Feed aggregator

.

.

.

.

.

A Virginia licensee has been handed a $15,000 forfeiture — in addition to receiving a shortened license renewed term — after allegedly failing to keep proper issues and program files updated in the FCC OPIF database.

The Media Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission ruled in a combination order/notice of apparent liability that Seaview Communications, which is licensee of WPEX(FM) in Kenbridge, Va., apparently violated several sections of FCC rules.

[Read: AM Station Hit with $15,000 Forfeiture After Public File Lapse]

According to the bureau, the station allegedly failed to prepare its set of quarterly issues and programs lists and it failed to upload this information into the station’s online public inspection file. FCC Rules require that commercial broadcast radio stations place issues and program lists — which detail programs that he station has covered over a three-month period — every quarter . Those files must include a quick briefing of the issues addressed as well as lay out specific details such as the time, date, duration and title of each program. Stations must then upload certain public file documents to the FCC’s OPIF public inspection file database. As of March 1, 2018, all broadcast stations are now required to post public file info (except political file material).

When Seaview began the process of prepping its license renewal application, it answered “no” when asked if it has placed the required documentation into its public file. The station explained that it had difficulties in navigating the new on-line public inspection file. “As such, certain deadlines were not meet with respect to the ‘upload’ of issues/programs lists,” the licensee said, though Seaview said it had begun working with the FCC counsel and plans to resolve the public file upload problems.

However, this explanation does not excuse or nullify the violation, the bureau said. The commission has the authority to hand down a base forfeiture of $10,000 to those licensees who fail to maintain their public file and an additional $3,000 for failing to upload the required documentation.

The commission can also raise or lower those forfeitures based on the circumstances. In the case of WPEX, the FCC handed down a $15,000 forfeiture, saying that even though Seaview admitted to its violations, it did so only when compelled to answer via its renewal application. Moreover, the bureau found the violations were “extensive” and apparently encompassed the entire license term.

The Media Bureau also found that the licensee’s conduct fell short of the standard of compliance that the FCC uses when handing out a routine license renewal. “The issues and programs lists are a significant and representative indication that a licensee is providing substantial service to meet the needs and interests of its community,” the bureau said. As such, it concluded that a short-term license renewal of two years was warranted. “This limited renewal period will afford the commission an opportunity to review the station’s compliance with the [Communications Act] and the FCC’s rules and to take whatever corrective actions, if any, that may be warranted at that time.”

Seaview has 30 days to pay the forfeiture or respond seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

 

The post Virginia FM Handed $15,000 Forfeiture for Alleged Filing Violations appeared first on Radio World.

It’s time for broadcasters to confirm that their stations are up and running with the latest in EAS updates.

As it stands today, EAS participants are required to not only receive Common Alert Protocol messages from IPAWS but also configure their systems to reject all CAP-formatted EAS messages that include an invalid digital signature. Now, an effort to maintain compliance with commonly accepted security standards, FEMA is also taking the next step of removing support for older methods by requiring the use of an updated TLS 1.2 protocol to access FEMA’s IPAWS server, said Sage Alerting Systems and the Society of Broadcast Engineers. TLS, or Transport Layer Security, is cryptographic protocol providing communications security over networks and is often used for internet communications.

To acquire and verify IPAWS CAP alerts, a broadcaster’s EAS alerting equipment must be upgraded with the TLS 1.2 update prior to Nov. 8, 2019.

[Read: California LPFM Asked to Explain Alleged Transmission, EAS Violations]

The move is one of several rule changes put in place by the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to improve EAS security to ensure that messages are received smoothly and accurately.

According to Sage, the TLS 1.2 protocol is now part of a September 2019 update called Rev95. Certain ENDEC systems qualify for a free update; older systems will need to purchase an update via a distributor.

SBE cautioned in its blog that after the switchover on Nov. 8, older versions of the ENDEC software will not be able to receive CAP messages from IPAWS. “This will render the station in violation of FCC rules concerning EAS monitoring and logging,” the SBE said.

For Gorman-Redlich systems, the SBE reported that stations operating with E-prom V 9.5.8 will remain compliant with the changes. For Digital Alert Systems DASDEC/One-Net systems, those units operating with software versions 3.1 or 4.0 will remain compliant.

In addition to the CAP format changes, the SBE said the FCC also recently changed EAS rules to refine the time window within which an alert message is valid and added a new false EAS alert reporting rule.

 

The post Broadcasters Need to Keep Eye on Latest EAS Updates appeared first on Radio World.

WASHINGTON — Recent changes to certain FCC rules present opportunities for the industry to operate more efficiently, supporters believe.

Elimination of the main studio rule, the license posting requirement and the requirement to keep a hard copy of FCC rules at radio stations are three of the changes that have swept through the commission under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai.

Further significant regulatory amendments remain in the pipeline, such as the potential relaxation of local ownership rules, including modifying limits on common ownership of AM and FM stations in a market. Those decisions are pending completion of the FCC’s latest quadrennial review.

Further, the commission has launched a proceeding to simplify local public notice requirements for radio station applications, according to a FCC filing.

Radio broadcasters are focused  on adapting their operations to better compete in a more relaxed regulatory environment. “The deregulation of the past 18 months is significant,” said Scott Flick, partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, ahead of a panel discussion of radio and financial experts at the Radio Show in Dallas.

“Early during Chairman Pai’s leadership he said he wanted to put one media deregulatory item on each month’s FCC agenda. They’ve hit a lot of the low-hanging fruit, but there is more to go,” Flick said. “I think we are on the brink of fundamental regulatory change.”

Radio broadcasters are researching alternate business practices to improve efficiencies, Flick said, but first they must consider structural changes in how they run their businesses.

“Radio broadcasters are so used to being micro-managed by the FCC that it takes a while for these changes to sink in. For instance, the elimination of the main studio rule. Of course broadcasters want to maintain a presence in their local communities, but there are circumstances where having a main studio, or at least what qualifies as a main studio now by the FCC, may not make sense anymore,” Flick said.

“Broadcasters are stepping back to ask how they might do things if they were starting from scratch today. They are giving their operations a fresh look.”

Flick said some of his broadcast clients are adopting new business strategies in light of deregulation, specifically the elimination of the main studio rule, but though not in large quantities. “It takes time to implement changes, and … leases are sometimes years long,” he said.

In addition, deregulation of any industry typically increases the interest level of investors, Flick said; he expects that to be the case for radio.

“Any time you cut out the regulatory straightjacket, then you have people asking, ‘Ok, now I might want to invest the money to figure out an alternate business plan,’” Flick said. “The risks are lower and the industry becomes less complicated with fewer government limits.”

Not everyone feels the direction of radio deregulation is a good thing, Flick said; and on some issues, radio companies don’t speak with one voice. For example, iHeartMedia and Urban One are opposed to a change in the ownership subcaps that many others support.

“Of course, there will always be a split on any proposed deregulation between those who feel the rule constrains them and those who like the rule’s constraining effect on their competitors,” Flick said.

Susan Patrick, co-owner of Legend Communications, said the regulatory environment is presenting opportunities to improve operations and in some cases expand them.

“We are fans of deregulation. It’s going to help small-market broadcasting and help us compete against all of the other audio services that are out there now,” Patrick said.

Legend Communications, which has 23 radio stations, including several FM translators across Wyoming, is always looking for business efficiencies, she said.

“We have several situations where the main studio rule being eliminated could help us. We haven’t made those changes yet. I have spoken to a number of small-market broadcasters who have combined studio facilities, and it has helped them use resources in a different manner that better serves their communities.”

Patrick, who is also co-owner and managing partner of brokerage firm Patrick Communications, said she does see the potential for some broadcasters to utilize the new rules to cut staffing by consolidating facilities.

“To say otherwise is naïve. Some people given the opportunity to save money will try to save money, while large operators are more likely to be able to afford to keep staff.”

Beth Neuhoff, president and CEO of Neuhoff Communications, said the deregulatory mode of the FCC can help radio broadcasters increase value in their properties.

“I think with deregulation there is tremendous upside to a disciplined operator and investor. One of the basic rules of economics is that mature industries must consolidate to survive,” Neuhoff said. “There is so much opportunity in the smaller market for a better, more efficient model.”

Neuhoff said regulatory moves by the FCC offer broadcasters relief but they don’t go far enough.

“I think there would be both top- and bottom-line growth opportunity with less regulation. The ability to streamline back-office and operations is certainly interesting,” Neuhoff said.

“The bigger opportunity in my estimation is top line. With greater scale, I believe markets like ours could be better served with more offerings both that serve multiple markets and a larger portfolio of digital.”

Those stations with market proximity “most certainly can and should take advantage of the main studio rule,” Neuhoff said, but the challenge will be keeping a local presence visible on the street.

Neuhoff Communications, which owns 20 radio stations, is reviewing its best business practices, she said.

“Interestingly enough, our Fast Forward team, our next generation of company leadership, is designing the station workplace of the future as their capstone project. They identified main studio as a real opportunity for us,” Neuhoff said.

David Santrella, president of broadcast media for Salem Media Group, said the broadcaster is looking upon the recent FCC dereg moves favorably.

“I think now all broadcasters need to run more efficiently. There are broadcasters always looking for ways to run their operations with less money than they did the year prior and the year before that. And so I think the main studio rule will present opportunities going forward,” Santrella said. “Salem will look at that.”

The FCC is simply allowing broadcasters to make changes to operations to better fit new technology, he said.

California-based Salem, with just over 100 radio stations in just under 40 markets offering Christian-centric content, is “not behind” the movement for a change in the subcaps, Santrella said.

“If they change the subcaps I think you’ll see more people abandoning the AM band and moving formats to FM. Such a move would devalue AM properties. We built a business based on the current model and regulations, so when you change the rules in a very long tail business, and radio is a long tail business, you severely impact the business model designed based on the rules as they exist,” Santrella said.

Santrella, who also chairs the NAB Radio Board, said radio will need to balance moves based on fewer regulations while not losing touch with radio’s greatest natural strength of being “a local community service” business.

What do you expect the impact of FCC rule changes to be on the U.S. radio business marketplace? Comment on this or any story. Email to radioworld@futurenet.com with “Letter to the Editor” in the subject field.

The post Radio Eyes Advantages of Deregulation appeared first on Radio World.

The author is chairman of Digital Radio Mondiale.

Is medium wave in decline? Some people think so.

In the 1950s radio was declared mortally wounded by TV. But then FM with its new music rescued it, becoming one of the most successful technologies and platforms ever. Radio survived and thrived but AM should have died at the hands of the nimbler, younger and more attractive FM.

Photo credit: Radu Obreja

Only it did not and the medium reinvented itself by using presenter-led programming, commercial music and sport. In the United States it took until the end of 1990s for the FM and AM audiences to be equal and to this day the big AM stations are going strong, bringing in the ad dollars.

REASONS

Still, it’s undeniable that the whiff of decline has enveloped AM in the past two decades. The reasons are well-known: Analog medium wave doesn’t always deliver the best sound, it can suffer from interference, it can behave annoyingly different by day and night and even by season. Medium wave mainly appeals to a maturing population (a global phenomenon, considered shameful by some!) using aging receivers (this is bad!).

Analog medium-wave broadcasting also needs quite an infrastructure and deep pockets for the electricity bill.

Ruxandra Obreja

On the other hand, medium wave is that middle sister that delivers by giving excellent regional coverage over hundreds or (overnight and if the ionosphere behaves) even thousands of kilometers, whereas FM goes up to roughly 200 kilometers and digital DAB+ to half of that.

Medium wave is not only a regional but also an excellent local coverage solution. In Australia 33% of the public broadcaster ABC’s local transmitters broadcast in AM and 11 50 kW transmitters are serving the mainland capital or big cities. Medium wave covers large areas and reaches small far-flung communities for whom, even in developed countries, medium wave and FM still provide the first source of information.

Besides, medium wave with its reach, availability outdoors and on the go, is a fallback solution in times of emergency or simply a good standby solution when other platforms or services are unavailable (broadband, satellite, 4G or the mythical 5G).

The listeners’ behavior and the demands of the digital world are such that tackling medium wave has elicited different responses from broadcasters and regulators worldwide. In Europe, where the frequency was much used and abused, broadcasters initially energized by the potential of IP have not thought twice about closing down many medium-wave transmitters. Some have survived the cull, for example, in the UK, France, Spain, or in some eastern European countries.

DIFFERENT SCENARIOS

Regulators in other parts of the world have embraced different scenarios. One was to migrate AM to FM, or AM to a digital solution for FM (HD or DAB+). This process has taken a long time and, despite some successes, has shown it’s no replacement for AM or for a full large regional or national coverage.

In other parts of the world, like Brazil, digital was not even part of the mix. The simple migration AM to FM is plodding on there, as this is easier done in smaller places than in bigger, overpopulated ones, like big cities where there is no FM spectrum available and where the original demand for a solution came from.

Another idea is to expand the FM band, downwards, migrate everyone and forget about AM altogether, as FM seems a proven and winning formula. A nice idea but then, on top of the costs of replacing a large area covering transmitter with many, expensive, spectrum and energy hungry FM transmitters, there is the extra challenge of the new receivers to be produced and actually sold.

Certainly, there is also the option of doing nothing. Reading through the most recent submissions to the judicious consultation launched by the Australian regulator on the future delivery of radio services, I was struck by how some contributors claim that there is no current replacement for analog AM. Their scenario is to leave things as they are, for at least the next 10 years.

[Read: Historic Woofferton Boasts a Modern Twist]

Change is though the name of the radio game. While analog AM will subsist, it is worth looking at other options, too. In India where most of the territory and population are covered by the public radio medium-wave transmitter infrastructure, the government and public broadcaster took the bull by the horns and deployed almost 40 digital transmitters covering about half the country population with a digital signal.

THE SOLUTION

Recently cricket fans were able to enjoy an open-air demonstration of three different DRM programs on one frequency ahead of an important match in Bangalore. The fans also received data (stock exchange values) available on radio screens. This demonstrated that digital DRM is a game changer for medium wave.

In DRM the crackling audio disappears as sound is as good of that on FM. The electricity consumption and costs decrease, the spectrum is trebled and reception, even in cars (as available in over 1.5 million cars in India currently) is excellent, too.

If it is so good then why isn’t DRM medium wave conquering the world faster? Maybe it’s about confidence in a new platform. Broadcasters and governments need to market DRM digital radio once signals are on air in their countries.

As for receiver availability and their costs, let us remember how many receivers were on sale in the 1970s when FM was taking over the world. Nowadays, many listeners consume radio in their cars rather than sit in front of a retro looking wooden box. Digital receivers (DRM alone or DRM/DAB+) are a reality and a bigger push for digital would help with volumes sold thus bringing down the prices.

Radio, and therefore medium wave, can and should survive digitally. Digital radio must be an enabler of audio content and information while preserving its ubiquitous and unmatched advantage of providing a service for all.

For that, a bit of imagination, trust and, last but not least, some long-term investment is necessary. Because medium wave is still worth it!

[Want more information like this? Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

The post Solving the Medium-Wave Problem appeared first on Radio World.

.

.

Media Bureau issues its Second Report to Congress presenting the Commission's assessment of the current status of video description

.

.

.

.

.

Mark your calendars for just before midnight on Oct. 15. That’s the deadline for FM stations looking to file a request for repack reimbursement funds from the Federal Communications Commission.

In August the Media Bureau and the Incentive Auction Task Force released a set of instructions for FM stations, LPTV stations and TV translator stations who are looking to receive reimbursement payments for costs incurred as result of the post-incentive auction repack.

Those instructions clarified which stations are eligible to be reimbursed from the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund and Reimbursement Expansion Act — the latter of which has made it possible for certain FM stations to be reimbursed for repack-related costs. The REA has appropriated an additional $1 billion to the fund for those stations (though the commission determined in a later report and order that payments to Class A stations and MVPD providers would take precedence over FM stations, LPTVs and TV translators).

For FM stations, the deadline is around the corner — stations are required to submit a reimbursement form by 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 15, 2019. Keep in mind that the recent extension announced by the Media Bureau is only for low-power and TV translator stations, not FM broadcasters.

A webinar clarifying the reimbursement process was held in August. A replay of that webinar can be found here under the “Education” tab.

 

The post Deadline Approaches for Reimbursement Requests appeared first on Radio World.

It’s often said that kids keep a person young. I can attest that my three have kept me a bit more in touch with reality than I would have been otherwise from news or focus groups. And whether they belong to you, a friend or a relative, it’s hard to miss that kids are the ultimate harbingers of change.

The YouTube channel of Power 106 Los Angeles, aka KPWR(FM), owned by Meruelo Media. A large subscriber base with low video views equals opportunity to invest in advertising to increase audience, while improving content and frequency of posting.

I first noticed my kids utilizing YouTube for music consumption about six years ago. I recall the jolt at the time; it actually made me feel bad that broadcast radio wasn’t totally meeting their needs.

Like you, I got over that feeling once I accepted the new on-demand enormity of YouTube, then recalled that radio still has a major role to play with its convenience, personalities, information and immediate relevance.

This evolution reminds me of when television first supplanted radio. The industry initially ignored the shift, but over time, adjusted — and when it did, what happened next? We made a U-turn and started advertising our product on TV!

In my previous article, we covered advertising on YouTube; if you haven’t read it, please do (radioworld.com, keyword Lapidus).

Now I’d like to address the importance of having a radio station YouTube channel.

LEARN FROM THE SUCCESSFUL

Wanna hang on to listeners or win over new ones? You gotta go where your audience does.

You execute this all the time when you send DJs to host concerts and events. The issue for many years now is that much of your audience is spending significant time elsewhere — online and with music apps. If you want to go where the fish are, you need a real presence.

The best example I’ve seen of a highly successful radio YouTube channel was created by the BBC’s Radio 1. I’m not alone in loving this channel; it has 6.9 million subscribers. Some videos have millions of views, many have hundreds of thousands of views and yes, they even have pieces in the mere thousands.

“Foul!” you cry. I can hear the haters now, saying in unison: “But the BBC is a fully funded network, propped up by the government. It doesn’t even have to make a profit!”

Can’t deny that. However, everyone needs something to aspire to, admire and emulate. I’m simply suggesting that you click around the channel and notice how they’ve constructed it, what videos are performing, how they promote their broadcast channel, and the amazing outpouring of emotion they get from their audience in the comments section.

If you want to go domestic, take a gander at NPR Music with its nearly 3 million subscribers or the other NPR channels with 206,000, 99,000 and 101,000, respectively. Try looking at your best-in-class format competitors to see what they’ve got brewing and what you’re up against.

It’s interesting to note that Power 106 in L.A. is at nearly a million subscribers but, like Z100 in New York, has a low viewing rate. This could indicate that the stations are not purchasing any YouTube advertising; that their audiences are not diggin’ what they’re posting; or that their frequency of posting (content velocity) is low, so the audience doesn’t actually participate regularly anyway.

CONSIDERATIONS

A few things to debate:

Should a morning show have its own YouTube channel, separate from the main radio station? While there’s no definitive answer to this, my gut tells me that integration is preferable simply because it’s desirous to maintain a steady flow of content velocity. If both the morning show and the station are creating product, the overall posting frequency will increase.

Another advantage is exposing what could be two audiences to one brand. Some morning shows will fight this hard because, from a brand/ownership perspective, they may want their show to fly solo in case at some point they decide to depart the mothership.

What about other streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music? No reason why you shouldn’t offer playlists of your own design or by artists who reside in your format. I’m not convinced it will have the same impact as a YouTube channel, but the effort and barriers to entry are low. Apple Music claims to be streaming 100,000+ radio stations. Is your station available?

Is there money to be made on YouTube? It doesn’t turn into serious change until a station achieves a large number of video views with viewers who will watch full 30-second pre-roll ads. This ad-sense (pre-roll) that you can activate at any time, may be setting up a barrier to entry. It isn’t something that requires serious discussion until you have a substantial audience. Another angle is to integrate sponsors into your content, probably the most appealing, as it could be tied to a station ad-buy.

A highly produced/professional YouTube channel does require an investment in money, time and resources, and I get that not all stations are able or willing to play. It would be very interesting to see if this can be done on a small- or medium-market level — highly localized with raw materials. Would it perform by itself and also help to maintain or grow ratings? Let me know of your own experience.

By the way, this isn’t about being futuristic or obsessing over a passing fancy. YouTube has been growing for years. If we ignore advertising on it, or avoid even the notion of our own channel, it could be at our own detriment.

Mark Lapidus is a longtime Radio World contributor. Comment on this or any story to radioworld@futurenet.com.

The post Visual Radio: Creating a YouTube Channel appeared first on Radio World.

“America’s broadcasters should look like America.”

That was FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, expressing “particular concern [about] the persistent lack of diversity in broadcast media ownership, and among its rank and file.”

The commissioner has been on the job for about nine months and is one of two Democrats on the five-member panel; he spoke Tuesday at the Media Institute Free Speech America Gala. Starks said that the FCC’s controlling statute “demands that we distribute [broadcast] licenses in a way that prevents too many from winding up in the same hands and promotes ownership by women and people of color. This is important. The capacity of broadcast media to empower and inform is indisputable, and it is critical that those exercising this power represent all of us, not a mere privileged or anointed few.”

However, he said, the commission has, “largely and over many decades,” failed in meeting its statutory goals and obligations in this regard. “This isn’t conjecture or political posturing. It isn’t even an opinion. It is a fact borne out by our data.” He noted that of 1,300 full-power TV stations licensed, only 12 were owned by African Americans.

Starks said the FCC currently has an opportunity: “As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals observed in its most recent media ownership decision, Prometheus v. FCC, the commission can and must do better in addressing the impact of its regulatory efforts on the ability of women and people of color to own stations. No longer can it rely on bad data and analysis while ignoring its obligations. The court sent back this FCC’s latest deregulatory efforts and demanded that we get the data and perform the analysis necessary to ensure that we are fully meeting our statutory requirements.”

However, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, head of the Republican majority on the commission, has been harshly critical of the court and of its latest decision. Pai said last month that for 15 years, the Third Circuit has blocked attempts to modernize regulations to “match the obvious realities of the media marketplace.”

Starks on Tuesday also called for the FCC to “redouble” its Equal Employment Opportunity efforts. “For 15 years, the commission has had an open rulemaking proposing to continue a decades-old data collection on the diversity of the broadcast workforce. And for 15 years, while we’ve been stuck in neutral, we’ve elicited zero visibility on whether station management and news teams reflect our communities. We cannot fully engage on this issue when our ability to understand the problem is compromised.”

He said new research, including disparity studies identifying past discrimination in licensing, could be critical to addressing the concerns of the court “and finally making good policy in this space.”

Earlier in his remarks, Starks expressed ardent support for a free press. “The American people have a deeply ingrained urge to seek out and wade through what the Supreme Court has called a ‘multiplicity of information.’ That’s a good thing because it is essential to our democracy that the American people go through the process of hearing from a wide range of sources, ideologies and viewpoints. … What we need, then, is a press that pursues unvarnished facts and, above all else, truth.”

Starks was nominated by President Trump and was confirmed by the Senate in January 2019.

[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]

 

The post Starks Criticizes FCC Record on Media Diversity appeared first on Radio World.