The FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the rules and establisha method for an national EAS test has been issued. Do we need a national test? If we are going to keep the EAS as it is, a national test is a good idea. Such a test has never been conducted.

The recent EAN test in Alaska showed that the system seems to work, at least in that state. If the system were ever needed across the country, would it work as well?

It seems the FCC is still focused on the daisy-chain idea behind EAS, however. I know many plans kept this idea in place from EBS, but it’s an outdated idea and should be replaced if it’s still being used. That’s another issue than what the NPRM seeks, but it is worth noting in comments that the daisy chain should not be perpetuated.

Because the FCC sees broadcast as such a major part of the EAN, it’s important for stations to express their views on how such a test should be implemented.

Perhaps you saw the news that Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) has introduced a bill (H.R. 1084) to try to control the loudness of ads on TV. What a great idea. Her bill has passed in the House and is on its way to the Senate (S.2847).

The House version has been kicked around for some time. You may have heard it called the CALM (Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation) Act.

I reread the legislation because I was concerned that it would be phrased to address the maximum level and not loudness. We all know that loudness and level are different. (Level refers to a maximum peak; loudness refers to an average energy level.) Fortunately, the House version refers to loudness.

It’s unfortunate that legislation will likely be passed to address this. The audio in a TV signal (oh, wait; the TV guys call it sound) has always been an afterthought. If the audio meter moves, all is well. Who cares what it sounds like? (You should hear the locally inserted ads on my cable provider. Ouch!)

Of course radio will probably never have this problem. Many stations squish all the dynamic range down to less than 1dB. Nothing has a chance to be too loud.

You have seen by now that some radio groups are being creative with the program sources for their HD Radio multicast streams. When HD Radio first took to the air, many stations created a jukebox player to feed the multicast stream. While that creates a placeholder and puts a niche format on the air, listeners rarely just want a jukebox for an extended time.

In some cases, FM stations will multicast an AM sister station’s audio. It at least provides a cleaner version of an existing program.

So why not take this a step further? Some groups are filling their multicast channels with signals from other markets. One example: Viacom’s KTWV-FM in Los Angeles has been using the feed from its country station in San Bernardino (KFRG).

This does not sit well with a KTWV competitor in LA. That competitor — Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters — has asked the FCC for a ruling to declare that Viacom’s arrangement violates the FCC’s multiple ownership rules and its FM allocation scheme.

The FCC has already ruled to prevent an owner from beefing up his station count to get around ownership limits. An explanation from the Commlaw Blog from Fletcher, Heald and Hildreth summarizes this well:

The Commission held that if a licensee (call it Licensee A) of a station in a market were to broker a multicast stream from another licensee’s station in the same market, that brokered stream would count towards the local radio ownership cap for Licensee A. This would prevent a maxed-out licensee — such as Viacom in this instance — from programming using another licensee’s in-market multicast channels.

It seems the Mt. Wilson claim is pushing the intent of the rules too far. Viacom already owns all the stations in question.

A better argument is that the Viacom is in essence using the LA signal as a full-power booster for the San Bernardino signal, and Mt. Wilson makes this claim as well. Wilson wants this option closed so no group owner will essentially simulcast an out-of-market stream via a multicast channel.

What will happen? Potentially another roadblock for the HD Radio rollout.

That’s what FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps wants.

In an address during the Free Press Summit on May 14, Copps dropped something of a bomb on broadcasters when he said that he wants to reform the license renewal process. From his speech:

If old media is going to be with us a while still, what implications does this have for us? It means we still need to get serious about defining broadcasters’ public interest obligations and reinvigorating our license renewal process. Since we still need broadcasters to contribute to the democratic dialogue, we need clear standards that can be fairly but vigorously enforced. It is time to say good-bye to postcard renewal every eight years and hello to license renewals every three years with some public interest teeth.

I understand that many thoughtful people are ready to give up on the public interest. They would rather just impose a spectrum fee on broadcasters and be done with it. I’m not ready to throw in the towel. The public interest standard is like a grand old theater that has been badly neglected over the years. The structure is sound, and with a little imagination and a lot of hard work we can make it a showplace once again.

I’m all for ensuring the public interest is met by broadcasters. There are limited licenses, so the spectrum is valuable. It should be treated like a valuable resource. However, juke box radio stations thrive according to ratings, so there is obviously some public interest being shown.

I get the feeling that Copps has the view that every consumer is actively involved in every detail of social and political events, and that radio should be just as active in covering the details. There are some listeners who want that, but it seems obvious that most listeners are happy to turn on the radio and hear something akin to what is already available. (What each market has may not be perfect, I know.)

Public interest is always a compromise. Public appeal is the counterbalance.

So Copps wants to end the postcard renewal and make it a process with some teeth. I can imagine that will involve much more paperwork. And if it’s shortened to three years, more paperwork more often.

Perhaps Copps will get his wish. I think most stations could handle increased filing requirements. The question is, can the FCC handle the new workload of reviewing and granting the revised renewal application process in a timely and efficient manner?

Feb 17? Not necessarily. Jun 12? Definitely. Really. For sure this time.

The analog shutoff has been promoted as being Feb 17 for years now, yet some people are still in the dark about it apparently.

I think a big part of it is that Congress and the FCC didn’t want to look like the bad guys when Ethel and Homer lost their TV signals. Now the shutoff date is up to the station. Let the station take the blame.

Deadlines are created for a reason. Yes, the coupon program had some problems. Yes, many people don’t pay attention to the daily notices that they might lose their TV signals. Most markets held soft tests to see who might be affected. Many SBE chapters worked phone banks to answer questions about the transition.

Meanwhile, the companies that bought the 700MHz spectrum that will be freed are still waiting to get access to it.

Feb 17 should have been left in place.

We already knew that there were problems at the FCC. Now, some members of Congress have affirmed that belief. Read about it here:

radiomagonline.com/currents/house-report-investigates-fcc-problems-martin-1210/

Unfortunately, it is likely that little will be done. Once Obama is sworn in, a the commission will have a new chairman.

With a new president comes new legal appointments. It’s already expected that Kevin Martin, a Republican, will be stepping out when Obama is sworn in. The two sitting Democrat commissioners are Adelstein and Copps. Which one of them could be appointed to be the chairman?

If I had to pick one, it would be Adelstein. Based on his comments and history at the FCC I think he has a better record of being broadcaster friendly.

Copps seems to have good intentions, but his actions always consider the broadcaster second or third. While I agree that public interest should be served, Copps seems to have an unrealistic view of what the public really wants.

I also wonder what other changes will be made at the FCC.

We’ll know soon enough.

The FCC’s votes are in. Sirius and XM will soon merge into a single company. Are you surprised? I’m not.

In a narrow view, Sirius and XM competed only with each other. In a more realistic view, they competed with every other form of audio media including terrestrial radio, Internet radio and media players. Will this approved merger be the end of terrestrial radio? Hardly.

After nearly 1.5 years of challenging the transaction, the NAB lost its fight. We saw a steady stream of activity in this debate, and now that it’s over, NAB Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton issued a statement: “Today’s vote certainly comes as a disappointment to NAB. We continue to believe that consumers are best served by competition rather than monopolies.”

Competition is healthy. I agree with that. So monopolies are bad, but superopolies formed from a few companies owning huge numbers of stations in a single market are good.

The FCC is taking its time in completing the satellite radio merger deal. While it’s anyone’s guess as to which way the decision will go, the feud continues about the pros and cons of the deal. Once the deal passed the DOJ, Radio magazine posted a survey question asking you to vote on your thought about the possiblie conditions the FCC might include with the deal. I think it’s likely that the deal will be approved by the FCC, and it will include a conditions. A few days ago, two congressmen sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin echoing the idea. The congressmen said that they do not support or oppose the merger, but urge the FCC to include some requirements if the deal is approved. I wonder which lobbying group got them to do that.

Of course this is how politics work. There’s always a deal and a compromise. The Congressional letter doesn’t get any closer to completing the deal, but keeping it at the top of the discussion list will prevent it from being ignored.

The proposed merger of XM and Sirius has passed the Department of Justice gauntlet. This was one hurdle that was uncertain for the deal, but the DOJ decided that allowing the merger would not lessen competition in the media landscape.

Naturally, the opponents to the deal are all crying about the decision and repeating the same claims about legalized monopoly, the satcasters defiance of existing rules, the expectation that the merged company will raise its subscription rates (why is that a concern to terrestrial broadcasters?) and more. The DOJ doesn’t see it that way, and neither do I.

The next step in the process is the visit the FCC. From what I see, the unbiased parties believe that the FCC will agree with the DOJ, although there will likely be some restrictions and conditions imposed on the deal. Will the merged entity be required to surrender some of its spectrum? I doubt it. Will the combined service radio be required to include HD Radio? Possibly. If so, that’s a win for that technology.

Now I wonder how the opponents, who have spent huge sums to publicize their opposition, will justify the cost of their efforts to their constituents.

With less than 10 days left in the first quarter of 2008, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin stated that he doubts the FCC will complete its review of the proposal before the end of the quarter. That’s an easy bet. I’m sure the pressure will increase to have a ruling by the end of the second quarter. The FCC will move carefully, and will receive many visits from the lobbyists before this decision is made.