Why Prometheus is Wrong To Challenge New FM Translator Rule

3

The FCC’s FM translator location rule for AM stations was recently amended in the AM Revitalization Second Report and Order. Effective April 10, 2017, FM translators re-broadcasting AM stations are allowed expanded transmitter site locations.

The new rule provides that an FM translator’s predicted 60 dBμ coverage contour may now be contained within 25 miles from the AM transmitter site, or the AM station’s 2 mV/m contour, whichever is greater. Previously under the old rule, the 60 dBμ contour of FM translators re-broadcasting AM stations were limited to 25 miles or the AM station’s 2 mV/m contour, whichever was lesser.

Just days before the April 10th effective date of the new rule relaxing transmitter site locations, Prometheus Radio Project, a strong proponent of LPFM stations, asked the FCC for a stay in a Petition for Emergency Partial Stay and Processing Freeze. Prometheus Radio Project claims that the rule change will “box in” LPFM stations because transmitter sites used by LPFMs “are more likely to be torn down or converted to other uses” leaving nowhere for the LPFM to move.

The Prometheus Radio Project petition rests upon a wholly erroneous foundation – the premise that existing radio stations should be given a buffer zone against a wholly conjectural possibility of a transmitter site loss. This type of protection has never been accorded to any broadcast station.

Prometheus Radio Project uses as the basis for its complaint the removal of a previously-proposed 40 mile limitation from the final rule. In its 2015 AM Revitalization Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the FCC initially concluded that the 60 dBμ of FM translators carrying AM stations should not extend beyond 40 miles from the AM transmitter site irrespective of the reach of the 2 mV/m contour. In the adopted rule, the 40 mile overall limitation was not adopted.

As a practical matter, the 40 mile limitation is inapplicable to most AM station/FM translator situations. Only the most powerful AM stations have 2 mV/m contours that exceed 40 miles.

Because only the most powerful AM stations are impacted by the 40 mile limitation, the Prometheus Radio Project lament that “hundreds, if not thousands” of applications will be filed, taking advantage of the lack of a 40 mile limitation on the April 10th effective date, is untenable.   In fact, it is unlikely that there will be even several dozen AM stations on April 10th proposing to extend their FM translator’s 60 dBμ contour further than 40 miles from the AM transmitter site.

On April 10th, it is highly likely that there will be a significant number of AM stations with highly directional patterns or small coverage areas that take advantage of the new rules to have the 60 dBμ of their FM translator exceed their 2 mV/m contour, but not exceed the still-imposed 25 mile limitation. Such situations would not have been impacted by the now-discarded 40 mile overall limitation.

Prometheus Radio Project peppers its petition with laudatory comments on the LPFM service coupled with denigrating comments regarding commercial radio stations. While there are no doubt exemplary LPFM stations, it is slander to suggest that commercial radio stations do not serve their communities.

In a one-to-one comparison in a radio market of LPFM stations to commercial stations as to which service carries more local programming, in almost every radio market there will be commercial stations that run rings around whatever LPFMs there may be. This is not to argue that LPFMs are not a positive force for radio. Rather, it is doubtful that an intense scrutiny of the LPFM experiment will show that the majority of these ostensibly community-based stations are the diverse service they claim to be.

Despite the petition’s prolific arguments extolling LPFM programming over that of commercial radio, taking such into account, even if true, would be wholly wrong for the FCC to do. Rather, the issue is whether LPFMs should be accorded special technical protections not now afforded to any other radio service by uniquely granting LPFM transmitter site buffer zones at the expense of another radio service?

The creation of a new protection for LPFMs that might lose a transmitter site is wholly unwarranted. Hopefully, the FCC will agree and will refuse to issue the requested stay of its newly adopted rules.

John Garziglia - RadioJohn F. Garziglia is a Communications Law Attorney with Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice in Washington, DC and can be reached at (202) 857-4455. or[email protected]

3 COMMENTS

  1. The heart of PRP’s argument hits on an issue that is only likely to happen in some rare circumstances and that is an AM station that is along the coast and is an A or a B and wants to put a translator well outside their market. For example, KFI putting a translator in San Diego or Santa Barbara. It’s not going to happen. I not only work extensively with LPFMs on engineering and policy but I also work closely with Class C and D AM stations, mostly rural and have the worst ground conductivity in the nation. I recently heard from one station that has about a 10 mile 2 mV/m and they are having to reduce power and propose directional just to stay inside the contour and I know of many other stations in similar situations. This change would be a godsend for them.

    Will this change impact LPFMs? Yes it will, just like every time a 349 is filed, there is a risk that an LPFM will be impacted. REC is asking that instead of any kind of stay on the new rules that we look at additional flexibility for LPFM stations including the ability for LPFMs to use contour overlap and directional antennas to protect translators on the same level as translators having to protect LPFMs. As long as we do not shorten the minimum distances to full service (A,C3,B1,C2,B,C1,C0,C) stations, it is allowed under the Local Community Radio Act. The FCC needs to clarify to LPFMs their rights in the event of actual interference by a translator within their service contour. The FCC also needs to bring RM-11749 to rulemaking to allow LPFMs to increase power to get to a more level playing field.

    Instead of holding small AM stations hostage, PRP should be joining with REC to make some reforms to LPFM that will LPFMs to have some additional flexibility in the increasing noise floor of the secondary environment.

  2. I too read the entire emergency request for stay. Yes, the argument is basically “don’t allow other radio service in our area because we may have to move.” Well, I’m sure that the AM stations that have invested heavily in adding a translator service would like to have the same protections. As for programming, I’ve listened to the LPFMs in my area. These stations are not as diverse as they claim to be, most playing automated music almost around the clock without any form of local content. They certainly are nowhere near as “local” as our community AM that does have local news, local sports, and a variety of local talk programs. This AM will file on April 10th to modify its translator pattern because the AM is highly directional. The new pattern will slightly exceed the 2mv but will remain well within the 25 mile radius. Oh, and the change will not effect any existing LPFMs…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here