"January 5, 2011: The Local Community Radio Act has been signed by President Obama and is now law. The bill, which passed in the House and Senate last month with the support of the NAB after the organization's terms were addressed, will allow potentially thousands more low-power FM stations to go on the air.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski applauded the bill's passage, calling it a "big win for radio listeners." He said, "Low-power FM stations are small, but they make a giant contribution to local community programming. This important law eliminates the unnecessary restrictions that kept these local stations off the air in cities and towns across the country."
He praised the lawmakers who sponsored he bill and said, "The FCC will take swift action to open the dial to new low-power radio stations and the valuable local service they provide." -Radio Ink 1-4-2011
Even though the LCRA has been signed into law, it will still take the FCC months to write new regulations and approve them, along with resolving the 2003 translator debacle. The pent up demand for LPFM is palpable. And without clear restrictions by the new law, new rules and a clear application process this will turn into another Oklahoma Land Rush; a historical mess.
However, for genuine red-blooded community broadcasters, now would be the time to line out your consulting engineer (required for new LCRA app restrictions; frequencies available, minimum distance separation, ect.), get your non-profit formed and apply for your Section 501 letter of determination. And of course, start raising money to build the station. Rumors are rampant as to what the FCC is going to allow for construction time. Estimates run from, as short as, 12 months to the normal 36 months for construction permits. In the past, there was no filing fee with these applications for CP's. We'll see if that continues.
It will soon be time to put up or shut up. Who has the fire? Or, hiding in a cloud of smoke, soon to disappear? Here is your opportunity to have your own 10-100 watt community FM radio station...legally.
There are many ways of evaluating the newly defined LPFM opening. I'll only speak a few reactions and look forward to the comments from others.
The requirement that only formal organizations and not individuals may apply for license, reminds me of a Chinese practice I read about on the back of a classical LP album.
In the 1970s I was playing a piano concerto on the radio actually from China, and the notes explained that the work was composed by a composers committee, because at that time (and maybe now) it was illegal for an individual to compose a classical work. Also, the committee was only allowed to compose in major keys, because the darker and sometimes sadder minor keys were unacceptable for the people.
The part 15 radio people in particular are perfectly aware that a radio station can very well be orchestrated by one person (with their select volunteers or employees), and that committees are sort of a throw of the dice as to whether everyone can work well together.
There's no sensible reason to exclude LPFM from being commercial. The argument that the NAB wants to prevent local stations from taking advertising dollars away from nationally managed stations is fallacious because the same dollars can be lured into non-commercial underwriting for LPFM. It's just a matter of calling a duck a fish.
For the advertiser, underwriting and advertising come to the same thing: promotion of product and service. The smart advertiser will go where the community is involved, not where program directors and managers are the only listeners to their 5kW stations.
Round Two.
It is legal to set up a single board member, non-profit organization in my state. I wonder how the FCC would view this, when deciding to hand out licenses.
"It is legal to set up a single board member, non-profit organization in my state."
Actually, this practice is acceptable in a great number of states. However, more states are using the Section 501 "exempt" IRS guidelines for forming a non-profit corporation or NPO. Each state is a little different. In Nevada for example, the rules are very liberal reporting and structure rules for forming nearly any kind of non-profit.
NPO's applying for a radio license need to consider "attribution" rules during formation of the organization, or at least before applying to the FCC. Having an attributable interest in other stations is not permitted for LPFM applications; including individual board members. This is done for the purpose of spreading the licenses around to folks who don't already have licenses or some kind of interest in a license. Non-profit corporations and NPO's under Section 501 tax exempt rules require more than one person on the board of directors; none of the key officers (president & treasurer) can by related to each other by birth or marriage. If that was only one person, that would not, for all intent and purposes, not pass muster. The FCC in recent years has begun to use the IRS definition for non-profit organization structures. Each application process for each broadcast service uses a separate point system to determine the most qualified applicants based on FCC priorities. This includes "mutually exclusive" applications as well.
Most non-profit boards of directors members have NO actual equity in the station or the license, even though they may have equal opportunity to vote on matters of the organization. Unlike "C" corporations, people don't vote "shares" making the process somewhat more open. Many NPO's have several classes of board membership from voting to non-voting/advisory, so reaching consensus and, at the same time, gathering opinions (voices of diversity) from a broad spectrum of volunteers is possible without stopping forward progress.
The cynicism involving the argument regarding the ability to sell LPFM commercial time has been made for decades and is considered by regulators as having "no merit" due to underwriting rules. These rules are intended to limit the size of the station and it's reach and influence. Example: You can't sell marijuana on the street corner without a permit or at anytime in a school yard. You may think that violates your rights, but the fact is, its against the law. Get over it and go on. NO one expects everybody to agree with every rule, regulation or law. However, compliance is required and a responsible part of being in a somewhat free society.
The rules for LPFM have been in effect for almost a complete decade. So far, it seems to be working for licensed LPFM stations in a good number of communities all across the U.S. The Congress, the President, the broadcasting community and the FCC are giving us an opportunity to build on past successes. Are we ready to take up the challenge?
Dear Marshall Johnson, Sr.
I agree that we live in a "somewhat free society." One of the somewhat freedoms we have is to be cynical, skeptical, disagree or protest.
The fact is there are bad laws and we can voice our objection to them, and I think the LPFM regulations are too restrictive.
The "get over it and go on" dictate sounds tyrannical.
Yet, you're closer to the way things are than I am.
"There's no sensible reason to exclude LPFM from being commercial."
The entire premise for the existence of LPFM licensing is community, education, and information, not individuals or commercial organizations ... thus the restrictions. At least now, the restrictions on proximity interference issues will allow more stations to exist.
Underwriting is similar to advertising on the surface, but closer examination will show obvious differences. Generally, underwriters can have passive announcements, but can't actually advertise.
KLOI on Lopez Island finally got their first underwriter a little while ago, although they've been on the air for more than two years. Their funding has come from listener support 'til now. IIRC a number of local businesses approached them expecting to advertise cheaply, but backed off because of the restrictions. Hasn't hurt their popularity, tho'.
Couple questions, can someone explain to me the difference between underwriting and advertising in this conversation?
And also, will this new bill allow me to buy a more powerful FM transmitter and start broadcasting?
Exciting stuff really!
Ken Norris said, "The entire premise for the existence of LPFM licensing is community, education, and information, not individuals or commercial organizations ... thus the restrictions."
If that were a logical argument it would mean that individuals or commercial organizations would be incapable of providing the community with education or information. Part of that is true. Commercial organizations, i.e., J.C.Penney, Monsanto or Sears, are not in business to do anything more than serve their share holders and should not be allowed to hold LPFM license. But at the same time many individual persons are highly qualified to fulfill the mission.
Also, a radio station allowed to air commercials as a means of raising funds is not the same as a "commercial organization" as stated above.
There are already non-commercial FM stations operated by committees, and their "community, educational and information service" is entirely absent.
In this town we have 88.1 with volunteer disk jockeys from "the community" playing their own personal favorite record collections, with nothing more; three college stations with students playing jazz records and nothing more; three religious licenses repeating the same static dogma over and over. And these stations have FULL power.
The system being discussed here, LPFM, ALREADY doesn't work on a large scale. It's just that now it's being proposed on a small scale.
The Prometheus Radio Project has been very pro-active in pressuring the gov to open the LPFM for development. They may be the place to start if you want help building a LPFM.
http://www.prometheusradio.org/
Carl,
Would you please tell us, what part of the LPFM rules, or the most recent changes the LPFM rules, you believe are causing you the most heart-burn; chapter and verse would be helpful. Rather than just rail against the FCC and LPFM, what are the specific issues you don't agree with (empirical data would be helpful) and what specific changes would you forward to make positive changes? What are the range and the scope of your proposed changes? What might be some of the unintended consequences you see with the new rules? What data would you supply to support your assertions?
Have you ever read the rules for LPFM and the subsequent rule changes involving the "Public File", "issues & answers" reporting, EAS and local programming requirements, technical data, minimum separation requirements or adjacent channel interference standards, the application process and license grant determination standards? Are you familiar with the FCC case law involving the FCC's definitions of commercial advertising and underwriting announcements and their differences? Are you one of the very few to have a copy of the final LCRA bill signed by the President? Or, are what you have offered up to this point, just your opinion based on someone else's opinion? If you are opining, say so. I have great respect for your opinions; I will even argue for your right to express them. However, when you forward your opinions as fact, those of us with actual experience and practice in the field will eventually challenge you to back up what you say. And I warn you, anecdotal local data is not empirical real world proof.
Your input is very valuable to the body of understanding. And I'm sure there are many who would agree with me.
And finally, I did not ask any of the above questions without first knowing the answer and where to find the supporting data. If it were possible, I would welcome the opportunity to teach you what I have learned over the last ten years (re:LPFM) over a cup of coffee. If you ever make it to the Columbia River Gorge, I will.
FCC Information on the nature of non-commercial, educational broadcasting (advertising vs. underwriting):
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/nature.html
I am completely open to any sort of comments on this because I am no where near being up to snuff on the LPFM scene.
My impression from reading stuff is that the vast majority of previous LPFM licenses were scarfed up by religious broadcasters . Maybe there are other non-profits that got some of the remaining licenses. Where the heck is the COMMUNITY aspect in any of this? How can any "non-profit" organization really serve a community? NPR is non-profit, but doesn't serve communities unless you think "national" and "big city" are communities. A real community station should be defined the same as the old-school, small town stations that provided local news, local sports and local advertising.
The FCC keeps caving to the NAB's relentless protectionism of failing corporate broadcasting. It's time for the FCC to grow some balls and carve out a place for viable commercial community broadcasting. Sometimes, government regulations are are justified to make things right.
One thing is certain about this thread: the commentators care about the LPFM issue. Of course we care, because LPFM is a step up from Part 15. We should also have LPAM, but instead, they (fcc) are studying an expansion of TIS (travelers info svc.). What do they think all the traffic helicopters are already doing?
Sunday morning is no time to get a huge homework assignment, Mr. Johnson, Sr., so could we just have the coffee? Listen, I'd love to serve on a radio committee with you as a fellow member. Between us we could sway that committee every which way. I do recognize and respect the experience you bring and I can only remember three arguments I put forth:
1. LPFM license should be open to individuals as well as organizations;
2. LPFM frequencies above 92mHz should be open to commercial license;
3. I forget the 3rd one.
Oh, ya, people have the right to complain about the law.
Black, no sugar.
"Couple questions, can someone explain to me the difference between underwriting and advertising in this conversation?"
I gave a really basic version, but there are a few places to check which aren't too legalese to understand:
http://wuev.evansville.edu/contact/underwriting.asp
Check #3 here: http://www.oce.nysed.gov/etvpb/FAQ.htm#q5
"And also, will this new bill allow me to buy a more powerful FM transmitter and start broadcasting?"
The short answer is "no" -- individuals cannot own a LPFM Community Radio Station. However, if you're serious, go here to begin your research into what it will take:
http://www.prometheusradio.org/
That's the organization which is largely responsible for getting the bill passed. They've been helping communities step through the filing process for years. I've been on their group email list since July of 2009.
The current This Week in Radio Tech brings a discussion of the new LPFM legislation
http://www.thisweekinradiotech.com/