RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''This article is currently under active development.''''' | '''''This article is currently under active development.''''' | ||
In the late 1990s, three separate ''Petitions for Rulemaking'' were filed with the FCC which would become the catalyst for today's Low Power FM (LPFM) radio service. | |||
RM- | '''RM-9208''' was written by Nickolaus E. Leggett and Donald J. Schellhardt proposed a community and neighborhood broadcast service through the creation of one watt "microstations" in the AM and FM broadcast bands. | ||
'''RM-9242''' was written by Rodger Skinner which featured a comprehensive plan for primary, secondary and temporary special event radio stations operating between one and 3,000 watts. | |||
'''RM-9246''' was written by Web SportsNet, Inc. which proposed the use of low power FM broadcast transmitters for special events and sports venue broadcasting. | |||
== The Leggett/Schellhardt proposal (RM-9208) == | == The Leggett/Schellhardt proposal (RM-9208) == | ||
Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
During this proceeding, Leggett and Schellhardt sent the FCC Commissioners a videocassette of "[[Wikipedia:Pump Up the Volume (film)|Pump Up The Volume]]", a 1990 film about a fictional pirate radio station operator. | During this proceeding, Leggett and Schellhardt sent the FCC Commissioners a videocassette of "[[Wikipedia:Pump Up the Volume (film)|Pump Up The Volume]]", a 1990 film about a fictional pirate radio station operator. | ||
On March 5, 1998, the FCC would extend the comment period on RM-9208 by nearly two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201887</ref> | On March 5, 1998, the FCC would extend the comment period on RM-9208 by nearly two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201887</ref> | ||
On May 22, 1998, the FCC would extend the reply comment period on RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246 (event broadcasting) for a period of two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/208876</ref> | On May 22, 1998, the FCC would extend the reply comment period on RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246 (event broadcasting) for a period of two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/208876</ref> | ||
=== The "cease fire" demand letter === | === The "cease fire" demand letter === | ||
Line 35: | Line 32: | ||
== The Skinner proposal (RM-9242) == | == The Skinner proposal (RM-9242) == | ||
== The Web SportsNet proposal (RM-9246) == | |||
== Comments received in these proceedings == | |||
=== Comments in support === | |||
Comments in support of the concept of LPFM broadcasting were received mainly by members of the community as well as from community organizations, civil rights organizations and media justice organizations. Commenters discussed how, because of the lifting of broadcast ownership caps in the ''Telecommunications Act of 1996,'' that consolidation of radio stations, especially by Clear Channel Communications, now iHeart Media has reduced the diversity and uniqueness of local radio broadcasting through the use of "national playlists" and consolidated operations. They would state that many local neighborhoods, ethnic groups and other special interests deserve to have their own voice. Some supporters of the LPFM concept state that the service can be easily implemented through permitting existing FM Translator stations to be able to originate programming.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201375</ref> | |||
=== Comments in opposition === | |||
Very strong opposition to the concept of LPFM broadcasting came from incumbent broadcast owners, the state broadcasters associations and from national interests such as the National Association of Broadcasters, National Public Radio and Educational Media Foundation. Comments opposing LPFM were mainly along the lines of concerns over increased interference in the band, potential displacement of existing stations in order to create dedicated channels like what was proposed in RM-9208, economic impacts to incumbent broadcasters, especially AM daytime stations and will impede the development of In Band On Channel (IBOC) digital audio broadcasting, now known as HD Radio. Some of the opposing comments stated that LPFM stations were inefficient use of spectrum citing the 1978 Commission actions that froze the assignment of new 10-watt Class D radio stations in all areas except Alaska as a recognition by the Commission that higher powered FM stations are a more efficient use of the spectrum. | |||
== Other LPFM concepts suggested == | == Other LPFM concepts suggested == | ||
While some organizations supported the concept of LPFM, they opposed certain technical elements of the petitions that were already filed. There were also opposing comments filed by petitioners towards the other petition's concept. Some of the concepts for a new LPFM service from organizations other than the petitioners are shown here: | |||
=== The Committee on Democratic Communications/National Lawyers Guild Concept === | === The Committee on Democratic Communications/National Lawyers Guild Concept === |
Revision as of 12:15, 29 July 2022
This article is currently under active development.
In the late 1990s, three separate Petitions for Rulemaking were filed with the FCC which would become the catalyst for today's Low Power FM (LPFM) radio service.
RM-9208 was written by Nickolaus E. Leggett and Donald J. Schellhardt proposed a community and neighborhood broadcast service through the creation of one watt "microstations" in the AM and FM broadcast bands.
RM-9242 was written by Rodger Skinner which featured a comprehensive plan for primary, secondary and temporary special event radio stations operating between one and 3,000 watts.
RM-9246 was written by Web SportsNet, Inc. which proposed the use of low power FM broadcast transmitters for special events and sports venue broadcasting.
The Leggett/Schellhardt proposal (RM-9208)
The Microradio concept
The original petition which was received by the FCC on July 17, 1997 proposed amendments to the rules to permit "microstations" on the AM and FM broadcast bands. The microstation would serve an area of one to several square miles to service a single small municipality or a very small neighborhood of a larger municipality. According to the petition, the microradio broadcast service would provide an opportunity for individual citizens and small groups of citizens to operate radio broadcast services and would expand the variety of subjects and types of entertainment presented. New musical groups could present their music society and new social and political options could be discussed.
The concept called for one AM and one FM channel be set aside for microbroadcasting. Each station would serve a specific geographic location (referred to as a "cell"). Microstations would be one watt, use nondirectional vertical antennas no more than 50 feet above ground level. Licenses would be issued for a 5 year term and have a flat regulatory fee of $50.
in a subsequent filing in March 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt stated that microstations should not be licensed to larger corporations and that multiple microbroadcasters should be permitted to share a frequency and that perhaps power ceilings greater than one watt should be considered. The petitioners opposed the concept of a noncommercial only service and that some licenses should be set aside for race-based and gender-based groups.
During this proceeding, Leggett and Schellhardt sent the FCC Commissioners a videocassette of "Pump Up The Volume", a 1990 film about a fictional pirate radio station operator.
On March 5, 1998, the FCC would extend the comment period on RM-9208 by nearly two months.[1]
On May 22, 1998, the FCC would extend the reply comment period on RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246 (event broadcasting) for a period of two months.[2]
The "cease fire" demand letter
In April 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt wrote "special comments" in the proceeding claiming that prosecutions of microbroadcasters should be halted and that retroactive amnesty be provided to those who would likely be able to be licensed as a low power FM broadcaster citing the case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked a proposed injunction against pirate radio broadcasts being made by Stephen Dunifer.[3]
The "Two Tiered" System
Content under development.[4]
The Skinner proposal (RM-9242)
The Web SportsNet proposal (RM-9246)
Comments received in these proceedings
Comments in support
Comments in support of the concept of LPFM broadcasting were received mainly by members of the community as well as from community organizations, civil rights organizations and media justice organizations. Commenters discussed how, because of the lifting of broadcast ownership caps in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that consolidation of radio stations, especially by Clear Channel Communications, now iHeart Media has reduced the diversity and uniqueness of local radio broadcasting through the use of "national playlists" and consolidated operations. They would state that many local neighborhoods, ethnic groups and other special interests deserve to have their own voice. Some supporters of the LPFM concept state that the service can be easily implemented through permitting existing FM Translator stations to be able to originate programming.[5]
Comments in opposition
Very strong opposition to the concept of LPFM broadcasting came from incumbent broadcast owners, the state broadcasters associations and from national interests such as the National Association of Broadcasters, National Public Radio and Educational Media Foundation. Comments opposing LPFM were mainly along the lines of concerns over increased interference in the band, potential displacement of existing stations in order to create dedicated channels like what was proposed in RM-9208, economic impacts to incumbent broadcasters, especially AM daytime stations and will impede the development of In Band On Channel (IBOC) digital audio broadcasting, now known as HD Radio. Some of the opposing comments stated that LPFM stations were inefficient use of spectrum citing the 1978 Commission actions that froze the assignment of new 10-watt Class D radio stations in all areas except Alaska as a recognition by the Commission that higher powered FM stations are a more efficient use of the spectrum.
Other LPFM concepts suggested
While some organizations supported the concept of LPFM, they opposed certain technical elements of the petitions that were already filed. There were also opposing comments filed by petitioners towards the other petition's concept. Some of the concepts for a new LPFM service from organizations other than the petitioners are shown here:
The Committee on Democratic Communications/National Lawyers Guild Concept
The CRC Concept
The REC Networks Concept
- ↑ https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201887
- ↑ https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/208876
- ↑ https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/204953
- ↑ https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/209620
- ↑ https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201375