LPFM CPs ARE EXPIRING! DON'T MISS OUT! ~ REC is providing discounts for LPFMs on the verge of expiration that need to move sites. [learn more]
REC will be unavailable to file any applications (other than Form 319 requests through EZForms and AM on FM translator requests for the new rules) between April 1~13, 2017 Please get your requests in for before or after those dates. Thank you for your understanding. (Translator requests must be received and prepared prior to 4/2.)
I am reading several threads on the thought of expanding Part 15 or very low power broadcasting either as a service authorized by rule (unlicensed) or authorized by license. I have seen several ideas come up as far as spectrum is concerned. I have seen mentions of longwave, 510 kHz, 520 kHz, 1710 kHz, 1710 to 1780 kHz and shortwave.
First of all, let’s quickly talk about how spectrum is allocated.
REC supports Univision's complaint against KYEB-LP. If the allegations made in the complaint are true, this is a serious violation of the FCC Rules, puts the integrity of LPFM at risk and strains the relationship between LPFM and the full-service broadcast industry.
The alleged actions of KYEB-LP are not representative of the LPFM service as a whole.
While Univision alludes to the REC Informal Objection against 246 Cesar Guel-assisted applications, we wish to point out that Iglesia Alfa y Omega was not included in that objection because the original application for Iglesia Alfa y Omega was not handled through Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian Community Network but rather by another consultant. Guel/HCCN was involved in a subsequent minor modification.
So far as of this writing, the FCC has dismissed applications that were filed by Antonio Cesar Guel for new LPFM stations in San Antonio, Jacksonville, Lufkin TX, Columbia SC, Lake Charles LA and McAllen TX.
These dismissals were as a result of the Commission investigating the addresses that these applicants claimed as their headquarters. In these cases, the Commission used public records to determine the property owners (which were mainly churches) and these property owners verified that these organizations were never headquarted at these locations. As a result, the Commission determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements of §73.853(b)(1). Since the same addresses were used for the board members, these addresses were dismissed for the purpose of establishing 75% of the organization's board members are local in accordance with §73.853(b)(2). Since the localism requirements were not met, the applicant is not qualified to be an LPFM licensee and thus, the application was dimissed.