City of license Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ===Political considerations=== The requirement that a full-service station maintain local presence in its community of license has been used by proponents of [[localism (politics)|localism]] and [[community radio|community broadcasting]] as a means to oppose the construction and use of local stations as mere rebroadcasters or satellite-fed translators of distant stations. Without specific requirements for service to the local community of license, stations could be constructed in large number by out-of-region broadcasters who feed transmitters via [[communications satellite|satellite]] and offer no local content.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/04509192.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303184146/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/04509192.asp |url-status=dead |title=News & Features | ON THE RADIO|archive-date=March 3, 2016|website=bostonphoenix.com}}</ref> There also has been a de facto preference by regulators to encourage the assignment of broadcast licenses to smaller cities which otherwise would have no local voice, instead of allowing all broadcast activity to be concentrated in large metropolitan areas already served by many existing broadcasters. When dealing with multiple competing US radio station applications, current FM allotment priorities are: (1) first full-time aural service; (2) second full-time aural service; (3) first local aural transmission service; and (4) Other public interest matters.<ref>[http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db1010/DA-08-2267A1.txt]{{dead link|date=January 2016}}</ref> Similar criteria were extended to competing applicants for non-commercial stations by US legislation passed in 2000.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.current.org/pbpb/fcc/nce-order2000.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120611051916/http://www.current.org/pbpb/fcc/nce-order2000.html |url-status=dead |title=CFR 47 § 73.7002 Fair distribution of service on reserved band FM channels|archive-date=June 11, 2012}}</ref> ====Suburban community problem==== Any policy favoring applicants for communities not already served by an existing station has had the unintended effect of encouraging applicants to merely list a small suburb of a large city, claiming to be the "first station in the community" even though the larger city is well served by many existing stations. "The Suburban Community Problem" was recognized in FCC policy as early as 1965. "Stations in metropolitan areas often tend to seek out national and regional advertisers and to identify themselves with the entire metropolitan area rather than with the particular needs of their specified communities," according to an FCC policy statement of the era. In order "to discourage applicants for smaller communities who would be merely substandard stations for neighboring, larger communities," the FCC established the so-called "Suburban Community presumption" which required applicants for AM stations in such markets to demonstrate that they had ascertained the unmet programming needs of the specific communities and were prepared to satisfy those needs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.entrepreneur.com/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110524181436/http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/162470377.html |url-status=dead |title=Entrepreneur - Start, run and grow your business.|archive-date=May 24, 2011|website=Entrepreneur}}</ref> By 1969, the same issues had spread to FM licensing; instead of building transmitters in the community to nominally be served, applicants would often seek to locate the tower site at least halfway to the next major city. In one such precedent case (the Berwick Doctrine), the FCC required a hearing before Berwick, a prospective broadcaster, could locate transmitters midway between [[Pittston, Pennsylvania]] (the city of license), and a larger audience in [[Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania|Wilkes-Barre]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/?noadc=1|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120708020143/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6836/is_4_50/ai_n25004469/ |url-status=dead |title=FindArticles.com | CBSi|website=findarticles.com|archive-date=July 8, 2012 }}</ref> A related problem was that of 'move-in'. Outlying communities would find their small-town local stations sold to outsiders, who would then attempt to change the community of license to a suburb of the nearest major city, move transmitter locations or remove existing local content from broadcasts in an attempt to move into the larger city. The small town of [[Anniston, Alabama]], due to its location 90 miles west of [[Atlanta]] and 65 miles east of [[Birmingham, Alabama|Birmingham]], has lost local content from both TV and FM stations which were re-targeted at one of the two larger urban centers or moved outright. ([[WNNX|WHMA-FM]] Anniston is now licensed as WNNX [[College Park, Georgia]]—an Atlanta suburb—after a failed attempt to relicense it to [[Sandy Springs, Georgia]]—another [[Metro Atlanta#Surrounding cities|Atlanta suburb]]. Transmitters are now in downtown Atlanta.)<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fybush.com/site-020605.html|title=A selection from a decade of visits to tower and studio sites in the Northeast and beyond|website=www.fybush.com}}</ref> The same is true for WJSU, which served East Alabama with local news until the station was merged into a triplex to form [[WBMA|ABC 33/40]] which focuses its coverage on the central part of the state. A 1988 precedent case (Faye and Richard Tuck, 3 FCC Rcd 5374, 1988) created the "Tuck Analysis" as a standard which attempts to address the Suburban Community Problem on a case-by-case basis by examining: # the station's proposed signal coverage over the urbanized area (the "Coverage Factor"); # the relative population size and distance between the suburban community and the urban market (the "Relative Size and Distance Factor"); and # the independence of the suburban community, based on various factors that would indicate self-sufficiency (the "Independence Factor"). Despite the best intentions of regulators, the system remains prone to manipulation. {{blockquote|This has almost become a parlor game. The goal of the game—whether you're applying for a new station or a station currently licensed to a rural area—is to move as close to a big market as possible. The closer you get to a big market, the more potential listeners you can reach and hence the more advertising dollars you can attract. But there's a catch—at least there's supposed to be. The Commission is required by Section 307(b) of the Communications Act "to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service" to "the several States and communities." The FCC cannot simply permit radio stations to relocate from rural areas to well-served urban markets without violating that mandate. That's when the game gets interesting. Under our FM allotment rules, the Commission will give a preference to any applicant that proposes to serve a community with no current licensees—i.e., not that the community doesn't receive radio service (it could receive service from dozens of stations) but that no station lists that particular community as its "community of license." That's where a good atlas comes in handy. The next step is to scour the maps to find a community near an urban area that doesn't yet have any stations licensed to it. You win the game if you get the FCC to grant you a preference for providing "first service" to a close-in suburban community while being able to cover the larger market.|Commissioners Copps & Adelstein, Federal Communications Commission, 2008<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2008/db1103/FCC-08-205A2.txt|title=Copps/Adelstein, FCC, 2008, re: FM (Evergreen, Alabama and Shalimar, Florida, MB Docket 04-219), (Lincoln and Sherman, Illinois, MM Docket 01-120)}}</ref>}} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page