 Strategic Consulting for Broadcasters |
home |
|
Newsletter for Broadcasters
|
More Proposed Rule ChangesIn the last newsletter, I discussed the procedures that licensees must endure to change the city of license under the current rules. In this and some future issues, we’ll have a look at some of the related proposals contained in Docket 05-210. Abandon the Table of Allotments. Historically, the Table was developed to ensure an equitable distribution of FM facilities across the country. This was a countermeasure intended to preempt the problems that developed with the AM band, where nearly all of the big fulltime facilities were built in very large cities, and most of the smaller communities got a daytimer at best. This worked well when there were only a thousand or so FM stations, but the band is pretty well built out now, and there is a very good case to be made that the Table has outlived its usefulness. Especially if the minor-change city of license proposal discussed last time is approved, as seems likely, then the only use for the Table would be to provide placeholders for new allotments that have not yet been auctioned. That is adequately covered by another proposal I’ll describe below. Require a Construction Permit application to be tendered with all proposals for new FM allotments. This long-overdue change would require the payment of an application fee (currently $1500) with each proposal to drop in a new channel. It would place a CP application in the technical database immediately, and that would serve to protect the channel. Currently, there is no fee for filing a Rulemaking Application, and the imposition of a “seriousness” test of this nature should cut down dramatically on the filing of marginal drop-ins. It would also eliminate a major reason to keep the Table. The FCC noted in the NPRM that the vast majority of drop-ins are filed by people who state – as required – that they will build the facility, but who do not even register for the auctions. Turn in the allotment when you turn in the license. Some facilities are shut down due to economics, or moved to more advantageous channels, and the current rules keep the old allotment active. In one case I was involved in, a short-spaced 3kW Class A was able to move to a different non-conflicting channel that was allotted as a C3. Even though nobody could ever build a new station on the old channel due to the short-spacing, it took several years to get the channel removed from the Table. Until the allotment was removed, the other station involved in the short-spacing had to protect it, so that station had to stay at 3kW for several years longer than should have been the case. This proposal would delete the channel automatically. Of course, this issue becomes moot if the Table is abandoned altogether, but it represents a good interim or fall-back step. Next: Positive implications of abandoning the Table of Allotments |
| ||||||
