TelecomMediaTech Law Blog - FCC's New Rules for Rural AM and FM Radio Service Make Waves but Miss the Mark - Comments http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/ Washington DC Lawyer and Attorney for Telecommunications, Federal Communications Commission, FCC, Broadcast, Satellite, Cable, Technology en Copyright 2013 Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:51:32 -0500 Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:51:32 -0500 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.32-en http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Darryl DeLawder Very nice article, David. FCC Rules that previously allowed generally minor improvement options for small to mid-sized FM and AM stations has just been dramatically road-blocked by the Commission!

Along with the added restrictions to Urbanized Area move-ins, the inability to move an FM (with a community change) that creates ANY new white or gray area, no matter how small these areas may be, will prevent many small market to medium market improvements. (As you know, but for your readers benefit, areas within the FM station's service contour with no other or only one other full-time radio service, respectively, are referred to as white and gray area.) If this is indeed what the FCC has in mind by placing an "absolute bar" to such community change modifications that would create any white or gray area, then some modest station improvements will be prevented.

Question--do you have any sense of whether back-fill allotments will be allowed to prevent the creation of white/gray areas by such changes (especially where the facility being moved is an un-built CP or is still simply an allotment)?

]]> http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broadcast/fccs-new-rules-for-rural-am-and-fm-radio-service-make-waves-but-miss-the-mark/#26394 http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broadcast/fccs-new-rules-for-rural-am-and-fm-radio-service-make-waves-but-miss-the-mark/#26394 BroadcastSpectrum Auctions Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:54:56 -0500 David G. O’Neil David G. O’Neil Thanks Darryl. The FCC's new procedures with regard to the absolute bar on creating a new white or grey area apply to Priority (4) and moving into an urbanized area. It remains uncertain whether the same prohibition will apply when seeking a Priority (4) preference and not relocating into an urbanized area. In certain instances the FCC has accepted back-fill allotments when used to maintain a first local service in a community of license, but the FCC did not address the issue in this decision.

]]> http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broadcast/fccs-new-rules-for-rural-am-and-fm-radio-service-make-waves-but-miss-the-mark/#26395 http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broadcast/fccs-new-rules-for-rural-am-and-fm-radio-service-make-waves-but-miss-the-mark/#26395 BroadcastSpectrum Auctions Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:54:56 -0500 David G. O’Neil Darryl DeLawder David, I like your interpretation--that the white/gray area bar only applies to Priority(4) and UA move-ins. But looking at Paragraph 16 of the Rural NPRM, I'm not convinced that it is limited that way:

"16. Discussion. In keeping with the Section 307(b) priorities, we propose that a community of license change that creates “white” or “gray” areas (areas with no or only one reception service) should not be allowed under any circumstances. Given that provision of first or second reception service are the first two Section 307(b) priorities, we believe that such an absolute bar is necessary to ensure that the least well-served populations do not suffer further drops in the level of reception service. We seek comment on our proposal. "

]]> http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broadcast/fccs-new-rules-for-rural-am-and-fm-radio-service-make-waves-but-miss-the-mark/#26396 http://www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broadcast/fccs-new-rules-for-rural-am-and-fm-radio-service-make-waves-but-miss-the-mark/#26396 BroadcastSpectrum Auctions Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:54:56 -0500 David G. O’Neil