54-88mhz). TV allocations are on RF channels 2 to 51. The FCC cannot expand the FM band to 76 mhz without getting rid of the tv stations (digital & analog) that are using that spectrum.

 

[nocomradio]

OK, so digital is still there then. Wasn't aware of that. Makes sense now.

 

[bobdavcav]

I have a couple to add to this thread,
1. If you're a station that's off more than it's on for a full license term and you're going to apply for a renewal, that process is the same as it's always been, but then if you continue to remain off the air through the next license term, you cannot apply to renew again. Also, if you're off the air for more than a year, you should have to be on for a longer period of time. In other words, let's say you were taken off the air in August 2008. A year later, you sign on for the minimum 8 hours to retain the license. In 2010, you need to sign on for 16 hours. In 2011 24, and so on. Let's say then that 2014 is a renewal year, but you've only been on the air for a minimum of 8 hours per year. Then, you'd have to make up that extra time when activating the license in August 2013. In the example above, that station would have to be on the air for a minimum of 112 hours straight.
2. If a translator is going to be fed by satilite, it must be in the same state as the originating station. That means KPLU could feed a Vancouver translator via satilite, but KOPB would need to feed a translator off the air if it's in Longview, but could feed a Medford station via satilite.