[grc] IMPT: Help LPFMs extend their reach! - File comments by Aug. 8 @ midnight ET

[Sharon Scott]

Forwarded from Todd Urick of Common Frequency

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FCC Proposed Rule Making Pertinent to LPFM
Date: 2023-08-08 01:40
 From: Todd Urick <todd at commonfrequency.org>
To: Todd Urick <toddurick at gmail.com>

If you are affiliated with a non-commercial or LPFM radio station and
your station ever wanted to apply for a FM translator* (*_a licensed FM
transmitter to re-broadcast you main station signal to either extend
your station, or fix interference issues_), you may consider submitting
a _Reply Comment_ to the FCC by Wednesday August 9 (due by the end of
the day, midnight eastern time) concerning Proposed Rulemaking RM-11952.
  This proposed rulemaking asks the FCC to enact policies that limit
speculators in applying for FM translators (for profiteering purposes),
and asks to provide more opportunity for non-commercial and LPFM
broadcasters to apply for FM translators (the next FM translator filing
window, anticipated in the next couple years).

_You might consider filing a comment to the FCC:_

- Stating you are in favor of limitations on mass FM translator filers
and speculation.

- Tell the FCC that the next FM translator filing window should be
designated for LPFM and non-commercial stations only.  Commercial
broadcasters have been given ample opportunities within the last three
translator filing windows (two filing windows for translators for AM
stations in 2017, and a filing window in 2003).

- LPFM has never had an opportunity to file for FM translators.  NCE
stations have not had an opportunity for decades.

- LPFM faces many signal problems.  LPFM licensees have asked the FCC
for years for signal relief without any opportunity up to this point.
Tell the FCC your station's signal problems.

- NCE and LPFM community stations have fringe areas where no other local
community stations serve.  It would be in the local public interest to
extend those signals to fringe areas with a FM translator.

- If you really want to get into the finer points of the rule-making,
read below at "BACKGROUND" (recommended).

You can file an ECFS comment with the FCC here:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/standard

You can choose _STANDARD FILING_ (attach PDF that you wrote) or _EXPRESS
COMMENT _(write a comment into blank on the FCC site)

Under "Proceeding" enter RM-11952

BACKGROUND:

In August 2022 LPFM advocate REC Networks ("REC") filed the "Translator
Reform" petition for rulemaking with the FCC.  Recently, the FCC has
opened a window for comments on the proposal, which is currently in the
Reply-Comments stage.  REC has proposed to the FCC policies to prevent
the same trafficking and gamesmanship that followed the last FM
translator filing opportunity ("filing window", or "Auction") in 2003.
In this FCC Auction, several speculators filed dozen(s) to hundreds of
applications for new FM translators on speculation, to merely sell for
profit.

In 2017 there were two more FM translator filing windows (for new
translators) for AM licensees to apply to rebroadcast their AM stations
on FM.  During this filing window, the FCC ignored following the mandate
of the Local Community Radio Act ("LCRA"), which required the FCC to
save channels for future LPFM filing opportunities.  Because of this,
there are not that many frequencies left in cities for LPFM or new
translators (major cities have no open channels).

REC proposes restrictions within the next FM translator filing window
which places limitations on the resale of FM translators, requires more
disclosure of attributable interest, filing caps, and other mild
limitations.  REC also asks the FCC (for LPFM licensees) to eliminate
the LPFM to FM translator contour overlap requirement (which is
untenable), replace the 10/20 mile market-dependent distance
restrictions for a translator owned by a LPFM with a 25-mile
restriction, and other small adjustments.  REC proposes an enhanced
protection system of protecting LPFM openings in the FM band from being
claimed by translators via a “disparity factor" regimen.

REC requests for the next FM translator file window be designated for
LPFM and NCE stations to apply for translators between 88.1 FM - 91.9
FM.

Non-commercial/LPFM advocates Common Frequency has submitted a comment
that aggressively asks the FCC for much stronger protocols for the next
FM translator filing window that _favors local non-commercial NCE and
LPFM stations_.  This list includes:

- Filing caps don't work to keep speculators from applying for large
amounts of FM translators and reselling them.

- In the last two FM translator filing windows, where AM stations were
allowed to apply for FM translators, the FCC did not comply with the
LCRA.  Much more stringent measures are needed to save room for LPFM and
NCE FM translators.

- Commercial radio licensees do not need another opportunity to file for
more FM translators because they have had ample opportunities to do so.
It is time to open an opportunity for only LPFM and NCE FM to apply for
FM translators, because:

(a) There has been no or little opportunity for them to apply in the
last two decades

(b) Both services have a dire need to fix signal interference issues and
extend their local programming to other communities.

Specific policies or actions CF recommends include:

(1) Limiting the number of applications to five by any entity to prevent
speculation.

(2) The filer should be in the proximity of the proposed new FM
translator.  Or rebroadcast a station that can be received off-the-air
(_not via satellite or internet_ -- to dissuade national networks).

(3) The next filing window should be for nonprofits, LFPM, and
non-commercial stations only.  The FCC should allow applicants to
propose translators anywhere on the FM band, _not just 88.1 FM -91.9
FM._

(4) Translators applied for by LPFM licensees should have no 60 dBu
overlap or distance-to-headquarters requirement.  These measures stifle
the amelioration of complex interference and signal issues.

(5) Applicants should provide a brief narrative of the "intention of
use" for a newly-proposed FM translator.  This should deter speculators.

(6) The FCC should modify the "FCC point system" (this system designates
the highest point-receiver as the winner of a radio channel if multiple
applicants apply for the same channel).

    (a) A point should be given for a broadcaster with a local studio
creating local programming.

    (b) A point should be given to broadcasters that currently do not own
any translators and are only applying for one translator.

    (c) Change the "establish local" point.  This affords points to
applicants that have been around two years applying for a translator
within 25 miles of their station.  However, for full power community and
public stations, they may want to apply for a translator more than 25
miles away.  The proposal allows these NCE applicants to claim local
points if it is within the 40 dBu fringe contour of their station which
shares a common headquarters for the entity.

    (d) Do away with the translator "technical superiority" point system.
The FCC usually rewards the proposal that maximizes use of spectrum
(large coverage areas).  Although this subject matter is difficult to
explain, "technical superiority" usually rewards the dominant
broadcaster who has access to the best tower site, and does not use
spectrum strategically.

You can read REC's proposal and Common Frequency's comments via the
links below

CF's Comment https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/107270843413704/1

REC's Proposed Rulemaking: Well-summarized by REC here:
_https://recnet.com/node/3849_ and the proposed rulemaking as submitted:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1072672306591/1

Thanks

Todd
Common Frequency