A radio station that has been broadcasting for years was suddenly "thrown" off the air and REPLACED? I don't understand how all this works, and please DO limit your comments to something that someone like me can understand.

A coup

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Answers

(What's this "Mr. Poole" stuff? I've always been Stephen in the past ...)

I saw that story yesterday and was gonna comment on it. You beat me to it. :)

Here's the quick and dirty: NPR had every right to file for that higher-powered station; Donald Wildmon didn't have an exclusive and from my understanding of the rules, I find it hard to believe that he'd automatically get preference.

The article doesn't discuss NPR's failure to vigorously pursue their own application. All we get is this one quote (which almost makes no sense if you don't understand this fact):

“My colleagues at NPR in Washington have been asleep at the switch,” complains Ronald Kramer of Jefferson Public Radio ...

THAT'S what Kramer is talking about. The "loophole" that let Wildmon build a high-powered station would have let NPR do the SAME THING -- if it had chosen to do so.

---

GEEK ALERT

OK: this is where it gets technical, and you can skip the remainder if you like[g]. The article also misses the following, too.

I don't know all the details and it has been years since I've looked at that part of the Rules. (My job requires that I be more familiar with the rules of *operation*, rather than those for licensing and ownership.)

But the original NPR "station" actually wasn't a "station" at all; it was a low-power translator. That's a VERY important point.

What do these do? Suppose Nick has a station on the other side of a mountain from your house. He can prove that, if that mountain wasn't there, you'd be able to pick him up. Nick files an application for a little low-powered (100 watts, typically) transmitter on a different frequency on your side of the mountain. It'll rebroadcast his signal, filling in that hole in his coverage.

(The rules for Public stations are a bit more relaxed. Most of these networks work on a statewide basis -- "Alabama Public Radio," "North Carolina Public Television," etc. -- so the FCC has permitted them to increase their statewide coverage with translators. But that doesn't change the basic point.)

It's called a "translator" because it takes his original signal and "translates" it to an (unused) frequency at low power -- just enough power to cover your little community.

Public radio has historically been a heavy user of these little translators because they're a cheap way to "fill in" your coverage area. Commercial broadcasters can afford things like 2,000' towers and custom-designed antennas to brute-force the signal into these "holes," because picking up another 50,000 listeners directly translates to increased revenue for them. That's not the case for public radio.

Here's the problem, and here's what has been changing in the past decade or so: these little translators use up frequencies, of which there are only a few available. Since they're low power frequency hogs, some people consider them a waste.

(The analogy is, imagine reserving an entire stretch of Interstate for a single Ford Tempo.)

Now, the FCC has been under pressure for decades to find more frqeuencies; create more stations; permit more people to broadcast. This is just one of MANY rule changes that have been made to support that: if you were willing to build a full-power station on that translator's frequency, you got the nod.

But again, here's what the article misses: if I file that application, NICK HAS EVERY RIGHT TO FILE AN APPLICATION OF HIS OWN.

For reasons that I can only guess at (probably budget limitations) NPR chose not to file to increase power on these translators. Like I said above, public radio *likes* translators because they're a good, cheap way to increase coverage. But the minute they saw Wildmon's application, they should have filed one of their own. And in spite of what the article says, I assure you, they would have been given consideration OVER Wildmon.

Now: Wildmon taking the FCC to court isn't because of an overt change in the rules, as the article implies; I've got to check into it more deeply, but I believe that what's REALLY happening is, NPR has indeed started filing counter-applications and the FCC is indeed giving them preference.

But the FCC has ALWAYS given preference to the local broadcaster; I don't know why that article implies that this is some big change. The change in favor of the guy who owns the least stations IS significant -- and frankly, one that I heartily agree with.

Bottom line: another article that does a poor job of explaining a complex situation.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

Oh, and one other thing -- calling Wildmon's actions a "coup" is nothing but pure sensationalism. Wildmon isn't a terribly popular person outside of the Fundamentalist community, and it makes great copy to call it that. But it's NOT a "coup."

And don't think that I'm blindly supporting Wildmon; whether it's him, Clear Channel or any of the other "I own a zillion stations in each city!" monster networks, I'm opposed to them.

The REAL solution would be to reinstate the Rules against multiple ownership in a single market.

(When I went to Prophet school at the Clear Channel facility in Denver, there was a cartoon on the wall in one of the offices: It showed the head of Clear Channel in a Darth Vader costume saying, "you will be assimilated." [g])

(Last time I checked, they owned about one fifth of all the stations in the country. That's just too blamed many.)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001

(What's this "Mr. Poole" stuff? I've always been Stephen in the past ...)

Um...under the covers we all know that there are more Stephens posting on this forum than use the name in their posts? I just wanted to ensure that I addressed the thread to the correct Stephen. I meant no ill will.

Thanks for the explanation. [I even understood the stuff that was for those with more brainpower.]

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2001