• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

LPFM / Translator regulations

D

dhodges82

Guest
I was unable to find an FCC regulation on whether LPFM's can have translators assigned to them. Does anyone know what the regulations are on this? If it is allowed, would the translator have to be a non-comm or commercial translator? -dae
 
Yes they can, I know of at least 5 LPFMs that have translators.
I dont think they can straight out apply for them, but use a backdoor
method of getting them. Like find Someone who holds a CP/License for
one then Buying it.

> I was unable to find an FCC regulation on whether LPFM's can
> have translators assigned to them. Does anyone know what the
> regulations are on this? If it is allowed, would the
> translator have to be a non-comm or commercial translator?
> -dae
>
 
There is the prohibition against the licensee of an LPFM owning any other station. However, translators have traditionally not counted against ownership totals since, by definition, a translator cannot originate programing.

This would be an area best left to be explored by Washinton counsel, since the rules are ambiguous.

Let's assume that the "friends of WXYZ-LP" acquired a translator. There is no window open to apply for a new translator, so they would have to purchase an existing license or a c.p. for a new translator. This translator would have to be fed by terrestrial means, e.g. off-air or STL. Because LPFM's are, by definition, non-commercial, the translator would be non-commercial even if it is in the "non-reserved band," e.g., 92.1~107.9. This would mean that the ownership would not have to pay a regulatory fee. Of course, they couldn't run commercials either.
 
> There is the prohibition against the licensee of an LPFM
> owning any other station. However, translators have
> traditionally not counted against ownership totals since, by
> definition, a translator cannot originate programing.
>
> This would be an area best left to be explored by Washinton
> counsel, since the rules are ambiguous.
>
> Let's assume that the "friends of WXYZ-LP" acquired a
> translator. There is no window open to apply for a new
> translator, so they would have to purchase an existing
> license or a c.p. for a new translator. This translator
> would have to be fed by terrestrial means, e.g. off-air or
> STL. Because LPFM's are, by definition, non-commercial, the
> translator would be non-commercial even if it is in the
> "non-reserved band," e.g., 92.1~107.9. This would mean that
> the ownership would not have to pay a regulatory fee. Of
> course, they couldn't run commercials either.
>
Yes, there is currently a "freeze" on applications filed in 2003 for the latest round of translators. Rumor has it that the FCC will send everybody back to the drawing board, and create another auction at a later time. At issue here is that 3 parties illegally "trafficked" 5000 licenses without any intention of using them. This creates unfairness, and thus the simple thing to do is everybody go back to a new auction round, and the FCC start a prosecution of these spoilers. Furthermore, many entities have applied for multiple frequencies in the same location in the same town. In Seattle, Calvary Chapel applied for 6 frequencies, all broadcasting at the same location. If that is not abuse,I really don't know what is.
 
> the
> translator would be non-commercial even if it is in the
> "non-reserved band," e.g., 92.1~107.9. This would mean that
> the ownership would not have to pay a regulatory fee. Of
> course, they couldn't run commercials either.

I believe translators, even those in the non-comm band, can locally originate 30 seconds of commercials per hour (separate from the NCE-FM originator).<P ID="signature">______________
http://www.RichardJDalton.com</P>
 
> Yes, there is currently a "freeze" on applications filed in
> 2003 for the latest round of translators. Rumor has it that
> the FCC will send everybody back to the drawing board, and
> create another auction at a later time. At issue here is
> that 3 parties illegally "trafficked" 5000 licenses without
> any intention of using them. This creates unfairness, and
> thus the simple thing to do is everybody go back to a new
> auction round, and the FCC start a prosecution of these
> spoilers. Furthermore, many entities have applied for
> multiple frequencies in the same location in the same town.
> In Seattle, Calvary Chapel applied for 6 frequencies, all
> broadcasting at the same location. If that is not abuse,I
> really don't know what is.
>
I would be interested if you see anything more concrete on this. Edgewater has applications for translators on my adjacents. One with 250 watts near the only mall in our market.

Translators can run requests for funds to support the operation of the translator. (30 seconds, as described) They cannot, however, run actual commercials.
 
> Translators can run requests for funds to support the
> operation of the translator. (30 seconds, as described)
> They cannot, however, run actual commercials.

I vote for anything that will force the Calvary Chapel/Edgewater/etc translators off the air.

All religious broadcasting should be termed "commercial", regardless of dial position, and be regulated accordingly.
 
> Translators can run requests for funds to support the
> operation of the translator. (30 seconds, as described)
> They cannot, however, run actual commercials.

I've heard an outright locally-originated commercial on a non-comm translator before, and I figured it was done under Sec. 74.1231, which I took an excerpt from below:

"Such acknowledgements may include identification of the contributors, the size or nature of the contributions and advertising messages of contributors."<P ID="signature">______________
http://www.RichardJDalton.com</P>
 
> > Translators can run requests for funds to support the
> > operation of the translator. (30 seconds, as described)
> > They cannot, however, run actual commercials.
>
> I've heard an outright locally-originated commercial on a
> non-comm translator before, and I figured it was done under
> Sec. 74.1231, which I took an excerpt from below:
>
> "Such acknowledgements may include identification of the
> contributors, the size or nature of the contributions and
> advertising messages of contributors."
>
There are "fill-in" translators, and then there are "non-fill-in" translators. A Commercial station may own a fill-in translator if it is within that primary station's 60 dbu service contour. Typically there is a terrain obstruction preventing that station from reaching an audience or community that would normally be served in the absence of this blockage. The non-fill-in translator can serve a Commercial or Non-commercial station outside of the primary stations' 60 dbu, but it needs to be owned by another party. There is recent case law that may exempt the non-com primary station from this restriction. I know of a non-com which owns a translator outside of it's service contour. The individually-owned translators have 30 seconds per hour to acknowledge donations and run underwriting announcements as long as they conform to FCC rules about underwriting. So translators can indeed sell underwriting to that town's commercial establishments. There is also a petition to the FCC to allow your bible-thumpers to allow satellite-fed translators in both the reserved (non-com) band (currently allowed) and the non-reserved (commercial) band (proposal). We feel this is an abuse of the system in that if this restriction is lifted, you will see nationally-fed low power translators crop up all across America on multiple second-adjacent channels which will squeeze out any chance of Low Power FM's and totally fly in the face of the Commission's Broadcast Localism docket and Section 307(b) mandate's from Congress. In other words, this proposal is a complete, utter sham.
 
A non-commercial station has always been able to install a translator outside the service area (typically the 60 dbu contour).

If the translator is in the reserved band (88-91.9) they can be fed by satellite. If the translaotr is in the non-reserved band (92.1-107.9, it must be fed by "terrestrial" means, e.g. off-air, off-air from another translator, or by STL.

My impression is the intent was that underwriting announcements parallel the tenor of underwriting announcements on a non-com. Although I have heard of commercials being run on the translators.

Given the general pita this would be to set-up the equipment to run announcements for a translator for an LP-100, why bother?
 
You're right! Re: commercials

> My impression is the intent was that underwriting
> announcements parallel the tenor of underwriting
> announcements on a non-com. Although I have heard of
> commercials being run on the translators.

I came across this by accident:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.pdf

Specifically, paragraph 8 says...

We further reject Great Lakes’ contention that section 74.1231(g) of the
Commission’s rules allows noncommercial translator stations to broadcast “advertising messages” that promote their for-profit sponsors. The same restrictions that apply to messages aired by noncommercial FM stations are applicable to noncommercial FM translator facilities.
Consequently, this argument is without merit.

Another example that there are more rules than there are in the rulebook. :)<P ID="signature">______________
http://www.RichardJDalton.com</P>
 
All religious broadcasting should be termed "commercial",
> regardless of dial position, and be regulated accordingly.
>

I completely agree with you.
Seems all these religious stations with translators just cludder up the band.
 
Re: You're right! Re: commercials

> > My impression is the intent was that underwriting
> > announcements parallel the tenor of underwriting
> > announcements on a non-com. Although I have heard of
> > commercials being run on the translators.
>
> I came across this by accident:
http:/> /hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3864A1.pdf
>
>
> Specifically, paragraph 8 says...
>
> We further reject Great Lakes’ contention that section
> 74.1231(g) of the
> Commission’s rules allows noncommercial translator stations
> to broadcast “advertising messages” that promote their
> for-profit sponsors. The same restrictions that apply to
> messages aired by noncommercial FM stations are applicable
> to noncommercial FM translator facilities.
> Consequently, this argument is without merit.
>
> Another example that there are more rules than there are in
> the rulebook. :)

Exactly--that's why it's important not only to look at the statutes (Title 47, US Code), the rules and regulations (47 CFR, Sec. 73, for broadcast), but also to case law in the DC Circuit, as well as the FCC's own agency interpretations and commission rulings. THAT is our law--not just the statute or rule books, but the interpretations in the common law.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom