379
edits
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (view source)
Revision as of 20:20, 11 August 2022
, 2 years agono edit summary
(Created page with "This ''Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' (NPRM) was issued at the same time as the ''Third Report and Order (Third R&O).'' This NPRM expands on some of the issues discussed in the ''Third R&O'' including the making more permanent, the use of second-adjacent channel waivers to address full-service encroachment, the eligibility standards for LPFM stations receiving such waivers, whether full-service stations need to take LPFM stations into consideration on modification appli...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
=== Contour-based licensing for LPFM stations === | === Contour-based licensing for LPFM stations === | ||
..{{LpfmProceedings}} | The FCC uses a distance separation method. This method allows for a straight-forward standard for determining technical acceptability which permitted the use of "channel finder" websites operated by the FCC and by third parties. Prometheus Radio Project and other LPFM advocates argue that the FCC should adopt a more flexible "contour" methodology for the licensing of LPFM stations. As demonstrated by over 13,000 applications in the Auction 83 filing window, adoption of this standard would vastly expand LPFM licensing opportunities throughout the nation and create the possibility of locating new LPFM stations in a number of major and spectrum-congested markets. | ||
The FCC states that the flexibility of FM translator licensing is based on four key factors: | |||
# Translators, like LPFM stations, may only operate with limited power. This necessarily limits distances from the proposed transmitter site to its co-channel and adjacent-channel interfering contours. | |||
# A protection method based on contours is a more flexible approach. Where distance separation is based on class maximum, contours are based on actual facilities. | |||
# Translators are licensed as secondary services and may receive interference from other facilities | |||
# Translator technical rules include a second and essential requirement, the inflexible obligation to resolve all bona fide actual interference complaints. | |||
The Commission tentatively concluded that licensing of LPFM stations pursuant to contour based methodology is in the public interest. LPFM stations would be required to resolve actual interference complaints or cease operations. The FCC requested comments on this finding. The FCC also concluded not to use alternative terrain based propagation models such as Longley-Rice as it would impose an enormous staff processing burden and typically subject to opposition. Instead, permitting desired to undesired (D/U) ratios showings to establish lack of population in overlap areas subject to interference would provide amply license flexibility. The FCC asked for comments on whether it is appropriate to license LPFM stations to community groups, which often have limited resources or technical expertise, under standards that subjects such stations to the constant risk of being forced off the air if they cannot resolve interference complaints promptly. The FCC asked if LPFM stations should be required to use consulting engineered. The FCC tentatively concluded that the Section 73.807 (distance separation) should be retained if a contour rule is adopted in this proceeding. Stations holding licenses under the current rule would not be required to resolve actual interference cases except in accordance with Section 73.809. The FCC asked for comments on this approach which would provide differering levels of protection based on each station's choice of technical proessing methods. | |||
=== LPFM-FM Translator Protection Priorities === | |||
The ''Third R&O'' did not reach a conclusion on the "co-equal" status between LPFM and FM Translator stations. Under the rules, a first filed LPFM or FM translator application must be protected by all subsequently filed LPFM and FM translator applications. As localism, diversity and competition remain the FCC's key radio broadcasting goals, they found that it would be useful to develop a better record on whether these goals would be advanced by altering the priorities for each service. They requested comments on this issue. The also asked: | |||
* Whether the FCC should distinguish FM translators based on whether they receive programming via satellite or whether they receive programming terrestrially. | |||
* Comment to the extent to which providing priority to LPFM stations could impact established listening patterns or disrupt existing translator station delivery methods that NCE stations rely on. | |||
* Whether to accept the Prometheus proposal that limits the number of translators that would have priority over subsequently filed LPFM facilities. Prometheus proposes to limit that status to 25 translator stations for each originating station but would not consider "full power repeaters" as originating stations. | |||
* In the bullet point above, what would be considered an "originating station". | |||
* Whether such an approach is administratively feasible given the fact that an FM translator, without any prior consent or notice to the FCC change its primary station. | |||
== Commissioner statements == | |||
... | |||
== Related links == | |||
... | |||
{{LpfmProceedings}} | |||