379
edits
(Completed initial version.) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This was the original ''Report and Order'' that created the LPFM service with two classes of service, LP-100 and LP-10 to operate as a noncommercial educational (NCE) service by entities that do not have any attributable interests in any other broadcast stations and in a manner that protects the existing FM service. Initially, only local applicants would be eligible to participate in the service and once the eligibility criteria is relaxed, local organizations will be given significant selection preference. The LPFM service will provide new voices to be heard and fulfill the FCC's statutory obligation the authorize facilities in a manner that best serves the public interest. | This was the original ''Report and Order'' that created the LPFM service with two classes of service, LP-100 and [[LP-10]] to operate as a [[Noncommercial educational nature of broadcast stations|noncommercial educational]] (NCE) service by entities that do not have any attributable interests in any other broadcast stations and in a manner that protects the existing FM service. Initially, only local applicants would be eligible to participate in the service and once the eligibility criteria is relaxed, local organizations will be given significant selection preference. The LPFM service will provide new voices to be heard and fulfill the FCC's statutory obligation the authorize facilities in a manner that best serves the public interest. | ||
{{Proceeding | {{Proceeding | ||
|type = Report and Order | |type = Report and Order | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
LP-100 created the most positive comments. Commenters felt that LP-100 stations would create a reasonable coverage area while remaining small enough to respond to local needs. The service would allow for the use of equipment such as transmitters and single bay antennas which are readily available. Those in opposition stated that LP-100 was undesirable because it be difficult to establish a procedural and enforcement framework that would protect FM broadcasters from interference and that LP-100 stations would only create a marginal new radio listenership given the overriding levels of interference they would receive from full-service stations. | LP-100 created the most positive comments. Commenters felt that LP-100 stations would create a reasonable coverage area while remaining small enough to respond to local needs. The service would allow for the use of equipment such as transmitters and single bay antennas which are readily available. Those in opposition stated that LP-100 was undesirable because it be difficult to establish a procedural and enforcement framework that would protect FM broadcasters from interference and that LP-100 stations would only create a marginal new radio listenership given the overriding levels of interference they would receive from full-service stations. | ||
The FCC did authorize the LP-100 service with maximum facilities with the equivalent of 100 watts effective radiated power (ERP) and 30 meters (98 feet) height above average terrain and minimum facilities of 50 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. This would create a maximum service contour of 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles). | The FCC did authorize the LP-100 service with maximum facilities with the equivalent of 100 watts [[effective radiated power]] (ERP) and 30 meters (98 feet) [[height above average terrain]] (HAAT) and minimum facilities of 50 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. This would create a maximum service contour of 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles). | ||
=== LP-10 === | === LP-10 === | ||
Those who commented on LP-10 felt that the service would be suitable for school campuses and local community organizations that wish to serve small areas and did not have the resources to construct a higher powered facility. Commenters felt that LP-10 would work better in crowded urban areas where higher class stations could not fit. Those who opposed it stated that the FCC would not be able to enforce the rules against the LP-10 stations and the widespread interference it would cause. Additionally the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) discussed that the original Class D radio service was eliminated because the stations were inefficient spectrum usage. | Those who commented on LP-10 felt that the service would be suitable for school campuses and local community organizations that wish to serve small areas and did not have the resources to construct a higher powered facility. Commenters felt that LP-10 would work better in crowded urban areas where higher class stations could not fit. Those who opposed it stated that the FCC would not be able to enforce the rules against the LP-10 stations and the widespread interference it would cause. Additionally the [[Wikipedia:National Association of Broadcasters|National Association of Broadcasters]] (NAB) discussed that the original [[Class D]] radio service was eliminated because the stations were inefficient spectrum usage. | ||
The FCC did authorize the LP-10 service with facilities between 1 and 10 watts ERP and antenna heights up to 30 meters HAAT. LP-10 stations would produce a service contour between 1.6 and 3.2 kilometers (1 to 2 miles). These stations would fit in some locations where LP-100 was not available. | The FCC did authorize the LP-10 service with facilities between 1 and 10 watts ERP and antenna heights up to 30 meters HAAT. LP-10 stations would produce a service contour between 1.6 and 3.2 kilometers (1 to 2 miles). These stations would fit in some locations where LP-100 was not available. | ||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
=== Public Safety and transportation === | === Public Safety and transportation === | ||
Based on comments received by the New York State Thruway Authority and the Texas Department of Transportation, the FCC created a carve out to permit LPFM stations to be used by public safety and transportation agencies. These agencies felt that LPFM would be a service more reliable than AM Travelers Information Stations. | Based on comments received by the [[Wikipedia:New York State Thruway Authority|New York State Thruway Authority]] and the [[Wikipedia:Texas Department of Transportation|Texas Department of Transportation]], the FCC created a carve out to permit LPFM stations to be used by public safety and transportation agencies. These agencies felt that LPFM would be a service more reliable than AM [[Wikipedia:travelers' information station|Travelers Information Stations]]. | ||
== Eligibility and ownership == | == Eligibility and ownership == | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
=== Localism requirement === | === Localism requirement === | ||
Most commenters favored requirements that LPFM licensees be locally based arguing that local residents are more likely aware of the issues of importance to the local community and to gear their programming accordingly. Some commenters claimed that a local ownership requirement was incompatible with a 5 to 10 station ownership cap and could be struck down under the standards set by ''Bechtel v. FCC.'' | Most commenters favored requirements that LPFM licensees be locally based arguing that local residents are more likely aware of the issues of importance to the local community and to gear their programming accordingly. Some commenters claimed that a local ownership requirement was incompatible with a 5 to 10 station ownership cap and could be struck down under the standards set by ''Bechtel v. FCC (10 F.3d 875).'' | ||
While the FCC felt that a local ownership requirement would be preclusive, the service is intended to respond to highly local interests that are not necessarily being met by full-power stations. Since LPFM will be NCE, they can't rely on on commercial market forces and business incentives to assure that local needs are fulfilled. The FCC concluded that the disadvantages of a local ownership requirement are outweighed by the benefits to be gained by maximizing the likelihood that LPFM stations will be well grounded in the communities they serve. | While the FCC felt that a local ownership requirement would be preclusive, the service is intended to respond to highly local interests that are not necessarily being met by full-power stations. Since LPFM will be NCE, they can't rely on on commercial market forces and business incentives to assure that local needs are fulfilled. The FCC concluded that the disadvantages of a local ownership requirement are outweighed by the benefits to be gained by maximizing the likelihood that LPFM stations will be well grounded in the communities they serve. | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
=== National ownership === | === National ownership === | ||
Comments received were very wide ranging including some groups that wanted a nationwide one-station-per-owner limit arguing that such a cap would result in the most diverse ownership Various civil rights organizations supported nationwide ownership Several commenters agreed with the 5 to 10 station cap that the FCC proposed. NAB stated that it did not believe a national ownership cap would be permitted under the ''Telecommunications Act of 1996.'' | Comments received were very wide ranging including some groups that wanted a nationwide one-station-per-owner limit arguing that such a cap would result in the most diverse ownership Various civil rights organizations supported nationwide ownership Several commenters agreed with the 5 to 10 station cap that the FCC proposed. NAB stated that it did not believe a national ownership cap would be permitted under the ''[[Wikipedia:Telecommunications Act of 1996|Telecommunications Act of 1996]].'' | ||
The FCC will use a staged process where in the first two years, only one station per local owner. If no local organizations want stations, after the two year period, the FCC would allow organizations to own up to 5 stations and after 3 years, up to 10 stations. The FCC dismissed NAB's claims since the ownership rules in the ''Telecommunications Act of 1996'' does not apply to NCE stations. | The FCC will use a staged process where in the first two years, only one station per local owner. If no local organizations want stations, after the two year period, the FCC would allow organizations to own up to 5 stations and after 3 years, up to 10 stations. The FCC dismissed NAB's claims since the ownership rules in the ''Telecommunications Act of 1996'' does not apply to NCE stations. | ||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
The FCC decided to authorize low power radio only on the FM band. For AM, the FCC cited the congestion and interference on the band. In addition low power AM stations were capable of significantly higher levels of interference as a result of propagation characteristics. | The FCC decided to authorize low power radio only on the FM band. For AM, the FCC cited the congestion and interference on the band. In addition low power AM stations were capable of significantly higher levels of interference as a result of propagation characteristics. | ||
For FM, the FCC has concluded that no specific frequency can be assigned for LPFM as all of the channels are used nationwide. Channels 201~220 (88.1~91.9) are already available for full-power NCE stations and they would also be available for LPFM stations. Stations would also be allowed in the commercial band Channels 221~300 (92.1~107.9). | For FM, the FCC has concluded that no specific frequency can be assigned for LPFM as all of the channels are used nationwide. [[Reserved Band|Channels 201~220]] (88.1~91.9) are already available for full-power NCE stations and they would also be available for LPFM stations. Stations would also be allowed in the commercial band Channels 221~300 (92.1~107.9). | ||
LPFM stations would be able to obtain broadcast auxiliary services such as studio to transmitter links, but such operation would be secondary to use by full-service broadcast stations. | LPFM stations would be able to obtain broadcast auxiliary services such as [[studio to transmitter links]], but such operation would be secondary to use by full-service broadcast stations. | ||
=== Spectrum rights and responsibilities === | === Spectrum rights and responsibilities === | ||
On the issue of secondary vs. primary service, comments were divided. Several commenters wanted primary service to help ensure LPFM's survival. Broadcasters and consulting engineers felt that LPFM should be secondary on the same level as FM translators. | On the issue of secondary vs. primary service, comments were divided. Several commenters wanted primary service to help ensure LPFM's survival. Broadcasters and consulting engineers felt that LPFM should be secondary on the same level as FM translators. | ||
The FCC made the LPFM service secondary and also provide protection to FM translator and booster stations. LPFM stations will also be required to protect vacant FM allotments. With that in mind, the FCC wanted to minimize the situations in which an LPFM station would be required to change channels or cease operating. LPFM stations will be required to protect full-service and translator stations using distance separation. In addition, LPFM stations in the reserved band (88.1~91.9) would also have to protect full-service and low power Channel 6 TV stations. | The FCC made the LPFM service secondary and also provide protection to [[FM translator stations|FM translator]] and [[FM booster stations|booster]] stations. LPFM stations will also be required to protect vacant FM allotments. With that in mind, the FCC wanted to minimize the situations in which an LPFM station would be required to change channels or cease operating. LPFM stations will be required to protect full-service and translator stations using distance separation. In addition, LPFM stations in the reserved band (88.1~91.9) would also have to protect full-service and low power [[Channel 6]] TV stations. | ||
LPFM stations would not be required to eliminate interference caused to FM stations by their lawful operation. FM stations will also be required to address complaints of blanketing interference and will be subject to international agreements and must eliminate interference to primary Canadian or Mexican broadcast stations. | LPFM stations would not be required to eliminate interference caused to FM stations by their lawful operation. FM stations will also be required to address complaints of blanketing interference and will be subject to international agreements and must eliminate interference to primary [[International agreements|Canadian or Mexican broadcast stations]]. | ||
In the rules, the FCC will include two distances in respect to co-channel and first-adjacent stations. The first distance is the required minimum separation distance that includes the interfering contour of the LPFM station, a 20 km "buffer zone" (towards full-service stations only) and the protected service contour of the incumbent station. The second distance will be the minimum distance where the LPFM station would likely not receive interference from the incumbent station. This consists of the interfering contour of the incumbent station plus the service contour of the LPFM station (no buffer zone). | In the rules, the FCC will include two distances in respect to co-channel and first-adjacent stations. The first distance is the required minimum separation distance that includes the interfering contour of the LPFM station, a 20 km "[[buffer zone]]" (towards full-service stations only) and the protected service contour of the incumbent station. The second distance will be the minimum distance where the LPFM station would likely not receive interference from the incumbent station. This consists of the interfering contour of the incumbent station plus the service contour of the LPFM station (no buffer zone). | ||
If a full-service station modifies their facility, the LPFM station may have to cease operations if the LPFM station causes interference in the full-service station's 70 dBu contour. | If a full-service station modifies their facility, the LPFM station may have to cease operations if the LPFM station causes interference in the full-service station's 70 dBu [[Contours|contour]]. | ||
=== Minimum distance separation requirements === | === Minimum distance separation requirements === | ||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
==== Establishment of distance separation tables ==== | ==== Establishment of distance separation tables ==== | ||
The FCC established distance separation tables for protections to full-service FM, Class D FM stations and other LPFM stations. A separate set of tables were established for protecting stations in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands due to the differences in the definition of service classes in those areas. A separate set of tables were established for LPFM stations in the reserved band to protect Channel 6 TV stations. | The FCC established distance separation tables for protections to full-service FM, [[Class D]] FM stations and other LPFM stations. A separate set of tables were established for protecting stations in [[Wikipedia:Puerto Rico|Puerto Rico]] and the [[Wikipedia:United States Virgin Islands|United States Virgin Islands]] due to the differences in the definition of service classes in those areas. A separate set of tables were established for LPFM stations in the reserved band to protect Channel 6 TV stations. | ||
Another set of tables were established to protect FM translator stations. The translator tables were set up in three tiers. The lower tier is for FM translators with a service contour of 7.3 kilometers or less, this value is consistent with the service contour size of non fill-in FM translators located east of the Mississippi as well as in California south of 40 degrees north latitude. The middle tier is for FM translators with a service contour greater than 7.3 kilometers, but less than or equal to 13.3 kilometers, which is consistent with non-fill in translators located in other parts of the country. The upper tier is for FM translators with a service contour that exceeds 13.3 kilometers. | Another set of tables were established to protect FM translator stations. The translator tables were set up in three tiers. The lower tier is for FM translators with a service contour of 7.3 kilometers or less, this value is consistent with the service contour size of non fill-in FM translators located east of the Mississippi as well as in California south of 40 degrees north latitude. The middle tier is for FM translators with a service contour greater than 7.3 kilometers, but less than or equal to 13.3 kilometers, which is consistent with non-fill in translators located in other parts of the country. The upper tier is for FM translators with a service contour that exceeds 13.3 kilometers. | ||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
=== Second and third adjacent channel protections === | === Second and third adjacent channel protections === | ||
When LPFM was originally proposed, the FCC stated that stations would be required to protect other stations on co-channel (same frequency) and first-adjacent channels (+/- 200 kHz). The FCC was inclined to authorize the service without any second-adjacent channel (+/- 400 kHz) or third-adjacent channel (+/- 600 kHz) standards. The FCC stated that a strong case could be made for not requiring third-adjacent channel protections as there would be little risk of interference to existing radio services as the interference would be very small and only occur in the immediate vicinity of the LPFM station or if the LPFM station was located at the outer edge of the full-service station's protected contour where the full-power station's signal would be the weakest. The FCC noted that third-adjacent channel protection was eliminated for certain grandfathered and short-spaced full-power stations in 1997. On balance, the FCC stated that creating opportunities for a new LPFM station should outweigh any small risks of interference to and from LP-1000 and LP-100 stations. | When LPFM was originally proposed, the FCC stated that stations would be required to protect other stations on co-channel (same frequency) and first-adjacent channels (+/- 200 kHz). The FCC was inclined to authorize the service without any second-adjacent channel (+/- 400 kHz) or third-adjacent channel (+/- 600 kHz) standards. The FCC stated that a strong case could be made for not requiring [[third-adjacent channel]] protections as there would be little risk of interference to existing radio services as the interference would be very small and only occur in the immediate vicinity of the LPFM station or if the LPFM station was located at the outer edge of the full-service station's protected contour where the full-power station's signal would be the weakest. The FCC noted that third-adjacent channel protection was eliminated for certain grandfathered and short-spaced full-power stations in 1997. On balance, the FCC stated that creating opportunities for a new LPFM station should outweigh any small risks of interference to and from LP-1000 and LP-100 stations. | ||
For second adjacent channel stations, the FCC notes that grandfathered short-spaced FM facilities were permitted to modify their facilities without regard to second or third-adjacent channels from 1964 to 1987 and then from 1997 to the present and that no interference complaints were received as a result of those modifications and they found that the small risk of interference was outweighed by improved service. | For second adjacent channel stations, the FCC notes that grandfathered short-spaced FM facilities were permitted to modify their facilities without regard to second or third-adjacent channels from 1964 to 1987 and then from 1997 to the present and that no interference complaints were received as a result of those modifications and they found that the small risk of interference was outweighed by improved service. | ||
=== Technical studies === | === Technical studies === | ||
Technical studies were filed in response to the NPRM by the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA) under the auspices of National Public Radio, CEMA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the NAB; and a third study conducted by Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP for the National Lawyers' Guild, Committee on Democratic Communications (NLG). In addition, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) completed a study on FM receivers. | Technical studies were filed in response to the NPRM by the [[Wikipedia:Consumer Technology Association|Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association]] (CEMA) under the auspices of [[Wikipedia:NPR|National Public Radio]], CEMA and the [[Wikipedia:Corporation for Public Broadcasting|Corporation for Public Broadcasting]]; the NAB; and a third study conducted by Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP for the [[Wikipedia:National Lawyers Guild|National Lawyers' Guild]], Committee on Democratic Communications (NLG). In addition, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) completed a study on FM receivers. | ||
==== CEMA Study ==== | ==== CEMA Study ==== | ||
The CEMA Study tested 16 consumer receivers including 5 automobile radios, 5 home hi-fi tuners or receivers, 3 portable stereo systems, 2 portable radios and one "walkman" style radio. Receivers were tested under a number of conditions including co-channel, first, second and third-adjacent channel interference. CEMA's determination was that proposals to eliminate second and third adjacent channels could result in significant interference to current and future FM stations and threaten the deployment of future digital audio services and therefore recommends that the second and third adjacent channel (and intermediate frequency) protections be maintained. | The CEMA Study tested 16 consumer receivers including 5 automobile radios, 5 home hi-fi tuners or receivers, 3 portable stereo systems, 2 portable radios and one "[[Wikipedia:Walkman|walkman]]" style radio. Receivers were tested under a number of conditions including co-channel, first, second and third-adjacent channel interference. CEMA's determination was that proposals to eliminate second and third adjacent channels could result in significant interference to current and future FM stations and threaten the deployment of future digital audio services and therefore recommends that the second and third adjacent channel (and [[intermediate frequency]]) protections be maintained. | ||
==== NAB Study ==== | ==== NAB Study ==== | ||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
==== OET Study ==== | ==== OET Study ==== | ||
The FCC's OET conducted a study with 21 radios including 5 small moderate cost portable and "boom box" receivers, 7 automobile receivers and 9 moderately expensive home stereo type receivers. No inexpensive receivers without an antenna input were used. OET found that nearly all of the receivers in the sample appear to meet or exceed the current second-adjacent channel protection ratios and exceeds the third-adjacent channel protection by a wide margin. | The FCC's OET conducted a study with 21 radios including 5 small moderate cost portable and "[[Wikipedia:Boombox|boom box]]" receivers, 7 automobile receivers and 9 moderately expensive home stereo type receivers. No inexpensive receivers without an antenna input were used. OET found that nearly all of the receivers in the sample appear to meet or exceed the current second-adjacent channel protection ratios and exceeds the third-adjacent channel protection by a wide margin. | ||
==== FCC conclusions ==== | ==== FCC conclusions ==== | ||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
==== Directional antennas ==== | ==== Directional antennas ==== | ||
Citing the facts that facilities using directional antennas are subject to strict installation and pattern requirements, the impact on staff resources for processing these applications and due to the fact that LPFM uses distance separation as opposed to contours, the FCC did not authorize directional antennas for the LPFM service. | Citing the facts that facilities using [[directional antennas]] are subject to strict installation and pattern requirements, the impact on staff resources for processing these applications and due to the fact that LPFM uses distance separation as opposed to contours, the FCC did not authorize directional antennas for the LPFM service. | ||
==== Transmission standards ==== | ==== Transmission standards ==== | ||
The FCC did inquire whether LPFM stations should have a different transmission standard such as reduced bandwidth. The FCC would determine that LPFM would use the same transmission standards as full-service FM stations. LPFM stations may engage in monophonic or stereophonic broadcasting and may use subcarriers when the FM signal is on the air. | The FCC did inquire whether LPFM stations should have a different transmission standard such as reduced bandwidth. The FCC would determine that LPFM would use the same transmission standards as full-service FM stations. LPFM stations may engage in monophonic or stereophonic broadcasting and may use [[Subsidiary Communications Authority|subcarriers]] when the FM signal is on the air. | ||
==== Antenna polarization ==== | ==== Antenna polarization ==== | ||
LPFM stations were permitted to operate horizontally polarized, vertically polarized, circularly polarized or elliptically polarized antennas. Normally in the full-service (with some exceptions for NCE stations near a Channel 6 TV station), antennas must include a minimum of a horizontal element to them. This flexibility will make it easier for LPFM stations to select an antenna for their station. | LPFM stations were permitted to operate horizontally polarized, vertically polarized, circularly polarized or elliptically polarized [[Antennas for LPFM|antennas]]. Normally in the full-service (with some exceptions for NCE stations near a Channel 6 TV station), antennas must include a minimum of a horizontal element to them. This flexibility will make it easier for LPFM stations to select an antenna for their station. | ||
==== Protection of AM radio radiation patterns ==== | ==== Protection of AM radio radiation patterns ==== | ||
Antenna structure construction within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of a directional AM station or 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of a nondirectional AM station will subject LPFM stations to the AM protection requirements to assure that the constructed tower structure does not adversely affect the AM signal pattern through reflections produced by the new structure. | Antenna structure construction within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of a directional AM station or 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of a nondirectional AM station will subject LPFM stations to the [[Protection to AM tower structures|AM protection requirements]] to assure that the constructed tower structure does not adversely affect the AM signal pattern through reflections produced by the new structure. | ||
==== Antenna Structure Registration ==== | ==== Antenna Structure Registration ==== | ||
Antenna structures that are in excess of 61 meters above ground level and those along designated glide slopes in respect to nearby airports are subject to Antenna Structure Registration requirements. | Antenna structures that are in excess of 61 meters above ground level and those along designated glide slopes in respect to nearby airports are subject to [[Antenna Structure Registration]] requirements. | ||
==== Blanketing interference ==== | ==== Blanketing interference ==== | ||
For the first year after the commencement of transmissions with new or modified facilities LPFM stations will be responsible for handling blanketing interference complaints. For LP-100 stations, this is approximately 125 meters from the transmitter site and for LP-10 stations, about 39 meters. | For the first year after the commencement of transmissions with new or modified facilities LPFM stations will be responsible for handling [[blanketing interference]] complaints. For LP-100 stations, this is approximately 125 meters from the transmitter site and for LP-10 stations, about 39 meters. | ||
==== Transmitter certification ==== | ==== Transmitter certification ==== | ||
The FCC will require transmitters in the LPFM service to be type certified. Type certification would prevent the use of transmitters with excessive bandwidth or modulation, spurious emissions, excessive power output or insufficient frequency stability, which could cause interference to other existing stations. | The FCC will require transmitters in the LPFM service to be type [[Certified transmitter|certified]]. Type certification would prevent the use of transmitters with excessive bandwidth or modulation, spurious emissions, excessive power output or insufficient frequency stability, which could cause interference to other existing stations. | ||
==== Unattended operation ==== | ==== Unattended operation ==== | ||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
==== Station logs ==== | ==== Station logs ==== | ||
Requirement for station logs will be minimal for LPFM stations. LPFM station logs will contain only the following entries: | Requirement for [[Station log|station logs]] will be minimal for LPFM stations. LPFM station logs will contain only the following entries: | ||
# Daily observation of proper function of tower obstruction lighting (if required by rules); | # Daily observation of proper function of tower obstruction lighting (if required by rules); | ||
# Dates and a brief explanation regarding station outages due to equipment malfunctioning, servicing or replacement; | # Dates and a brief explanation regarding station outages due to equipment malfunctioning, servicing or replacement; | ||
# Any operation not in accordance with the station license; | # Any operation not in accordance with the station license; | ||
# Receipt of the weekly Emergency Alert System test; | # Receipt of the weekly [[Emergency Alert System]] test; | ||
# Name of person making the entry. | # Name of person making the entry. | ||
==== Environmental requirements ==== | ==== Environmental requirements ==== | ||
To protect occupied areas from radio frequency radiation, the FCC has specific standards. There are additional standards for other environmental issues including but not limited to construction at sites with historical significance. The FCC will create a simplified process to assist LPFM applicants with this. | To protect occupied areas from [[radio frequency radiation]], the FCC has specific standards. There are additional standards for other [[Environmental Protection|environmental issues]] including but not limited to construction at sites with historical significance. The FCC will create a simplified process to assist LPFM applicants with this. | ||
==== Radio astronomy installation notifications ==== | ==== Radio astronomy installation notifications ==== | ||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
=== Electronic filing === | === Electronic filing === | ||
On the topic of electronic filing, while most commenters supported electronic filing, some had said that there should be a permissive ability to file paper applications due to issues such as a "significant race gap" in internet access and for those without computer proficiency skills, or otherwise having access to the internet. | On the topic of electronic filing, while most commenters supported [[electronic filing]], some had said that there should be a permissive ability to file paper applications due to issues such as a "significant race gap" in internet access and for those without computer proficiency skills, or otherwise having access to the internet. | ||
While electronic filing was available, it was not mandatory for the first filing windows. Applicants could still file their applications on paper. They will determine what will happen for the second filing window when LP-10 stations become available. | While electronic filing was available, it was not mandatory for the first filing windows. Applicants could still file their applications on paper. They will determine what will happen for the second filing window when LP-10 stations become available. | ||
The FCC also announced that there will be a website available where prospective applicants can make a preliminary determination of what frequencies will be available at a particular location. | The FCC also announced that there will be a [[Channel finding websites|website]] available where prospective applicants can make a preliminary determination of what frequencies will be available at a particular location. | ||
=== Filing windows === | === Filing windows === | ||
In the NPRM, the FCC discussed whether the filing process for new stations should be "first come first served" or through a filing window process where applications will be taken for a short period of time. Many commenters supported the use of the filing window. Those who supported first come stated that the benefit is that would avoid situations with mutually exclusive applications but other stated that first come will give an unfair advantage to applicants with superior financial and technical resources. | In the NPRM, the FCC discussed whether the filing process for new stations should be "first come first served" or through a [[Filing windows|filing window]] process where applications will be taken for a short period of time. Many commenters supported the use of the filing window. Those who supported first come stated that the benefit is that would avoid situations with mutually exclusive applications but other stated that first come will give an unfair advantage to applicants with superior financial and technical resources. | ||
The FCC adopted a filing window process. Filing windows will be announced 30 days in advance and the window will be open for 5 days. | The FCC adopted a filing window process. Filing windows will be announced 30 days in advance and the window will be open for 5 days. | ||
Following a filing window, minor change applications will be permitted. Minor change applications can propose to move an LP-100 station up to 2 kilometers or an LP-10 station up to 1 kilometers. Minor change applications can specify a change to a first, second, or third adjacent channel or an intermediate frequency channel. Upon a technical showing of reduced interference, an applicant can change to any channel in order to resolve the interference. | Following a filing window, [[minor change applications]] will be permitted. Minor change applications can propose to move an LP-100 station up to 2 kilometers or an LP-10 station up to 1 kilometers. Minor change applications can specify a change to a first, second, or third adjacent channel or an intermediate frequency channel. Upon a technical showing of reduced interference, an applicant can change to any channel in order to resolve the interference. | ||
=== Mutual exclusivity === | === Mutual exclusivity === | ||
The FCC requested comments about handling mutually exclusive applications and how they would be settled. Three possible methods were mentioned: (1) comparative hearings, (2) a lottery process weighed in favor of certain applicants based on statutory requirements and other factors or (3) a system assigning points to applicants based on various selection criteria. | The FCC requested comments about handling mutually exclusive applications and how they would be settled. Three possible methods were mentioned: (1) comparative hearings, (2) a lottery process weighed in favor of certain applicants based on statutory requirements and other factors or (3) a system assigning points to applicants based on various selection criteria. | ||
Based on consideration of the record, the FCC would adopt a point system for resolving mutual exclusivity. The point system would include three selection criteria: | Based on consideration of the record, the FCC would adopt a [[Comparative review of LPFM applications|point system]] for resolving mutual exclusivity. The point system would include three selection criteria: | ||
# '''Established community presence''' - The applicant was local in the community continuously in the community for a minimum of two years. Local is defined as either the organization's headquarters, campus or chapter, or 75 percent of the organizations board members residing within 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) of the transmitting antenna. | # '''Established community presence''' - The applicant was local in the community continuously in the community for a minimum of two years. Local is defined as either the organization's headquarters, campus or chapter, or 75 percent of the organizations board members residing within 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) of the transmitting antenna. | ||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
The FCC asked for comments to whether LPFM licenses should be renewable. Most parties agreed that they should be and suggested various license terms from 1 to 7 years. Only a small number of commenters supported non-renewable licenses. | The FCC asked for comments to whether LPFM licenses should be renewable. Most parties agreed that they should be and suggested various license terms from 1 to 7 years. Only a small number of commenters supported non-renewable licenses. | ||
The FCC decided that LPFM licenses should be on the same synchronized schedule that applies to other broadcast stations. This means that licenses would be first granted for a short term until the synchronized expiration date is met and then licenses are renewed for 8 year terms. | The FCC decided that LPFM licenses should be on the same synchronized schedule that applies to other broadcast stations. This means that licenses would be first granted for a short term until the synchronized expiration date is met and then licenses are [[Renewal of license|renewed]] for 8 year terms. | ||
The exception will be non-renewable licenses that were as a result of the last resort tie breaker situation. In those cases, the expiration dates of the licenses will be handled independently of the synchronized system. | The exception will be non-renewable licenses that were as a result of the last resort tie breaker situation. In those cases, the expiration dates of the licenses will be handled independently of the synchronized system. | ||
Line 235: | Line 235: | ||
The FCC determined that certain obligations would be unnecessary for LPFM stations. The eligibility and selection criteria will help ensure that LPFM licensees will meet the needs and interests of their communities. LPFM stations will not be required to provide programming responsive to community issues or to maintain a list of issues addressed for specific programs aired. This means no public file requirements. | The FCC determined that certain obligations would be unnecessary for LPFM stations. The eligibility and selection criteria will help ensure that LPFM licensees will meet the needs and interests of their communities. LPFM stations will not be required to provide programming responsive to community issues or to maintain a list of issues addressed for specific programs aired. This means no public file requirements. | ||
LPFM stations would still be subject to rules regarding obscene and indecent programming, sponsorship identification, political programming, recorded programming, personal attacks and periodic call sign announcements. | LPFM stations would still be subject to rules regarding [[Wikipedia:Watershed (broadcasting)|obscene and indecent programming]], sponsorship identification, political programming, recorded programming, personal attacks and periodic call sign announcements. | ||
=== Locally originated programming === | === Locally originated programming === | ||
Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
=== Operating hours === | === Operating hours === | ||
To ensure an effective utilization of channels, the current standards for full-service NCE stations will be used. Stations will | To ensure an effective utilization of channels, the current standards for full-service NCE stations will be used. Stations will be required to operate at least 36 hours per week and at least 5 hours a day, 6 days a week. Stations licensed to educational institutions are not required to operate on Saturday or Sunday (or during school vacation periods). | ||
=== Other broadcast administrative rules === | === Other broadcast administrative rules === | ||
Comments received on this issue were mixed where existing broadcasters held the position that LPFM stations should follow the broadcast rules regarding main studios, public files and ownership reports where others stated that such rules would be a burden on LPFM stations. | |||
To prevent an undue burden being placed on LPFM stations, the FCC decided not to require LPFM stations to follow the main studio rule; however, those stations that pledged to operate a main studio for at least 20 hours per week and who had their applications decided through the point system are expected to meet the pledge. LPFM stations would not be required to maintain a public inspection file nor required to file ownership reports. These rule exemptions are consistent with those that apply for Low Power TV stations. | |||
=== Construction permits === | === Construction permits === | ||
In the NPRM, the FCC proposed an 18-month construction period for LP-100 stations and a 12-month period for LP-10 stations. Most commenters stated these intervals were reasonable and others advocated for shorter periods to prevent spectrum hoarding. | |||
The FCC decided on an 18-month construction period for both LP-10 and LP-100 stations. | |||
=== Emergency Alert System === | === Emergency Alert System === | ||
On EAS, some commenters argued that compliance should not be required for LP-10 and LP-100 stations because small operations and coverage areas make compliance unnecessary and too expensive. Others commented that LPFM stations should only be required to have EAS decoders because they will only broadcast to listeners and not to other EAS participants. NAB argued that EAS should be required because listeners will be unaware of emergency warnings that they have come to expect from radio stations. | |||
The FCC decided that LPFM stations would be required at LPFM stations, but they would only be required to install decoders and are not required to have encode capability. This would be consistent with the relaxed rules for Low Power TV and Class D FM radio stations. | |||
== Commissioner statements == | == Commissioner statements == | ||
In support of the ''Report and Order,'' Chairman [[Wikipedia:William Kennard|William Kennard]] stated that the possibility of opening up available spectrum in the FM band has sparked creativity and that there is more room for these and other uses, but rather than being able to use available spectrum to test their ideas in the marketplace, these groups have been shut out, prohibited from serving their communities. The most serious objection to LPFM was that it would cause interference to existing radio stations. Chairman Kennard has pledged all along that he would not support any proposal that threatens the integrity of existing radio services. In a separate statement, Commissioner [[Wikipedia:Susan Ness|Susan Ness]] states that the FCC has enabled students, community organizations, churches and those underrepresented in conventional broadcasting to provide programming of special interest to community and niche populations. She was also impressed that the adopted rules would not cause interference to other stations including new IBOC radio systems. | |||
In dissent, Commissioner [[Wikipedia:Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth|Harold Furchtgott-Roth]] cannot support the elimination of the third-adjacent channel protection requirements and calling the FCC's overall plan a "rush to judgment". He focuses on the fewer stations that would be established in urban areas because the second-adjacent channel restrictions were not lifted also. He felt that the existing rules, which allows for stations with a minimum of 100 watts was the better way to go. "In short, the Commission has, at the expense of existing service quality, created a handful of new stations in primarily non-urban areas; stations that may not meet their licensing requirements if they air religious programming; stations that may well be unlistenable by fixed listeners due to interference received from higher power stations; a threat to the development of digital radio servies; a heavy regulatory scheme, including cross-ownership, political programming rules and EEO outreach duties, to govern these very small operators; and more enforcement and administration burdens for the Commission." | |||
Commissioner [[Wikipedia:Michael Powell (lobbyist)|Michael Powell]], dissenting in part, stated that while he supports the Commission's overall objectives, there are the threats of signal interference and erosion of economic viability. On the latter issue, he is concerned that LPFM stations will be a threat to small market broadcasters to their overall economic viability by potentially siphoning financial support away from small market stations and dilute audience share. He would have taken a slow approach to introduce LPFM including some experimental operations to assess the real world impact of signal interference, which could have resulted in LPFM being introduced with third adjacent channel protections and would introduce fewer stations to gauge the actual economic impacts to existing stations. | |||
== Related links == | == Related links == | ||
* ''[https://www.fcc.gov/document/creation-low-power-radio-service-11 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service]'' at the FCC. | |||
{{LpfmProceedings}} | {{LpfmProceedings}} |