Print  RSS 
Mar 9

Written by:
3/9/2011 6:24 AM 


Paul McLane is U.S. editor in chief.

“If you’re looking to move an AM or FM radio station from a small community to a different, bigger, community, your job probably just got a boatload harder.”

That’s the analysis of communications lawyer Matt McCormick of a recent FCC decision in the commission's “rural radio” proceeding.

Writing on the blog of law firm Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, McCormick says the decision “tightens up radio channel allotment standards considerably,” raising barriers that limit the influx of channels to metropolitan areas. He said the FCC also made it harder for FM translators to “pop in or out” of the reserved portion of the FM band.

“Concerned that the continuing trend of stations toward metro areas may be leaving the radio needs of rural areas underserved, the FCC has now come up with a new approach designed to slow (if not stop altogether) that trend,” he explains in an excellent summary of the implications of the decision.

The FCC order says that in certain circumstances, a proposal to place a radio station in a community of license near a bigger city will be treated as though it is proposing service to the entire urbanized area. This would have the effect of not giving some applicants a “priority preference” for local service, which some people think owners have misused in trying to get signals into lucrative larger markets.

The commission also tweaked another “priority” to put more emphasis on coverage of relatively underserved areas “rather than raw differences in the number of people covered.”

These changes affect various common allotment situations such as proposed community of license changes; applications for new AM stations and major mods to existing AM stations; and new FM allotment proposals.

McCormick’s summary of the Second Report & Order is well worth a read if you or your business are involved in such strategies.



Categories:
Location: Blogs Parent Separator Rwonline Blog
Mar 09


3/9/2011 10:24:06 AM 


Paul McLane is U.S. editor in chief.

“If you’re looking to move an AM or FM radio station from a small community to a different, bigger, community, your job probably just got a boatload harder.”

That’s the analysis of communications lawyer Matt McCormick of a recent FCC decision in the commission's “rural radio” proceeding.

Writing on the blog of law firm Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, McCormick says the decision “tightens up radio channel allotment standards considerably,” raising barriers that limit the influx of channels to metropolitan areas. He said the FCC also made it harder for FM translators to “pop in or out” of the reserved portion of the FM band.

“Concerned that the continuing trend of stations toward metro areas may be leaving the radio needs of rural areas underserved, the FCC has now come up with a new approach designed to slow (if not stop altogether) that trend,” he explains in an excellent summary of the implications of the decision.

The FCC order says that in certain circumstances, a proposal to place a radio station in a community of license near a bigger city will be treated as though it is proposing service to the entire urbanized area. This would have the effect of not giving some applicants a “priority preference” for local service, which some people think owners have misused in trying to get signals into lucrative larger markets.

The commission also tweaked another “priority” to put more emphasis on coverage of relatively underserved areas “rather than raw differences in the number of people covered.”

These changes affect various common allotment situations such as proposed community of license changes; applications for new AM stations and major mods to existing AM stations; and new FM allotment proposals.

McCormick’s summary of the Second Report & Order is well worth a read if you or your business are involved in such strategies.



Comments

Thank you for your comment. Please note that posts are reviewed for suitability and may not appear until the next business day.

Archive

July 2016 (4)
June 2016 (3)
May 2016 (4)
April 2016 (3)
March 2016 (6)
February 2016 (4)
January 2016 (6)
December 2015 (7)
November 2015 (6)
October 2015 (11)
September 2015 (7)
August 2015 (8)
July 2015 (10)
June 2015 (14)
May 2015 (5)
April 2015 (6)
March 2015 (6)
February 2015 (4)
January 2015 (5)
December 2014 (7)
November 2014 (6)
October 2014 (10)
September 2014 (11)
August 2014 (14)
July 2014 (4)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (5)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (6)
February 2014 (7)
January 2014 (8)
December 2013 (9)
November 2013 (11)
October 2013 (9)
September 2013 (6)
August 2013 (5)
July 2013 (1)
June 2013 (4)
May 2013 (3)
April 2013 (2)
March 2013 (8)
February 2013 (8)
January 2013 (7)
December 2012 (3)
November 2012 (4)
October 2012 (7)
September 2012 (10)
August 2012 (4)
July 2012 (7)
June 2012 (4)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (10)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (6)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (5)
October 2011 (8)
September 2011 (9)
August 2011 (10)
July 2011 (6)
June 2011 (5)
May 2011 (7)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (9)
February 2011 (6)
January 2011 (7)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (3)
October 2010 (6)
September 2010 (10)
August 2010 (8)
July 2010 (7)
June 2010 (5)
May 2010 (5)
April 2010 (11)
March 2010 (7)
February 2010 (5)
January 2010 (4)
December 2009 (2)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (5)
September 2009 (6)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (3)
June 2009 (15)
May 2009 (8)
April 2009 (6)
March 2009 (2)
February 2009 (2)
January 2009 (1)
December 2008 (5)