LPFM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions

In the NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recognized that there was substantial interest in and public support for increased citizen's access to the airwaves and that LPFM stations would provide a low-cost means of serving urban communities and neighborhoods as well as populations living in smaller rural towns and communities.

The NPRM seeks comments on whether a new low power radio service would provide new entrants the ability to add their voices to the existing mix of political, social and entertainment programming,  Number commenters stated that alternate sources of information and entertainment are not readily available through acquisition of an existing station, time brokerage agreements or internet broadcasting.  The FCC recognized that people with non-mainstream interests or unconventional views may be denied access to access on a full power station based on the station's owner.  At the time, it was also cited that radio was necessary because the internet was not very mobile.  

The FCC proposed LP-1000 which would be an effective radiated power (ERP) up to 1,000 watts with an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of 60 meters (197 feet).  LP-1000 would be proposed as a primary service, equal in status with full-service broadcast stations and is able to displace FM translators and stations in the proposed LP-1000 service.  The service would create a 60 dBu service contour of 14.2 kilometers (8.8) miles, about half the distance of the service contour of a Class A (6kW) FM station.  The FCC seeks comments on whether this service should be restricted to noncommercial applicants, open to commercial service or both and whether the population in these service areas would be large enough to sustain an advertising base. It is also proposed that LP-1000 stations would provide minimum distance separation to other FM facilities on co-channel and first adjacent as well as to other full-service FM stations on intermediate frequency.  The inquiry also questions whether existing FM translator and booster stations should be grandfathered in as being protected from new LP-1000 stations and whether LP-1000 stations should be permitted to operate translators and boosters.

Throughout the NPRM, the FCC suggests that "Microradio" is a separate "service" by using both LPFM (in respect to LP-1000 and LP-100) and Microradio (LP-10) separately throughout the document ''(For example: "..owning more than one LPFM (or microradio) station in the same community."'')

In the discussion on the Microradio class, the FCC stated that there should be a requirement that transmitters should be FCC certified.  This is out of concern of the statements made in comments by many that wanted to see "kit" type transmitters used.  They state that the uncertified transmitters may not meet out-of-channel emission limits and other standards related to interference protections on adjacent channels citing the numerous occasions that uncertified transmitters caused dangerous interference on aviation frequencies.

In the NPRM, the FCC supports the use of distance separation citing that they expect a very large number of applications.  The expeditious authorization of such service requires a simple, yet effective means of controlling interference among stations.  Separate distance separation tables would be necessary for LPFM proposals within 320 kilometers of Canada and Mexico pursuant to the appropriate international agreements. Distance separation would also permit for quick automated "self check" tools for frequency availability before an applicant files its application.  

By dismissing the use of contour overlap, the FCC stated it could impose additional processing burdens on the staff and could delay the authorization of LPFM and could place a heavy burden on small LPFM applicants.

For secondary applications, the FCC also inquires whether there should be a limit on the amount of interference that an LPFM station would receive.  Other approaches could include reduced distance separations and the use of contours similar to those used by commercial stations under §73.215 or more elaborate terrain models, such as Longley-Rice.

Types of interference protection standards

 

There was no issues from commenters about LPFM stations needing to protect co-channel and first-adjacent channels.  Supporting comments generally opposed any second or third-adjacent channel protection requirements.  Opposing commenters, such as the National Association of Broadcasters, National Public Radio and the New Jersey Broadcasters Association stated that these provisions need to be retained in order to prevent interference and/or protect future digital radio services.

The FCC states that in 1997, they eliminated third-adjacent channel protections for full-power "grandfathered short spaced stations" including those operating at substantially higher power levels than LP-1000 stations.

In addition to the cross-ownership rule, the FCC proposed to prohibit any individual or entity from owning more than one LPFM station in the same community.  With that, the FCC requested comments on how this same community would be defined, such as through signal overlap, Designated Market Area or markets designaed by commercial audience ratings services.

The FCC further states that the ownership guidelines set out in the ''Telecommunications Act of 1996'' would not apply to LPFM as the Act predates the LPFM service and the legislation did not anticipate the creation of the service.   

The FCC did not see a need to severely restrict the number of LPFM stations an individual person or entity may own nationally.  They expect the nature of the service that LP-100 and microradio facilities would attract primarily local or nearby residents where a group of LP-1000 stations may provide may provide a licensee with essential broadcasting experience to assist potential new entrants in their attempts to acquire and operate full-power facilities.   

The FCC proposed to treat LP-1000 stations like full-power stations where it comes to EAS and to exempt LP-10 stations.  They requested comments on how LP-100 stations could fit into the EAS structure.

The FCC requested comments on whether filing windows should be used and whether longer or shorter windows would work better of if the applications should be processed on a first come first served basis.  The FCC is concerned that a first-come first-served method would cause a crush and could overload any system that the FCC would devise.  

The FCC tentatively concludes that auctions would be required for mutually exclusive commercial LPFM applications under Section 3002(a)(1) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.   

In a joint statement, Chairman William E. Kennard and Commissioner Gloria Tristani recognized that as consolidation in the broadcast industry closes the doors of opportunity for new entrants, we must find ways to use broadcast spectrum more efficiently so that we can bring more voices to the airwaves. As the FCC considers the establishment of a low power radio service, we have to be mindful of interference concerns and not undermine the technical integrity of the FM band. The FCC is mindful of the conversion to digital. However, the FCC cannot deny opportunities to those who want to use the airwaves to speak to their communities simply because it might be inconvenient for those who already have the opportunities. They asked the broadcast community to work with the FCC in developing the proposals for a low power radio service that will coexist with the incumbent services and work together to maximize use of the airwaves for the benefit of the American Public.

Commissioner Susan Ness stated that LPFM could enable students, community organizations and those underrepresented in conventional broadcasting to provide programming of special interest to small and niche populations.  The acknowledges a statement made by Chairman Kennard that the FCC is the guardian of the spectrum and should not degrade it.  Commissioner Ness has three issues that will be on the forefront: Supports the LPFM service for noncommercial entities only, whether and to what extent whether these services would adversely affect the transition from analog to digital and third, whether the proposed services would cause undue interference to full-power services.  She also stresses that those interested in low power radio should consider serious assess the economic requirements of launching and sustaining a new business, whether on a commercial or noncommercial basis.

Commissioner Michael Powell looks forward to the creation of LPFM. He had concerns about the proposal where it comes to interference and the conversion to a digital service.  

In dissent, Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth claims he is not opposed to the creation of LPFM and whatever service can be provided within the range of existing interference regulations would be something worth considering.  He does not believe we should create new stations at the expense of current interference standards and he would have supported the NPRM if it was more based on the current interference rules.  To him, the NPRM is not so limited as he had concerns about the elimination of second and third-adjacent channel requirements and could be a severe incursion on current license holders and the value of their licenses.  It troubles him that the FCC has made no effort to assess, much less quantify, the effect on existing stations of eliminating these safeguards.  Even if second and third adjacent protections are eliminated, very little new service would be created in the major urban markets, such as New York and Los Angeles.  While many proponents of this rulemaking see this as a means of increasing broadcast ownership by women and minorities, there is in all likelihood no constitutionally sound way to assure such a result.  Strict cross-ownership rules creates a gross inconsistency with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The creation of LPFM or modification of the interference rules would hinder the development of digital radio.    "Community participation and proliferation of local voices" can be achieved through other means other than LPFM such as through purchase of airtime on broadcast stations, leased access, PEG cable, amateur radio, email, internet home pages, bulletins, flyers and even plain old-fashioned speech.  The enforcement of the rules will be an administrative drain and involve the FCC in micromanagement of the smallest of operations.  Finally, the website for the FCC discusses the benefits of LPFM but not the potential drawbacks.    "In short, given the potential harmful effects on current licensees and their listeners, the limited benefits of creating a low power radio service, the burdensome regulations placed on the new stations, the new enforcement duties for the Commission, and the availability for alternatives for communication, I do not believe that the pursuit of this proposal comports to our statutory duty to make available a rapid, efficient nation-wide and world-wide wire and radio communication service."