- REC Home
- Broadcast Services
- Low Power FM
- AM Revitalization
- J1 Radio
- Support Us!
LPFM filing services for site moves, interference issues and more.
Your 18-month construction permit may be expiring soon! You may eligible for an 18 month extension.
REC is providing services to AM stations wishing to relocate an FM translator to serve their community.
In a letter to the FCC commissioners and senior Media Bureau staff, REC has given an update to refresh the record on RM-11749, the REC LP-250 petition for rulemaking. Despite the FCC's AM Revitalization efforts which involve an opportunity for Class C and D AM stations to obtain an FM translator and move it up to 250 miles, the percentage of granted LPFM stations that can upgrade to the proposed LP-250 service on the same channel has only fallen from 73% to 72%. While there will be three more filing windows for FM translators within the next year, REC does expect this number to fall further but overall, we expect the upgrade rate to remain extremely high.
Existing LPFM stations in Southern California through coordination with Common Frequency have stepped-up to help reduce the number of applicants in the 101.5 MX group #27. Group 27 originally started with 32 applicants all competing for a piece of 101.5, the only §73.807 spaced channel available region-wide.
Last December, G-Final Cut, permittee of 99.1 in Carson had agreed to share time with Long Beach Community Television and Media. G-Final has now filed a time share agreement with The Church in Anaheim to move their station to Anaheim and share time with the church on 101.5.
Venice permittee, Reach For the Top has agreed to share time with several of the former "Westside 5" applicants including Future Roots, Machine Project and Echo Park Film Center. The three applicants will co-locate at a commercial site in the Hollywood Hills on 99.1.
In the San Fernando Valley, the organization Cinefamily has agreed to allow Glendale-based Materials & Applications share time on their 96.7 grant in the Verdugo Mountains.
REC Networks has filed comments in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket 13-249, the AM Revitalization docket.
In our comments, we stated our objections to the Commission's proposal to eliminate nighttime "sky wave" protections for clear-channel Class A AM stations stating that the nighttime service is a national resource but at the same time, called on Class A station owners to better program their stations to attract a nighttime audience. Despite the many options for listeners, nighttime AM radio remains the only service available free of charge that does not require constant re-tuning and can reach into areas where there is insufficent AM and FM services.
I am reading several threads on the thought of expanding Part 15 or very low power broadcasting either as a service authorized by rule (unlicensed) or authorized by license. I have seen several ideas come up as far as spectrum is concerned. I have seen mentions of longwave, 510 kHz, 520 kHz, 1710 kHz, 1710 to 1780 kHz and shortwave.
First of all, let’s quickly talk about how spectrum is allocated.
REC supports Univision's complaint against KYEB-LP. If the allegations made in the complaint are true, this is a serious violation of the FCC Rules, puts the integrity of LPFM at risk and strains the relationship between LPFM and the full-service broadcast industry.
The alleged actions of KYEB-LP are not representative of the LPFM service as a whole.
While Univision alludes to the REC Informal Objection against 246 Cesar Guel-assisted applications, we wish to point out that Iglesia Alfa y Omega was not included in that objection because the original application for Iglesia Alfa y Omega was not handled through Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian Community Network but rather by another consultant. Guel/HCCN was involved in a subsequent minor modification.
So far as of this writing, the FCC has dismissed applications that were filed by Antonio Cesar Guel for new LPFM stations in San Antonio, Jacksonville, Lufkin TX, Columbia SC, Lake Charles LA and McAllen TX.
These dismissals were as a result of the Commission investigating the addresses that these applicants claimed as their headquarters. In these cases, the Commission used public records to determine the property owners (which were mainly churches) and these property owners verified that these organizations were never headquarted at these locations. As a result, the Commission determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements of §73.853(b)(1). Since the same addresses were used for the board members, these addresses were dismissed for the purpose of establishing 75% of the organization's board members are local in accordance with §73.853(b)(2). Since the localism requirements were not met, the applicant is not qualified to be an LPFM licensee and thus, the application was dimissed.
Today's decisions did bring two issues to light: