Pai: FCC Exploring A Class C4 FM Allocation


After updating the Thursday afternoon Radio Show crowd on AM revitalization, Commissioner Ajit Pai let the audience in on an idea the Commission is working on that he says will improve the quality of the FM band. Two years ago, the Commission sought comment to create a Class C4 allocation. Immediately, one broadcaster in the audience let us know the idea would displace hundreds of FM translators. Here’s what Pai told the crowd.

The Commissioner said Class C4 FM stations would have more power than Class A FM stations, but less power than Class C3 FM stations. “Specifically, Class C4 FM stations would be allowed a maximum effective radiated power level of 12,000 watts from a reference antenna height of above-average terrain of 100 meters. Under this proposal, it’s likely that hundreds of Class A FM stations could upgrade to Class C4 FM stations. That means they could broadcast with increased power and provide service to more Americans so long as they didn’t impact the existing service contours of other stations.”

We asked Broadcast attorney John Garziglia what he thought of this idea. Here’s what he had to say. “Class C4 may have been a viable and non-disruptive enhancement to FM broadcast service a decade ago. Today, however,  Class C4 upgrades will potentially disrupt and displace service from hundreds of recently granted FM translators now carrying AM and HD sub-channel primary stations.  AM stations in particular have spent significant resources in bringing better service to the listening public through FM translators.  It would be a cruel trick for the FCC to now put that service into jeopardy.   Class C4 will be highly harmful to our radio industry and the listening public unless in-contour FM translators will be fully protected against a forced displacement or termination of operations. ”

Pai says the feedback the Commission’s received on the idea has been generally positive, especially in rural areas and small towns. Pai is in favor of the idea and thinks it’s worth considering. He’d like the Commission to take the next step and issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. An NPRM would allow the Commission to explore the idea more in depth and help Commissioners decide whether or not to implement the idea.


  1. This makes no sense. The translator and LPFM deployments make this basically a government sanctioned taking if it proceeds. Understand these are secondary services but we relied on the FCC to our detriment and invested in these services based on the playing field that existed. It is not fair to change the playing field.

    Why issue thousands of LPFMs and Translators then knock them off the air with this proposal? If the FCC wants community based broadcasting the should rethink this idea.

  2. Anything that allows greater coverage and variety is good for both broadcasters and the listening public. Interference would still not bepermitted.

    Thanks to Commissioner Pai for pushing this improvement in the regulations.

  3. In Seattle, 26 new LPFMs are in the pipe or on the air since 2014 and we’re adding six AM/FX combos. The Seattle metro is in Zone II and is ringed by Class A signals that are co-channel or first-adjacent to many of these 32 new signals. What in the proposal prevents dislocation of these LPFM and FX signals?

  4. The potential for disruption to translators will be minimal, as this proposal only calls for a 12kW allocation in Zone II, covering rural markets. The NPRM, however, should have language that addresses this issue.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here