Nab urges FCC to modify translator proposal and relax main studio rule and staffing requirements.
We publish the recent comments filed by the National Association of Broadcasters with the FCC.
Most footnotes are omitted. You can view the document including footnotes and technical exhibits here.
I. Introduction and Summary
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)1 appreciates the Commission’s
continued efforts to sustain and revitalize the AM radio service. Below we offer our views on certain proposals raised in the Further Notice and NOI in the above-captioned proceeding.2 Specifically, NAB supports the Commission’s relaxation of the criteria for locating a cross- service FM translator (although requests eliminating the newly proposed contour limit) and relaxation of the main studio rules for AM broadcasters, among others. NAB also provides herein summary results from a computer study modeling the potential effect of modifying the daytime protection standards for AM Class B, C and D stations.
II. The Commission Should Revise the Standards for Locating FM Cross-Service Translators
The Commission’s authorization of cross-service translators in 2009 has been a resounding success,3 enabling more than 700 AM radio stations to retransmit their programming with a clearer, more reliable FM signal.
The Commission’s decision in the First R&O allowing AM stations to acquire and move an FM translator up to 250 miles will extend this opportunity to hundreds of additional broadcasters and their listeners.4
However, the Commission’s proposed 40-mile limit on locating such translators may unnecessarily hinder their use by some AM stations.5
The existing rules require that the 60 dBμ contour of an FM cross-service translator must be contained within the smaller of the 25-mile radius from the AM station’s transmitter site or the AM station’s daytime 2 mV/m contour.6 As noted by NAB, these criteria are too restrictive in certain situations, such as where a station’s transmitter site is located far from a population center because of land costs.7 For example, the rule can make it difficult for stations to cover a core service area that is located beyond the 25-mile radius but within the 2 mV/m contour, preventing stations from using an FM translator where it is needed the most. The rule also does not take into account the directionality of numerous AM stations and the possibility that a null in the directional pattern of an AM station may exclude otherwise suitable translator locations.8
NAB thus recommended that, instead of limiting a translator’s 60 dBμ contour to the smaller of an AM station’s 25-mile radius or daytime 2 mV/m contour, the translator should be able to cover the greater of these benchmarks, to increase the flexibility of AM stations in locating FM translators.9 The Commission agrees in the Further Notice, adopting NAB’s proposal; however, the Commission imposes a new restriction that the translator’s coverage contour may not extend beyond a 40-mile (64 km) radius centered at the AM station’s transmitter site.10 The Commission states that this approach will provide useful signal coverage without allowing a cross-service translator to extend an AM radio station’s coverage beyond its “core service area.”11
NAB submits that the newly proposed 40-mile cap should be eliminated as unnecessary because the existing 2 mV/m contour cap effectively constrains operation to the station’s core service area. We also question whether the new limit will raise similar concerns as the previous standard, since a 40-mile maximum distance is no less arbitrary than the 25-mile limit. It will still disadvantage AM stations seeking to reach listeners in a core area located 41 miles or more away from the station’s transmitter site, but within the station’s 2 mV/m contour. The geography of markets can vary widely, and we understand there are many instances where an AM station’s 2 mV/m contour reaches beyond 40 miles, with substantial population centers within those areas. Moreover, even if a station’s contour may be predicted on paper to cover such an urban core, there will always be listeners in such areas unable to receive a decent signal because of interference and noise. A limit of 40 miles on the reach of a translator would prevent stations from minimizing this problem and fulfilling listeners’ expectations.
Given the nationwide trend of expanding population centers within suburbs and exurbs, and ever-increasing commutes, the “core market area” for many AM stations continues to grow and shift. It is critical that AM stations have the flexibility to follow and serve these listeners. NAB sees no reason for a special limit on cross-service translators. Eliminating the 40-mile limit would not allow AM stations to unreasonably expand their service area, or impinge on other radio services. Rather, it would link a translator’s coverage more closely to an AM station’s 2 mV/m contour, which is the definition of a translator that is a “fill-in” asset, in keeping with Section 74.1231 of the rules.12 FM translators remain a secondary service, strictly prohibited from causing interference to any primary full-power stations or first-in-time secondary stations.13 NAB’s proposed modification of the translator coverage criteria is modest, but would provide substantial, immediate benefits to AM stations and their listeners, and in particular to stations participating in the newly implemented 250-mile modification windows.
III. The Commission Should Carefully Consider the Impact of Changing the Daytime Protection Standards for AM Class B, C and D Stations
The Commission proposes to reduce the daytime protected contour for Class B, C and D stations from the 0.5 to the 2 mV/m contour, to allow AM stations to increase power and signal strength to overcome increased levels of environmental noise that degrade their service.14 NAB appreciates the Commission’s commitment to improving AM radio service, especially given the interference challenges faced by AM stations. That said, modifying the daytime protections for Class B, C and D stations is a complicated approach that may benefit some stations while negatively impacting others and producing unintentional consequences.
To better understand the ramifications of these proposed changes, NAB commissioned a study by Doug Vernier Telecommunications Consultants that examines the impact of the Commission’s proposed rule changes on a select group of AM stations.15 A brief summary of the results from this study are included in Appendices A and B. The study examines the potential changes in population and geographic coverage of fourteen AM “root” stations, as well as the causal impact on the ability of certain nearby, contour-related “affected” stations to upgrade their power. Specifically:
Appendix A illustrates how when an AM station (the “root” station) elects to increase its signal power under the proposed changes, this higher power increases the population within the root station’s 2 mV/m contour and impacts the ability of nearby “affected” AM stations to do a subsequent power increase; and
Appendix B focuses on the impact of the root station power increase on the affected station’s existing interference-free population within the 0.5 mV/m contour. Only three of the fourteen root stations were selected for this part of the study (WBNS, WGFA, WITY).
We note that, because of the tremendous variety in AM stations and allocation scenarios across the country, the study’s result cannot be extrapolated or be considered representative of the impact throughout the AM band. NAB offers this study solely for the information it provides on a handful of specific examples, and any basis for discussion and evaluation of the proposals it may provide. Further, the results shown in Appendix A and B
provide information on the simulated impact of increasing power at a single root station on affected stations; if other nearby stations increase power as a result of the proposed rules changes, then the impact on affected stations will likely compound in terms of interference and constraints on potential future upgrades.
The primary conclusions to be drawn from the study are that when a station increases its power under the proposed changes, it is likely to expand its interference-free population (depending on whether and by how much nearby stations also increase their power), but in doing so the interference-free population of nearby stations can be harmed. In particular, AM stations that are unable to take advantage of the proposed rules to upgrade their own service because they are already operating at maximum power or cannot afford the associated costs of equipment or electricity. These important considerations suggest that, if the Commission intends to enact the proposed changes, it is imperative that a process be implemented to manage the transition in a way that allows all stations an equal opportunity to improve or protect their service.
Not with standing this well-intentioned proposal, NAB submits that the most important action the Commission could take to improve AM radio reception is to control and reduce the ever-increasing noise floor that degrades AM signal quality.16 AM radio is hindered by a variety of unintentional and incidental radiators, including electric power transmission lines, electronic sign boards, compact fluorescent and LED lights and computers, to the point where many stations no longer enjoy interference-free service out to the 0.5 mV/m contour. We have urged the Commission to review the Part 15 rules and other policies, and where appropriate, inject more specificity into the rules to clarify that all such devices fall within the Commission’s purview. We have also asked the Commission to more rigorously enforce violations of these rules.17 NAB recognizes that doing so is a challenge, given the proliferation of devices that produce RF energy. However, simply allowing AM stations to increase power to hopefully overcome such noise is inefficient and sidesteps the root problems causing the widespread, worsening conditions that challenge AM broadcasters. Rather, the Commission should undertake a two-pronged approach of allowing AM stations to increase power to overcome environmental noise – without harming or hindering other stations – while modernizing and vigorously enforcing its Part 15 rules and other policies intended to constrain undesired RF radiation. NAB looks forward to participating in such an effort.
IV. Relaxing the Main Studio Requirements Would Allow Stations to Redirect Resources Toward Programming and Public Service
In the NOI, the Commission seeks comment on modifying the main studio rules as a means of easing the financial strain on AM radio stations.18 The Commission asks whether it should allow more AM stations to co-locate their main studio at another station outside the parameters of the main studio rule, and relax the main studio staffing obligations of AM broadcasters.19
Regarding the former, Section 73.1125(a) of the rules requires that a station’s main studio must be located either (1) within a station’s principal community contour, (2) within the contour of any other broadcast station licensed to its community, or (3) within 25 miles of the center of its community.20 Under Section 73.1125(b)(2), the Commission may waive these requirements for “good cause” where the proposed main studio location “would be consistent with the operation of a station in the public interest.”21
The Commission routinely grants such waivers to noncommercial stations, provided a station commits to maintaining a local connection with its community of license.22 For example, stations may pledge to ascertain the needs and interests of their community and provide responsive programming, designate staff to engage in community events, staff a toll-free telephone number for listener input, and accommodate requests to review the station’s public inspection file.23 The Commission has found that collocation waivers can improve the efficiency of noncommercial stations without undermining localism.24
However, such waivers are rarely, if ever, granted to commercial stations.25 NAB submits that AM radio stations are equally deserving of more flexibility in collocating their main studio, as are their listeners of the resulting benefits.26 First, doing so would promote costs savings that could be redirected toward programming and public service.27
AM stations would have more opportunities to eliminate the costs of duplicating personnel, facilities and equipment at separate locations, and reduce employee travel between separate studios.28 In addition, expanding the geographic area where AM stations may locate their studio could open up new lower-cost areas. Collocation also promotes collaboration among stations’ staff on programming, research, marketing, maintenance, and administration, among other functions.29 As Salem Communications explains, more flexibility to locate a main studio for multiple stations would “open potential opportunities for cost savings in major cities where Salem operates.”30
Second, providing AM stations more flexibility to collocate their studio is consistent with Commission precedent. In 1987, the Commission first relaxed the rule to allow the main studio to be located outside a station’s community of license, provided it remained within the station’s principal community contour. The Commission found that the rule’s purpose of ensuring a station’s responsiveness to its community would not be harmed because the public largely preferred to contact stations by telephone or mail rather than visiting the studio.31 A decade later, the Commission adopted the three options set forth above in the wake of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which increased the number of stations that one entity could own in a single market and thereby increased the incentive for station groups to consolidate operations into a centralized facility.32 Again, the Commission noted that listeners were increasingly likely to contact stations remotely instead of in person.33
Today, advances in technology have virtually eliminated the need for a local main studio, as almost all audience contact with broadcasters is by email or telephone. Indeed, accessibility to a station’s public inspection file was one of the pillars of the original main studio rules,34 but only weeks ago the Commission modernized the public inspection file rules to require that radio stations post their files to a central, online database instead of maintaining paper files at the main studio.35
The Commission stated that the evolution of the Internet and the spread of broadband infrastructure have transformed the way society accesses information today. It is no longer reasonable to require the public to travel to a station or headquarters’ office to review the public file and make paper copies when a centralized, online file will permit review with a quick, easy, and almost costless Internet search.36
Thus, the Commission itself has minimized the need for a physical local main studio for purposes of community monitoring of broadcasters’ performance.
For the same reasons, the Commission should relax the requirement that broadcasters maintain a full-time management and full-time staff presence at their main studio.37 Although the Commission has determined that management personnel need not be “chained to their desks” during normal business hours, they must still “report to work at the main studio on a daily basis, spend a substantial amount of time there and . . . use the studio as a ‘home base.’”38 This has been interpreted to mean that at least two employees must report to the main studio as their primary place of business on a daily basis, one of whom is management, and at least one employee should be present during normal business hours.39 Compliance with these obligations are burdensome and expensive for many broadcast stations,40 as well as outdated and unnecessary given the rapid development of technology, the public’s preference for email communication and the transition to an online public file system, all of which ensure that audiences can monitor station performance and broadcasters remain engaged in their local communities.
Finally, relaxing the main studio rule and staffing requirements would help to allay concerns about the security of broadcast staff. As Commissioner O’Rielly lamented in a recent blog, local broadcasting personnel often become celebrities in their communities, but this exposure can attract unwanted and sometimes dangerous attention from unstable individuals.41 Commissioner O’Rielly noted that allowing unknown individuals into a broadcast facility to review the public inspection file or some other purpose can be risky, and encouraged the Commission and industry to consider ways to improve the personal safety of broadcasting staff. NAB submits that this NOI is a perfect opportunity to fulfill Commissioner O’Rielly’s goal. Permitting more AM broadcasters to collocate their main studios, and easing the staffing requirements of facilities, will help stations narrow and control the circumstances when members of the public can access station personnel, reducing opportunities for trouble.
As to potential policy changes, NAB supports a flexible, easy-to-administer approach. For example, instead of considering case-by-case requests for waiver of the main studio rules, the Commission should simply create a presumption in favor of permitting AM stations to collocate their main studio at a co-owned station outside the parameters of the main studio rule. This approach would be consistent with recent Commission efforts to streamline regulatory burdens on AM broadcasters, including the relaxation of community coverage obligations42 and proposals to expand the siting FM cross-service translators.43 A presumption would also relieve applicants of the burdens associated with preparing a waiver request and conserve Commission resources needed to consider individual requests. Nor should the Commission impose an absolute restriction on the number of stations that could collocate their main studios, or a specific limit on the distance a co-locating station may move its studio from its community of license.44 In the same vein, the Commission should refrain from placing any hard and fast limits on the management presence required at a station’s studio.
Rather, marketplace constraints should govern. More than most outlets, AM broadcasters appreciate that localism is their most attractive, unique characteristic. AM stations must keep their fingers on the pulse of their local communities, not only to maintain a high profile, but also to help ascertain the programming needs and interests of their community. Providing community-responsive programming and staying engaged in their
local community are critical to a broadcast station’s popularity, customer loyalty, and in turn, advertising revenue. Regardless of whether a station’s main studio is located inside or outside the community of license, or staffed by management 24/7, listeners can always communicate with broadcasters by telephone or email, monitor a station’s public service performance through the online public file, and most importantly, register their discontent with a station’s failure to provide community-responsive programming by changing the channel.
Accordingly, NAB submits that broadcasters should be permitted to collocate and staff their main studio in a manner that ensures the public interest in AM radio service and allows broadcasters to remain viable in an increasingly competitive media marketplace.
V . Conclusion
For the reasons described above, NAB requests that the Commission modify its proposal for locating FM cross-service translators, and relax the main studio rule and staffing requirements.
The filling was signed by Rick Kaplan, NAB executive vice president & general counsel;; Larry Walke, associate general counsel: Sam Matheny, executive vice president and chief technology officer; Lynn Claudy; senior vice president, technology; John Marino vice president, technology; and David Layer, senior director, advanced engineering, technology.
