FM Translator Interference Ruling Could Indicate FCC Direction
Decisions by the FCC and Media Bureau in a long-running Indiana FM translator interference dispute could indicate leanings in the upcoming proceeding on such complaints, said several radio attorneys, though others disagree. A bureau letter denying motions appears to take aim at efforts by Radio One disputing the validity of complaints against the translator and against arguments that full-power signals aren’t entitled to protection outside a station’s contour. Those are two of the more contentious items covered in an NPRM (see 1804270065).
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 dispute concerns 2-year-old interference complaints between an FM translator in Greenfield, Indiana, rebroadcasting Radio One, and Reising Radio’s full-power WXCH Columbus, Indiana. Thursday, the full commission -- including outgoing Commissioner Mignon Clyburn -- rejected applications for review filed by Radio One on procedural grounds, and the bureau tossed out dismissal requests from Radio One. The staff gave the company 30 days to resolve over 20 listener complaints, which several radio lawyers said is unlikely to happen due to their large number.
Radio One likely will have to move the translator, or file an appeal, said industry lawyers. Since the order rejects the broadcaster's appeals for being filed on an ongoing case rather than on the merits, it doesn’t indicate much about the agency’s plans, said Fletcher Heald's Peter Tannenwald. The FCC, Radio One and Reising didn’t comment.
The bureau decisions appear to discourage aggressive challenging of listener complaints in interference disputes, said many radio attorneys. A questionnaire that Radio One required complainants to fill out to show they were valid listeners was a document “of unprecedented breadth and burdensomeness” and “antithetical” to “cooperative conduct,” the bureau said. Staff rejected efforts to disqualify listeners who had connections on social media to employees of Reising. The recent NPRM on translator interference proposes a similar stance on listener complaints, requiring more information on the complainants to be provided upfront, and allowing less capacity to challenge them. The NPRM also proposed that social media connections aren’t a valid disqualifier. The bureau is looking to reduce the amount of time it spends adjudicating listener complaints, radio attorneys said.
The bureau shot down arguments the Reising station isn’t entitled to protection so far away from its contour, which is the opposite of a policy proposed in the NPRM. The FCC “has historically accorded no weight to translators” when they conflict with full-powers, the decision said. Some said this could indicate the proposal to limit complaints to within a station’s contour has mixed support within the agency. Attorneys and engineers said some large broadcasters may not be in favor of that proposal, and it's expected to be a focus of conflict in the proceeding.
Others disagree. The agency “doesn’t have any choice because it’s the current law,” said Tannenwald, disputing that the decision presages anything about the translator interference NPRM proceeding. The decision is simply affirming a “bedrock” FCC rule that translators are a secondary service, said National Translator Association Vice President-Legal Affairs Michael Couzens. The decision means less than it seems, Couzens said.