SBE Calls On FCC To Examine Its NADs

Posted on May 3, 2011 by Christine E. Goepp

The earth may have moved for some, but apparently not for the FCC.

In the 1980’s, geographers around the globe began to realize that the North Pole was fictional. Not the one where Santa Claus lives, but the one that represents one end of an axis around which the Earth rotates. The one where all the longitude lines on a map should intersect, and the lines of latitude converge. It turned out this North Pole was not quite where we had put it. Meaning, from a cartographical standpoint, that geographic coordinates did not accurately reflect physical reality.

This revelation came about because, as we sent an increasing number of satellites into orbit above the Earth, they stubbornly insisted on circling around a center of mass several hundred feet away from the north-south axis conventionally relied on by geographers. Even then, we might not care, except that satellites used for GPS navigation and surveying provided latitude and longitude based on the true center of the Earth, which differed from the coordinates marked on people’s maps.

Geographers, being orderly people by nature, found the discrepancies troubling. Conceding the point to the satellites, they duly set aside the old coordinate system, North American Datum 1927 (NAD27), in favor of North American Datum 1983 (NAD83), which better reflects the actual center of the Earth’s mass.  True, this caused the coordinates of landmarks across much of the country to change overnight, but that is a small price to pay for consistency,

So how ironic that the FCC, which regulates many kinds of satellites, still conducts certain business – specifically, CDBS, its broadcast licensing database – using NAD27. For comparison, the FAA converted to NAD83 19 years ago, the FCC’s wireless licensing system, 12 years ago. The need for the change is a no-brainer – the Media Bureau apparently just hasn’t gotten around to it.

Perpetuating the sense that this is the issue time left behind, a Society of Broadcast Engineers petition for rulemaking has just surfaced in the Commission’s docketing system. The petition is dated August 10, 2007 (yes, SBE has a “stamped” copy with that date), but is marked in the FCC’s records as having been received April 6, 2011.  The petition has not yet been docketed or assigned a rulemaking number. And given the history of this issue, we’re not counting on further developments anytime soon.  Change in this area happens only by degrees.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Locked Out of CDBS? Here's a Possible Work-Around!

Posted on July 31, 2009 by Davina Sashkin

The key is in the call sign.

Responding to our post about the apparent glitch in CDBS which is complicating the preparation of Form 314 assignment applications for new audio (and possibly TV) construction permits, our colleague Peter Tannenwald has provided a possible work-around. According to Peter, CDBS will let you open up a new 314 for a CP sale IF the CP has a call sign. That is, the glitch appears only to occur when all you have to identify the CP is a file number and a Facility ID number.

So PT suggests that, rather than bother Konrad Herling, you can just sign up for a regular old call sign, and once that has made it through the FCC's call sign assignment system, bingo, you should be able to open up a new 314 without a problem. Is this a great country or what!  The folks who are buying the CP can then change the call sign to one of their own choosing once the transaction has been completed, if they're so inclined.

Tags: , , , , ,

Locked Out of CDBS?

Posted on July 30, 2009 by Davina Sashkin

Manual “unlocking” of CDBS necessary to access Form 314 for some CP sales

So you’ve got this AM or FM construction permit, and you really don’t need it and you’ve found a willing buyer and you’ve cut your deal and now all you need to do is get the FCC to bless it. So what do you do? Head to CDBS, access your account, and fire up the old Form 314, right? Up comes the 314 pre-form asking for the file number of the authorization you’re trying to peddle. You type that in and suddenly (cue ominous music) – aughhhh! – an error message from CDBS Hell:

Invalid combination of Call Sign (NEW) and Facility Identifier (0)

Here’s the bad news: because of a glitch which we don’t fully comprehend, Form 314 is “locked” – and therefore inaccessible through the normal CDBS interface – when it comes to proposed assignments of AM or FM CP’s.  (It’s not clear whether the same is true of TV CP’s – if you have any information on that, let us know.)

But there’s good news.

The FCC is aware of the problem and is all over it like a cheap suit. If you need to file a 314 to assign a radio CP, here’s what you do:

Send an email to konrad.herling@fcc.gov, explain what you want, and be sure to include the following information:

  1. Facility ID of the construction permit to be assigned
  2. The name of the permittee/assignor
  3. The relevant CDBS account number and password

The FCC’s staff will then manually “unlock” the form, making it available to you in your CDBS account. (Think of it as kind of like visiting your safety deposit box, only different.) You’ll be notified by email when the account has been “unlocked”. The process takes one-two business days. Bear that slight delay in mind if time is of the essence in connection with your sale (like, say, your CP is expiring and you’re fast approaching that narrow window available for selling it to an Eligible Entity in order to keep the permit alive for another 18 months).

It appears that this problem will be with us for another year or so, while the Commission’s crack contractors overhaul CDBS, paving the way for the “consolidated form” that may or may not make our lives better.

Of course, you might wonder why the FCC hasn’t issued a public notice alerting the universe of unsuspecting CP buyers and sellers about this departure from standard CDBS protocol. We’re not sure ourselves, but it certainly doesn’t seem right, especially since the job of notifying the public appears to have fallen to staffers who happen to be on the wrong end of the phone when one of those unsuspecting buyers or sellers calls in to ask about the error message. Keep your eyes out for a public notice – there’s bound to be one sooner or later.

One last tip: As you may have gleaned from the email address indicated above, the FCC staffer who bears the unfortunate brunt of this problem is none other than Konrad Herling, a true prince of a guy (and certainly one of the most pleasant, helpful and effective folks we’ve run into at the agency). But here’s the deal:   It’s best NOT to call Konrad about unlocking your CP Form 314’s; E-MAIL him, but do NOT call him. While he would doubtless be unfailingly pleasant with you on the phone, the fact is that, in the end, the conversation will not get you any closer to having the form unlocked for you; you’re still going to have to e-mail him the necessary information. So you can save both him and yourself some time by eschewing the phone and heading straight for your e-mail.
Tags: , , , , ,

Caution, E-Filers: The FCC Knows Who You Are!

Posted on June 21, 2009 by Harry Cole

Audio Division provides a peek into the back-end of CDBS

Before you even think about trying to pull the wool over the Commission’s eyes by hiding behind the anonymity that CDBS’s electronic filing system might seem to provide, think again. The Commission knows all and sees all – well, it certainly can find out a lot, if not all – and any thought of Internet anonymity is largely illusory. Some folks in Michigan recently found that out the hard way.

CDBS, of course, has dramatically changed the dynamic of routine filing with the Commission. Back in the day, when paper ruled, each application (or routine regulatory report, like an Ownership Report) had to bear an original signature. That provided some assurance that the filing had actually been reviewed and approved by the signatory. But with CDBS, the notion of presenting actual signatures to the Commission went out the window. And that, in turn, gave rise to the possibility of less than honest manipulation of the system. After all, if you are able to access CDBS (which merely requires knowing the relevant CDBS account number and FCC Registration Number (FRN) and the passwords associated with each), you can type anybody’s name into the signature block and no one would be the wiser, right?

Not really.

In a recent decision, the Audio Division pulled the curtain back, at least a tad, on the information available to the FCC from the back-end of CDBS. 

The case involved a couple of entities (we’ll refer to them collectively as “Great Lakes”) which had acquired CPs and licenses for a bunch of NCE FM full-power stations and translators in Michigan. Complaints and petitions had raised questions about whether Great Lakes had been honest in many of its applications. In one instance, for example, Great Lakes had filed a license application claiming that the station in question had been constructed and was up and running – even though an Enforcement Bureau inspection of the site three days after the application was filed turned up no station at all. 

The license application in question had not been “signed” by a Great Lakes officer; rather, it had been “signed” by Great Lakes’s engineering consultant. That opened the door for the Division to write to Great Lakes advising it of that particular deficiency. (While the FCC’s decision does not say so, it sure looks like, in so notifying Great Lakes, the Commission was setting a trap by giving Great Lakes yet another opportunity to mess up.) Sure enough, a week later an amendment to the license application was filed, this time bearing an appropriate name in the “signature” block. The Commission then sprung the trap, notifying Great Lakes of the results of the Enforcement Bureau’s inspection and asking for an explanation for why Great Lakes claimed, in its application and amendment, that the station was up and running when it, er, wasn’t.

Not surprisingly, Great Lakes had an explanation. The original license application had been placed in the CDBS queue “to have the information readily available for our internal review”, or maybe “as an internal reminder that this was a priority”. In any event, it had been filed by mistake. Who knew? It could happen to anybody! And when the deficiency letter rolled in, well, the Great Lakes principal merely supplied his “signature” without realizing the application which he was amending should not have been filed in the first place.

This is where things get interesting. After receiving that response, the FCC staff – apparently acting on its own initiative – checked its CDBS logs. It determined that the license application had been started on a particular date at a particular time (down to the minute) from a particular Internet address (i.e., a 12-digit IP address).    The Commission then found that that IP address was registered to a company listing a particular street address. (The decision doesn’t say how it did this, but it’s not that hard with, e.g., a simple WHOIS search.) It then found that that street address was the same as the address listed in the driver’s license and voter registration of Great Lakes’s consulting engineer. (Ditto.)

The staff then reviewed the CDBS logs relative to the amendment in which the corrected “signature” was submitted. While Great Lakes’s response certainly seemed to indicate that the Great Lakes principal had prepared and filed that amendment by himself, the logs seemed to tell a different story.  That amendment was started, completed and filed all within a six-minute period from the IP address associated with Great Lakes’s consulting engineer.

The FCC decision indicates that Great Lakes will soon be placed in a hearing to delve into this instance and a series of others, all of which strongly suggest misrepresentation or lack of candor. It’s always possible that some innocent explanation really does exist here, but it’s hard to imagine what that explanation might be. We shall see.

For the rest of us, though, it bears noting that the Commission does have considerable ability to ferret out information, both from its own internal records and from the same Internet resources we all have. And this case demonstrates that the Audio Division, at least, is not shy about digging for facts when investigation seems warranted. It is always a good policy to be completely honest with the Commission; it’s also unwisely short-sighted to think that you might be able to get away with anything less.
Tags: , , ,

New Consolidated FCC Database System In the Works

Posted on April 12, 2009 by Paul J. Feldman

A CommLawBlog scoop: Agency brainstorming on possible "consolidated licensing system"

Word on the street (actually, word around the FCC) is that the Commission is embarking on a quest for what some might view as the bureaucratic equivalent of the Impossible Dream: an Uber-consolidated on-line licensing system to unify the balkanized collection of existing systems currently in use. This would mean “hello” to a new “Consolidated Licensing System” and “see ya” to the Universal Licensing System (ULS), OET’s Experimental Licensing System, the International Bureau’s “MyIBFS”, and the Media Bureau’s (apparently mis-named, or at least prematurely named) “Consolidated Database System” (CDBS). At this point, it’s not clear whether any other systems – such as the FCC’s tower registration operation – would also be included.

On-line filing – whether it’s used for license applications, routine reporting, or other requests or notifications – is obviously a Good Idea. It streamlines processes, permits easy on-line access to filed materials, facilitates cross-checking and searching, pushes the initial inputting burden onto the applicant (rather than the FCC’s staff), saves paper, and generally makes life better. Oh sure, there have been the occasional complaints about the user-friendliness of, say, ULS (née 1998) and CDBS (née 2000). And yes, some users have carped about how you can’t simultaneously search the various databases for information about a particular entity, or a particular location, etc.

But maybe, just maybe, the FCC has heard those cries of despair and frustration.

Recently the Commission convened the first of a series of brainstorming sessions – complete with “facilitator” and scribe – to begin the process of designing a new “Consolidated Licensing System” (CLS). Since this project (which as far as we know has not been formally announced) seems to be in the very early development stage, its contours are still a bit ill-defined, at least to us in the outside world. But having attended the initial brainstorming exercise, I can say that it looks like the Commission intends to do everything it can to Get It Right this time around: that is, the goal appears to be a full consolidated licensing database encompassing all spectrum users subject to the FCC’s authority, a system designed with maximum input from private sector users as well as the FCC's own staff.

The initial brainstorming session included representatives of Part 90 frequency coordinators – who routinely submit hundreds of applications into ULS every week – along with a boatload of FCC staffers. The latter made a considerable effort to solicit criticisms, praise and suggestions from the former. Word at the table was that similar meetings will be held in due time with other user constituency groups. Keep your ears, and your schedules, open.

So will we be seeing a spanking new and efficient CLS this year? Uhh . . . no. This is a vast, long-term project with a lot of moving parts (not to mention a cost likely measurable in the bazillions).  From the tenor of comments at the first meeting, it appears that, in the best case scenario, we might start to see some initial elements of the CLS phased-in toward the end of 2010.  Down here in the CommLawBlog.com bunker we are hopeful, but we won't be holding our breath.

As a practical matter, though, the longer the Commission takes to craft the CLS, the better off we all will probably be. With about a decade of experience with ULS and CDBS under our belts, we’re pretty much used to the various quirks of those systems, and the Commission has ironed out many more along the way. So we should be able to get by for a little longer with the status quo, particularly if the additional time is spent productively, honing the new CLS to maximize its user-friendliness as well as its bottomline bureaucratic utility.

While the Commission’s seeming reticence to go public with its plans thus far may suggest that the public is being kept away from the planners, my personal observation flatly contradicts that suggestion. Indeed, the staffers at the brainstorming session I attended were emphatic in their efforts to solicit maximum input from those of us in the private sector. The approach the Commission is taking is somewhat novel (at least for the Commission), so it makes sense for it to dip its toe in the water before jumping in all the way.

So be on the lookout for further opportunities to toss in your two cents’ worth, and be sure to have your thoughts ready when those opportunities arise. Informed and constructive suggestions from the public will be perhaps the most valuable contribution we can make to this project.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

New DTV Search Page Unveiled on CDBS

Posted on October 22, 2008 by Patrick Murck

Another omen of the coming DTV Transition – the FCC has added a new search option to its CDBS Public Access menu. Now you have the option of clicking on “Search for DTV Station Information”, which will whisk you to a query page that permits searches based on call sign, facility ID number, channel, city/state of license, network affiliation and even Nielsen DMA. You can also opt to include or exclude LPTV and Class A stations from your search. Interestingly, while you can include “network” as part of your search, the results do not identify any station’s network. For example, you can insert “ABC” in the network search field and the system will throw up a list of stations, all of them presumably ABC affiliates. But if you simply search for, say, “KABC-TV”, it will find that station, but will not identify it as an ABC affiliate. Also, the results table does not list the states or the Nielsen markets in which the found stations are located.

This is, presumably, a work in progress, so we might see some changes in it as people try it out and bugs get worked out. We have one request of any debuggers who might be reading this – could you please make the wild card character “%”, rather than “*”. It’s not that we’re in love with “%”, but “%” is the wild card character that is (and has historically been) used on all other CDBS Public Access search pages, and it seems a bit silly to use a different one for this particular page. We’re just sayin’ . . .

Tags: , , ,