A group that advocates for low-power FM stations is worried that any changes made by the FCC to current ownership rules for commercial broadcasters will have consequences on smaller community-based radio services.
In fact, it said if the commission relaxes ownership limits for primary broadcasters, it should update LPFM’s ownership limits in unison, to ensure consistency, fairness and preservation of community-based service.
The Low Power FM Advocacy Group (LPFM-AG) is among the thousands of filers who have commented during the FCC’s proceeding on broadcast ownership rules, which could result in major reforms and the elimination of AM and FM ownership caps.
“If ownership limits are relaxed, the resulting increase in local market power will have predictable downstream effects on smaller broadcasters unless complementary measures are considered,” according to the group’s filing.
The recent reply comments, signed by Dave Solomon, executive director of LPFM-AG, outline its concerns about further radio ownership consolidation and how increased local market power affects broadcasters that lack those advantages.
“Increased concentration alters the economic environment in which smaller broadcasters operate, particularly those without access to multi-station sales operations, regional branding, or capital reserves,” the group wrote.
In addition, Solomon said the FCC’s existing rules for the LPFM broadcast service create many challenges, despite the service being closely aligned with the commission’s localism objectives.
Restrictive ownership rules for LPFM
Right now, a party cannot hold an “attributable interest,” as defined by the FCC, in more than one LPFM station. Radio World has reported on repeated LPFM application rejections as a result of the ownership limit rule.
Solomon cautioned that LPFM operators are currently hampered by the most restrictive ownership, transfer and technical rules of any broadcast service.
“These constraints become more consequential as ownership consolidation increases elsewhere in the broadcast landscape,” he wrote.
(Read LPFM-AG’s reply comments, filed on Dec. 25.)
Therefore, the advocacy group is concerned that commercial broadcast ownership changes without parallel reform for LPFM would amplify existing asymmetries and increase pressure on community-based services.
If LPFM ownership rules were updated with reasonable “guardrails,” the group asserted that the service would be better assured that increased concentration does not operate “to the exclusive benefit of large clusters,” while leaving small and community broadcasters “increasingly exposed.”
The group pointed out that the commission has already determined that a rigid one station ownership limit for LPFM is not universally appropriate. Under existing FCC rules, according to the group, certain applicants are “expressly permitted to hold attributable interests in more than one LPFM station where doing so is necessary to serve their communities effectively.”
Specifically, the LPFM advocacy group noted that the commission already allows Tribal applicants and public safety or governmental entities operating within their jurisdiction to own up to two LPFM stations.
In addition, under current rules, LPFM stations may not be transferred for fair market value, according to the group.
“As a result, LPFM licenses are frequently surrendered rather than transferred,” LPFM-AG said.
AM broadcasters face similar challenges
Meanwhile, the LPFM advocate argued that small, locally-owned AM broadcasters face the same threat as LPFMs if further commercial ownership consolidation is allowed by the FCC.
They often rely on a single FM translator to remain viable. In addition, the group said, many AMs are minority owned and serve local or cultural communities.
LPFM-AG, which claimed over 500 low power FM radio stations have been killed off in the past 15 years, said noncommercial broadcasters also face comparable structural exposure.
“LPFM stations depend on local underwriting, fundraising and volunteer support. Neither service can realistically compete for local economic support against large clusters with dominant market presence,” the group wrote.
The LPFM advocacy group said commenters in the record supporting deregulation repeatedly argue “that rigid, legacy rules should give way to more flexible, service-based standards.”
Solomon argued that applying that same logic requires examining whether LPFM ownership transfer, and technical restrictions remain necessary in all circumstances.
“Absent such LPFM reforms, existing LPFM transfer and ownership restrictions will continue to force license surrender and permanently deprive communities of locally originated radio service,” Solomon wrote.
