LPFM – Page 3 – Engineering Radio

FCC seeks further comment on Low Power FM (LPFM)

While I was away, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (11-105) regarding LPFM and translators. There are several issues with a backlog of translator applications and the possible LPFM window that looms out in the future somewhere. The current FCC translator rules bear little or no resemblance to the reality of FM translator use today.

The basic translator rules are found in FCC 74.1206 through 74.1290 with the programming and permissible service outlined in FCC 74.1231:

Sec. 74.1231 Purpose and permissible service.

(a) FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of AM or FM broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct reception of such AM or FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers, and a means for AM Class D stations to continue operating at night.
(b) An FM translator may be used for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of a primary AM or FM radio broadcast station or another translator station the signal of which is received directly through space, converted, and suitably amplified, and originating programming to the extent authorized in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section. However, an FM translator providing fill-in service may use any terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being rebroadcast. An FM booster station or a noncommercial educational FM translator station that is operating on a reserved channel (Channels 201-220) and is owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational station it rebroadcasts may use alternative signal delivery means, including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. Provided, however, that an applicant for a noncommercial educational translator operating on a reserved channel (Channel 201-220) and owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational AM or FM station it rebroadcasts complies with either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section:
(1) The applicant demonstrates that:
(i) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is within 80 kilometers of the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast; or,
(ii) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 160 kilometers from the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station; or,
(iii) The application is mutually exclusive with an application containing the showing as required by paragraph 74.1231(b)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section; or,
(iv) The application is filed after October 1, 1992.
(2) If the transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 80 kilometers from the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast or is within 160 kilometers of the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station, the applicant must show that:
(i) An alternative frequency can be used at the same site as the proposed FM translator’s transmitter location and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant’s proposed 1 mV/m contour; or,
(ii) An alternative frequency can be used at a different site and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant’s proposed 1 mV/m contour.
(c) The transmissions of each FM translator or booster station shall be intended only for direct reception by the general public. An FM translator or booster shall not be operated solely for the purpose of relaying signals to one or more fixed received points for retransmission, distribution, or further relaying in order to establish a point-to-point FM radio relay system.
(d) The technical characteristics of the retransmitted signals shall not be deliberately altered so as to hinder reception on conventional FM broadcast receivers.
(e) An FM translator shall not deliberately retransmit the signals of any station other than the station it is authorized to retransmit. Precautions shall be taken to avoid unintentional retransmission of such other signals.
(f) A locally generated radio frequency signal similar to that of an FM broadcast station and modulated with aural information may be connected to the input terminals of an FM translator for the purpose of transmitting voice announcements. The radio frequency signals shall be on the same channel as the normally used off-the-air signal being rebroadcast. Connection of the locally generated signals shall be made by any automatic means when transmitting originations concerning
financial support. The connections for emergency transmissions may be made manually. The apparatus used to generate the local signal that is used to modulate the FM translator must be capable of producing an aural signal which will provide acceptable reception on FM receivers designed for the transmission standards employed by FM broadcast stations.
(g) The aural material transmitted as permitted in paragraph (f) of this section shall be limited to emergency warnings of imminent danger and to seeking or acknowledging financial support deemed necessary to the continued operation of the translator. Originations concerning financial support are limited to a total of 30 seconds an hour. Within this limitation the length of any particular announcement will be left to the discretion of the translator station licensee. Solicitations of contributions shall be limited to the defrayal of the costs of installation, operation and maintenance of the translator or acknowledgements of financial support for those purposes. Such acknowledgements may include identification of the contributors, the size or nature of the contributions and advertising messages of contributors. Emergency transmissions shall be no longer or more frequent than necessary to protect life and property.
(h) An FM translator station that rebroadcasts a Class D AM radio broadcast station as its primary station may originate programming during the hours the primary station is not operating, subject to the provisions of Sec. 74.1263(b) of this part.
(i) FM broadcast booster stations provide a means whereby the licensee of an FM broadcast station may provide service to areas in any region within the primary station’s predicted, authorized service contours. An FM broadcast booster station is authorized to retransmit only the signals of its primary station which have been received directly through space and suitably amplified, or received by alternative signal delivery means including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. The FM booster station shall not retransmit the signals of any other station nor make independent transmissions, except that locally generated signals may be used to excite the booster apparatus for the purpose of conducting tests and measurements essential to the proper installation and maintenance of the apparatus.

With a possible exception for use by Class D AM stations, the translator service has gone far away from what it was intended to be and even, in some cases, contradicts the current rules. DIY Media goes more into this in Unholy Alliance.

Consolidators are using translators to get around market ownership caps by using them to re-broadcast HD-2 and HD-3 channels, which would otherwise go unheard. Others are using translators to establish large networks of over-the-air relays to greatly extend their coverage far beyond any natural signal contour. Religious and public radio stations rely extensively on translators to establish radio signals that are several times the size of the original station. In one case, a translator in Harrisburg, PA is broadcasting a satellite feed of the True Oldies Channel that does not appear on any AM, FM or HD sub-channel in the market. The 80/160 KM distances noted above in section B(1)(i) and (ii) seem to be largely ignored.

What the FCC wants to know is this: There are thousands of pending translator applications; what is to be done about them in light of the new LPFM legislation Congress passed last year? Should they be dismissed, approved, or some market-based combination of the two? Keep in mind, the new LPFM stations are on an equal regulatory footing with translators, unlike full-power FM or the previous LPFM licenses granted in 2003.

Whatever the outcome, it would appear that this will be the final chance to get an LPFM license when the filing window opens. After this, there will likely not be a scrap of spectrum left to dole out. The deadline for filing comments with the FCC is August 29th.

Media

It dawned on me, earlier today, that the current decline in radio and all traditional media in general, is no coincidence. When the radio consolidations took place ten or so years ago, the first thing that was almost always cut or eliminated was the newsroom. Along with that, local programming in general was reduced or replaced with automation.

This, in turn, leads to a bland, uninformative product that the general public doesn’t really care about.

Local newspapers have all but disappeared too. The remaining ones are owned by one of several large newspaper-holding companies like Gannett, Newscorp, Hearst, and Tribune. In a similar radio scenario, local papers were bought up by these companies, newsroom staff was cut, the quality of content declined, and readership declined accordingly. Rinse, and repeat until the paper is nothing but a shell of its former self, filled with mostly used car ads.

But isn’t the internet the cause of all this? No, the internet and the so-called “new media” are filling a void left by the hollowed-out old media. New media, which often relies on people who may be well-intended, but do not have the training in investigative journalism, often lacks credibility when it really counts. Unfortunately, it is easy to search the internet and find articles that lack any type of referenced source material or have other technical problems that call into question the authenticity of the material. Much of this could be corrected with the right links or posting of original documents to back up the story. This is an often pointed to weakness with internet sources of information. There are, however, some outstanding new media outlets, from some surprising locations.

Media outlets (as well as most other businesses) in this country are mostly controlled by big Wall Street banks. Here is how that works:

Media company A wants to buy some or all of media company B.
They go to a bank to get a loan.
After much negotiating and back and forth, the bank agrees to give A the loan, under certain conditions.
Those conditions include continued performance, annual revenue growth, and periodic audits.
In a buy-or-be-bought world, there is no other alternative for A, but to agree with those conditions.
Media company A now needs continued credit to continue to operate their business, this is what happened during the great consolidation, not only of radio but TV and Newspapers as well.
If and when the conditions of the loan look like they are not being met, the bank sends out its representatives to talk to the owners of media company A.
They “suggest” moves to improve the bottom line, often offering to make concessions if certain conditions are met, such as installing voice tracking and laying off workers or selling properties
Newsrooms are cut first as news is labor intensive and does not make any money.
Slowly, the rest of the staff is reduced or has their pay and hours reduced.

It is thus that the large banksters have gained control of much of the “traditional” media in this country. They have sought to steer the free press into oblivion, substituting, instead, the corporatist media outlets we see today in NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, FoxNews, as well as the above-mentioned newspaper holding companies. While skimming over general news items, much of the important news of the day goes unreported. Things like the Fed’s latest round of quantitative easing (QE3), the ever-expanding role of TSA, the unauthorized nature of the Libyan adventure and the possible ties to Goldman Sachs, the continuing nuclear release at Fukushima, FDA approval of GMO seeds, the FCC’s revolving door employees, ever-increasing amounts of police brutality, etc are under-reported or not reported at all.

Why are those particular stories important? Because the implications impact every one of us, only most people don’t know or understand that. Citizens of this country have no idea why things are getting so expensive, why their jobs have disappeared, why their houses are worth less than they paid for them, why the current crop of politicians looks worse than the last crop, why police are dressing like storm troopers and gunning people down in their own homes, etc. It all reminds me of the Pink Floyd song, Sheep:

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air

We are being fed with little bits of oversimplified, unconnected, and or incomplete information which only fits the narrative the so-called news organization is putting forward. Deviation from the narrative rarely occurs and only under the most unusual circumstances or by accident.

The answer is, of course, to support those independent media outlets that are still around. The independent radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers as well as those online news sources and aggregators that do a good job getting the story out need to stick around. It would also help to increase the number of independent, non-conflicted (interest-wise) sources of information. I would suggest that everyone do a little bit of digging around and find out who, in their own neck of the woods, is an honest source of local news.

If there is not a local independent media outlet, consider starting one. The new LPFM rules are still being worked on, the FCC has promised to speed this along, which means we should see something in the next five years or so. While we wait, consider blogging or teaming up with a group of people to launch an online news site. While I have been blogging for several years, I have learned one very important fact: People love the truth. That is the surest formula for success, tell the truth and back it up with valid sources and documentation. I know many people in the radio news business that, if asked, would be happy to give some pointers on local news gatherings.

One thing is for sure, we can no longer sit around and wait for someone to do something. If we are to change the course of this country, each and every one of us needs to contribute.

Local Community Radio Act becomes law

The President has signed the reconciled bill into law, it will be published in the national register. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski promises “swift action” to get the new rules in place. If this law leads to a bunch of new, live local community radio stations springing up across the country then it is a welcome thing. With all the rumbling in Congress about cutting public radio funding, LPFM may have some big shoes to fill. I have to admit, that I am generally a supporter of public radio, however, they have gotten off track (full of themselves) in the last few years.

There are many different requirements placed on the FCC by the LCRA to thread the LPFM needle around translators and full-power FM stations, so it may take a little time to craft new LPFM rules, however, I’d expect to see a filing window sometime in 2011.

If you are considering an LPFM station and are eligible for a license, take a peek at Prometheus Radio Project, which has a wealth of information about LPFM station building.

If you need a good engineer to file paperwork, specify equipment, consult about transmitter locations, towers, antennas, and so forth, drop me a line. You can find my info and contact information in the About section.

Welcome, LPFM 2.0

The FM band is about to get more crowded, courtesy of the legislative branch of the US government. I have been mixed on LPFM based on my own technical experiences. That being said, the FCC seems hell-bent on shoe-horning every possible signal into the FM band, so why not? It certainly won’t be any worse than IBOC or the ever-growing crop of translators. LPFM could possibly bring back local radio to some markets, depending on who gets the licenses and how they are acted on. A local school district around here picked up an LPFM license on the last go around. During the double blizzard of February 2010, they filled the shoes of the two former local stations, which have become remote-controlled repeater stations for a city 35 miles away, so there is a glimmer of possibility.

According to HR 6533, the original channel spacings (elimination of the 3rd adjacent channel protections) in MM Docket No. 99-25 are to be implemented. Additionally, LPFM stations are on the same footing as translators and FM booster stations, which is a slight change from LPFM 1.1

I’d expect to see an NPRM from the FCC rather quickly, as the bill is pretty specific. It may be interesting to see how possible frequencies are identified for LPFM service.