Draft C4 FM Proposal Largely Lacks Tentative Conclusions But May Stir Controversy
A draft NPRM on creating a new C4 FM class circulated to the eighth floor by Chairman Ajit Pai last week (see 1802060049) broadly seeks comment on the idea but contains few if any tentative conclusions, an FCC official told us. Though advocates see the idea as a way to help radio stations left out of AM revitalization, translator owner beneficiaries of revitalization and larger station owners are expected to oppose the new class, said broadcast attorneys and C4 advocates. “NAB will respectfully oppose this proposal,” said a spokesman.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The proposal is likely based on a 2013 petition for rulemaking from Class A broadcaster SSR Communications, which asked the FCC to create a new FM category larger than a Class A FM station but smaller than the existing C3 stations. The proposal is intended to let Class A FM broadcasters upgrade their facilities, SSR CEO Matthew Wesolowski said in an interview. Wesolowski doesn’t begrudge AM stations their revitalization, but the boom in translators caused stiff competition for smaller commercial FM stations like his. The revamp had “unintended consequences” for stations in his position, he said. The FCC didn't comment.
When he put forward a C4 proposal in 2016 as a commissioner, Pai and his office said the new class would help stations in rural areas (see 1609230067). The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council and the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters endorsed the idea as providing opportunities for minority broadcasters to upgrade (see 1802080033). Many Class A broadcasters have substandard facilities, and this sort of boost from the FCC could help them compete, Wesolowski said.
Wesolowski and other proponents expect much pushback on the new class from broadcasters concerned about the squeezing out of translators. The refresh efforts swelled the ranks of FM translator owners, and those policies have been a particular pet project of Pai’s, attorneys said. Creating a new C4 FM class would “annihilate” many of the translators the FCC has just worked to parcel out to AM stations, said Womble Bond radio attorney John Garziglia, who represents owners of translators and Class A FM's.
Concerns about crowding out translators are largely overstated, said REC Networks founder Michelle Bradley. Few stations that would likely pursue a C4 upgrade, she said, and a smaller subset would be in conflict with FM translators. “There are many FM stations that are not running anywhere near a full Class A facility,” said Bradley Tuesday in docket 99-25. Though some NAB members likely would benefit from the proposal, Wesolowski and Bradley said they expected the association to side with the larger companies seen as opposing it. Lack of space in the FM band is a growing concern in radio, and action to clarify rules around interference between translators and full-power stations has been expected for some time (see 1801110051). Bradley would like the FCC to expand any C4 proposal to also improve rules for low-power FM stations, by allowing them to increase power to 250 watts.
Asked about the C4 proposal’s effects on the AM revitalization in 2016, the Pai office said translators would be “protected.” Giving a translator “protection” from interference by C4 FM stations suggests that translators would be given primary status, a move that would be contrary to statute, said Bradley. It should be possible for the FCC to create protections for translators that stop short of giving them primary status, Wesolowski said. He would support such measures.