Aggregator

The FCC is starting to allocate the reimbursement money for FM stations affected by the TV repack, beginning with $17.2 million to be disbursed to 87 radio stations that met its qualifications.

The FM spectrum in the United States was not subject to the television spectrum repacking process; but as we have reported, some FMs with antennas on or near a tower supporting a repacked TV antenna may be affected if, for example, the FM antenna must be moved, temporarily or permanently.

[Read: FCC: The Time to Request Repack Reimbursements Starts Now]

Congress provided $2.75 billion for the Reimbursement Fund, with up to $50 million to reimburse FM radio stations. Now this initial allocation step enables the Media Bureau to start reimbursing FMs that submitted approved invoices.

The commission says it has received 93 submissions from FM stations, of which 87 met the requirements. The FCC said each will receive an email communication describing the results of its review, and that the approved stations may now begin submitting documentation of actual expenses incurred for approval to be drawn down against their allocations. Those stations will upload invoices or receipts and resubmit a reimbursement form using a Media Bureau’s online data system.

The FCC added that it is holding back a percentage of total estimated costs to ensure that eligible entities don’t face an undue financial burden but also with an eye on reducing the likelihood of the FCC having to “claw-back” payments later. “We will monitor closely the drawdown of the fund as well as revisions to initial cost estimates to determine if additional allocations are warranted. It is therefore important that eligible FM stations seeking reimbursement timely submit invoices after incurring costs.”

The FM stations seeking this funding muse certify that they meet the required eligibility criteria and provide documentation or other evidence to support their certification. They also must report estimates of the types and amounts of repack-related costs that they expect to incur, relying on a range of costs set out in an FCC Cost Catalog or on their own estimates or actual expenditures. The FCC then reviews the eligibility and estimate submissions and issues an initial allocation from that $50 million.

 

The post FCC Allocates $17.2 Million to FM Stations Hit by Repack appeared first on Radio World.

When a nearly 40-year-old Nebraska radio tower was felled by ice and high winds in late November, it was immediately clear that KQSK(FM) would require an interim solution to get back on the air, according to the Panhandle Post.

(The Panhandle Post is the online presence for Eagle Communications’ radio stations in the region.) 

General Manager Olivia Hasenauer told the Panhandle Post, Eagle Radio now has “a temporary antenna and transmitter for KQSK” in Chadron, Neb., but the broadcaster intends to rebuild the tower at its current site in 2020. 

Eagle Radio Chief Engineer Kevin Wagner said this has enabled “the majority population of Dawes County” to hear the country music-formatted station again.

Prior to the incident, the nearly 500-ft tower also provided leased space for National Weather Service’s NOAA weather, as well as other agencies and organizations. Until the permanent solution is constructed, the National Weather Service is attempting coverage with help from sister stations, but NWS’ Bill Mokry also told the Panhandle Post that residents should turn to other sources of weather information for now. 

The post Severe Weather Knocks Down Eagle Tower appeared first on Radio World.

It’s important for a licensee to notify the Federal Communications Commission of certain licensing changes. Otherwise it can turn into a costly mistake.

In this case, Carolina Radio Group applied for a construction permit for a translator in Raleigh, N.C. and specified WQDR(FM) as the translator’s primary station. After the Media Bureau granted the permit application and then the license application, a Petition for Reconsideration was filed by Triangle Access Broadcasting who said that not only was there was no technical need for the translator but that the translator was not being operated as authorized. Specifically, Triangle’s said that the CRG translator was broadcasting an unauthorized station.

[Read: FCC to Two AM Licensees: Pay Fees or Nixed Licenses Could Be Next]

In response, CRG said that no “technical need” showing was required and that the translator was currently rebroadcasting the signal of WQDR. However, CRG did not respond to Triangle’s claim that the translator had previously rebroadcast the signal of a different station.

Upon investigation, the Media Bureau found that when the translator commenced operations, it was rebroadcasting WPLW(AM) rather than WQDR. For about a month, CRG’s translator had been broadcasting a station other than its approved station, which is a violation of failure-to-file rules and the unauthorized broadcasting rule book.

The Media Bureau also found that CRG did not properly notify the commission of this change.

As a result, the bureau proposed a forfeiture for CRG of $2,000. Although the commission had the authority to establish a base forfeiture of up to $7,000 (for two violations: failure to file and unauthorized broadcasting) the Media Bureau said a reduced forfeiture was appropriate in this case. “We reach this conclusion based on the fact that CRG’s violations were not prolonged and the fact that CRG has no history of prior offenses,” the bureau said in its ruling.

The Media Bureau also moved to dismiss Triangle’s request that it reconsider the  licensing of CRG’s translator. Under FCC rules, a permittee “is entitled to a high degree of protection” and presumption that public interest is being served during the construction permit process — unless circumstances arise that would make operation of the station against the public interest. That’s not the case here, the bureau said.

As a result, the Media Bureau proposed a $2,000 forfeiture for CRG. The licensee has 30 days to pay the full amount or file a written statement explaining why it deserves reduction or cancellation of the forfeiture.

 

The post Failing to Notify FCC of Primary Station Change Proves Costly appeared first on Radio World.

BURGAS, Bulgaria — DB4005 is the latest monitoring product from DEVA Broadcast.

The company explains that the unit makes use of sophisticated DSP algorithms and provides SDR FM tuner-based signal processing. “Its powerful digital filters are a guarantee of precision and enable the FM signal to be accurately and repeatedly analyzed with each device,” the company adds.

A leading feature of the DB4005 is the MPX input, which allows users to monitor external composite signals, regardless of whether they are from a composite STL receiver/stereo FM encoder, or from an off-air source. In addition, the loudness meter allows for measurements to be shown as defined by ITU BS.1770-4 and EBU R128 recommendations — the DB4005 supports both standards.

DB4005 is easy to use and packs a host of features. These include TCP/IP connectivity, audio streaming, and automatic alerts for operation outside of predefined ITU-R ranges, as well as GSM connectivity.

For information, contact DEVA Broadcast in Bulgaria at +359-56-820027 or visit www.devabroadcast.com.

The post DEVA Broadcast DB4005 Promises Precision appeared first on Radio World.

.

.

.

.

.

The author is membership program director of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters. NFCB commentaries are featured regularly at www.radioworld.com.

The last week or so, it seems like almost everyone in the United States has been transfixed on the impeachment hearings being held in Washington. Riveting testimonies, piercing questions and literally around-the-clock analysis of every word and nuance has made for penetrating coverage. If you were among the noncommercial media watchers, all of this focus may have prompted anxiety. Not for what is happening in Congress at the moment, but what is to come around the country in 2020.

This election year is shaping up to be a big one. With all seats in the House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate, and the White House being contested, interest is going to be tremendous. Plus, love him or hate him, Donald Trump is going to inspire fiery passions for and against the incumbent president. Volunteer block walkers, phone callers and campaign workers will dot communities as they do every election, and indubitably shall in 2020, in presumably growing numbers.

[Read: Community Broadcaster: Be Thankful for Community Radio]

And then there is the matter of money.

Even with the elections a year away, donations have been pouring in for all the Democratic and Republican contenders. By next spring, the massive field will whittle down and fundraising will be in full court press for advertising, staffing and winning.

Guess what is also in the spring? Pledge drives.

Is your station ready to go one-on-one with the election cycle?

For noncommercial stations, competing with others for financial support is nothing new. However, when other organizations have the greatest lightning-rod issues and personalities in recent memory that motivate people to give, stations must make a fresh pitch.

Right now, many community radio and noncommercial media institutions are doing year-end fundraising. If you’re a listener, you should certainly support your local radio. If you work with a station, the close of 2019 is a good time to map out your 2020 strategy.

Attention will be high for every election. Residents will be seeking context for the races and issues that they care most about. Understanding how your station can sustainably deliver election coverage is crucial to your audience. Your station’s ability to be relevant to your community also makes a strong case for giving in the future.

With a high-stakes election almost here, why not take an audit of your service? Making an appraisal of your news, talk and community coverage; what each of your programming resources can practically do; and possible collaborations and partnerships with your city and local nonprofits to get out the vote and elections education are all a good place a start. What questions do your listeners feel are most in need of answers? How are they even getting their information, and how can you reach them about the elections?

These questions are not intellectual exercises at all. They are asked with a purpose: to understand how community radio can have the greatest connection to the audience, and to create the best engagement possible.

Stations provide valuable coverage to their communities. The 2020 election promises to draw many ears and dollars. Whether your station stays in the hearts and minds of your listeners rests on your ability to respond.

The post Community Broadcaster: Will 2020 Elections Doom Radio Fundraising? appeared first on Radio World.

Soundware Norway ran a live radio broadcast using the touchscreen monitor inside a Tesla 3 electric car. In the Tesla parked outside the firm’s Oslo headquarters, Soundware Sales Manager Ketil Morstøl managed a mock live broadcast using the Tesla 3’s web browser, which accessed the web via the car’s built-in LTE wireless modem.

The “broadCARst” project aimed to demonstrate that physical radio stations are no longer necessary. Read about this and more in the December issue of Radio World International.

GUEST COMMENTARY 

What Exactly Happened to Ampegon?

The company provides an update on recent changes.

INNOVATION

Project MARCONI Brings Stations Closer to Listeners

EU-backed program aims to automate and increase listener engagement.

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

NXP and DRM Hold First India Infotainment Forum

Podcasts, On-Demand Challenge Traditional Radio

Buyer’s Guide: Streaming Radio, Podcasting, Online Content Delivery 

The post Inside the December issue of Radio World International appeared first on Radio World.

Media Bureau issues proposed forfeiture to Carolina Radio Group, Inc., in the amount of $2,000 for failure to notify FCC of change to W225DF's primary station and failure to submit technical need showing

.

This declaratory ruling permits aggregate foreign equity and voting interest in Univision to exceed 25% and to increase up to and including 70%

.

.

.

.

Getty Images/Caiaimage/Rana Dias

The FCC tentatively plans to allow AM stations in the United States to convert their transmissions to all-digital on a voluntary basis, using the MA3 mode of HD Radio. The five commissioners in November unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes technical standards for all-digital AMs, including adoption of the NRSC-5-D Standard, and asks for comment on the impact of all-digital operations on analog stations and listeners. 

The proceeding was prompted by a petition in March from Bryan Broadcasting Corp., as RW has reported.

MANY QUESTIONS

Below are highlights of the 33-page NPRM. At press time the final text had not been published, but details had been published before the FCC vote and were not expected to change in substance:

The NPRM opens with background about the state of AM and its various challenges; the benefits of digital transmission; and the history of in-band on-channel technology including the hybrid (MA1) service mode. 

It then described technical testing by NAB Labs (now Pilot), noting that field testing found that all-digital transmission resulted in a clearer, more robust signal, with greater daytime coverage than a hybrid signal, but that lab testing raised concerns about possible co-channel interference and the ability of all-digital signals using standard transmission equipment to stay within the HD Radio emissions mask.

The NPRM then detailed the experience of Hubbard Radio’s WWFD(AM) in Frederick, Md., which operates MA3 full-time under an experimental license. It noted that Hubbard experienced significant improvement in audio quality and signal robustness in the all-digital mode, but that its facilities first had to undergo considerable upgrades, and that the station continues to experience transmission issues that limit all-digital capabilities, such as the ability to transmit song and artist visual metadata.

The FCC then set out a list of areas it wants to hear comments about. 

Regarding the predicted benefits of all-digital AM broadcasting, it asks dozens of questions about improved audio quality, auxiliary data, improved useable signal coverage, increased programming choices (such as music) and energy and spectrum efficiency. 

It also asked for comment on potential interference, including adjacent-channel, co-channel, digital-to-digital and nighttime interference. 

[Dave Kolesar recognized for converting WWFD(AM) to full-time, all-digital transmission]

It set out proposed operating standards, including power limits, emissions mask requirements, a new carrier frequency tolerance standard, a notification requirement for stations converting to all-digital and EAS requirements, and asked for comments on all of that.

It further wants to know about the costs of conversion for AM licensees, the readiness of the public to transition to all-digital reception and the rule changes needed to implement the proposal.

SOME SPECIFICS

Specifically about the potential benefits, the FCC tentatively concluded that all-digital operation would improve the audio quality of AM broadcasts. “Compared to hybrid mode, all of the modulated transmitter power is dedicated to the digital carriers, in theory resulting in a significantly more robust reception even in the presence of a stronger analog co-channel signal.” 

But it listed some qualifications — for instance, that NAB Labs had reported some interference from bridges and power lines that caused the all-digital signal to drop out, and one instance of apparent nighttime interference to all-digital reception from first-adjacent stations operating in hybrid mode. 

So it asked for input on numerous questions around signal quality, such as whether all-digital operation would provide listenable signals at relatively low signal strength levels or at the outer listenable fringes of the all-digital signal coverage, particularly where a co-channel signal is encountered. It asked about the reception capability of digital receivers over analog, as well as the impact of power lines and other potential noise sources.

Regarding the work by NAB Labs work and the reports from WWFD, the FCC said that this research “confirms the overall value and feasibility of all-digital broadcasting” but noted that those results have not been evaluated by the National Radio Systems Committee. And it asked whether certain areas need more research, including RF mask compliance, the effects of noise on all-digital coverage area and potential co-channel and adjacent-channel interference.

[Read our ebook: Digital Radio Developments]

The NPRM then digs into other areas over 33 pages. Here’s just a sampling:

Auxiliary data — Backers say all-digital will let AMs provide services like stereo audio, song and artist ID, and emergency notifications with text and images. The FCC asked, among other things, whether it should allow flexibility regarding the use of additional channel capacity as it does with hybrid stations, and specifically whether there’s potential in the AM service for future multicast channels.

Signal coverage — Do people agree with the FCC that based on available evidence, an all-digital signal offers the potential of greater useable signal coverage than analog or hybrid? The commission also asked whether it should monitor that a station’s digital coverage corresponds to its previous analog coverage, and if not, what it should do.

Energy efficiency — Will all-digital operation offer greater energy efficiency and utility cost savings for AM broadcasters? 

Spectrum efficiency — Will all-digital operation help realize the full potential of digital technology for spectrum efficiency? What are the implications of using current 20 kHz AM channel assignments in all-digital mode?

Interference — The NPRM’s many questions around interference include whether the existing framework for interference protection is sufficient, or whether there are concerns unique to all-digital that should be accounted for in rules governing groundwave and skywave protection of AM stations. 

Will all-digital cause interference to co- and adjacent-channel analog stations? Shouldn’t all-digital present fewer interference concerns than hybrid mode? 

Is the FCC right in thinking that co-channel interference is more of a concern than adjacent-channel? What does the industry think of existing research about the potential impact of all-digital signals on co-channel analog stations, in and outside their protected contours?

[Letter: Digital Radio vs. 5G]

The FCC noted that when it first authorized nighttime operation for AM stations, it had stated that “the benefits of full-time IBOC operation by AM stations outweigh the slightly increased risk of interference …” The FCC asked whether that earlier reasoning applies to the potential for co-channel interference as a result of all-digital operation.

How might the likelihood of co-channel interference from all-digital stations be minimized; and how should the FCC resolve impermissible interference if it occurs?

What about digital-to-digital interference? Is it true that if all AM stations were digital, co-channel interference would be less, thus potentially increasing groundwave coverage for a given power level and carrier frequency? If the all-digital mode increases the power and bandwidth occupancy of the digital carriers, how might this affect adjacent-channel digital transmissions? What would be the impact of all-digital stations on hybrid ones? 

Nighttime operations — Should the FCC allow AM all-digital at night, given that propagation characteristics vary markedly between daytime and nighttime? How would all-digital affect potential interference caused by skywave propagation? What additional study and testing might be needed?

Receivers and consumers — Are consumers ready? Is 55 million HD Radio-equipped cars a sufficient number? Are non-car receivers readily available and affordable? How many HD Radio receivers sold in the past are still in operation? 

[Symposium Examines Changing Radio Landscape]

The FCC also wants to know about the impact of all-digital on listeners with analog-only receivers. “What is the estimated size of this audience, and their estimated frequency of use of such receivers? In a market with very few stations, a single station’s conversion to all-digital could reduce options for analog-only listeners.” Should the FCC require a station converting to all-digital to show that it is not the only full-service aural service within its community of license county? Would preserving the long-term economic viability of an AM station and the public benefit of improved service to some listeners justify the present-day loss of service to other listeners? Should the FCC require a converting station to notify its listeners, and in what way?

The NPRM also includes discussion about operating rules; emissions mask compliance (with the FCC noting that “the NRSC has not evaluated it and NAB Labs testing indicated that all-digital stations might have difficulty complying with it”); how signal power should be measured; what carrier frequency tolerance standard to adopt; the impact on EAS and TIS/HAR operations; the likely costs to station of converting; and other factors that might encourage more widespread adoption of all-digital broadcasting within the AM service.

The final NPRM text had not been published at press time, and comment deadlines were not yet set. The first deadline would be in or after late January. Search for “All-Digital AM Broadcasting Revitalization of the AM Radio Service” in MB Dockets No. 19-311 and 13-249.

The post FCC Takes Your Questions on AM All-Digital appeared first on Radio World.

.