LPFM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The original LPFM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was a product of the two Petitions for Rulemaking that became known as RM-9208 and RM-9242. it was also the rest of a major grassroots campaign to raise the awareness of media consolidation and the lack of ability for the common citizen to access the airwaves.
| Document Information | |
|---|---|
| Type | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| Docket Number(s) | MM 99-25 |
| Related RM(s) | RM-9208, RM-9242 |
| FCC Number | 99-6 |
| FCC Record | 14 FCC Rcd 2471 |
| Federal Register Citation(s) | 64 FR 7577 |
| Relevant Dates | |
| Adoption Date | January 28, 1999 |
| Release Date | February 3, 1999 |
| Comment Deadline | April 12, 1999 |
| Extended to | August 2, 1999 |
| Reply Deadline | May 12, 1999 |
| Extended to | September 1, 1999 |
| Commissioner Statements | |
| Approve | Kennard, Tristani, Ness, Powell |
| Dissent | Furchtgott-Roth |
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 FCC's goals in this proceeding were to address unmet needs for community-oriented radio broadcasting, foster opportunities for new radio broadcast ownership and promote additional diversity in radio voices and program services.
Under the proposal, LPFM stations would not be subject to certain technical rules that apply to other classes of radio services. This includes third-adjacent channel protection requirements, and possibly even second-adjacent channel. In adopting any new rules and requirements, the FCC was wary of any provisions that could limit the development of what would eventually become known as HD Radio.
Need for Low Power Radio Service
Citing the FCC's 1998 Biennial Review of broadcast ownership regulations, liberalization of the broadcast ownership rules in the 1990s has led to increasing ownership consolidation. The FCC acknowledged had acknowledged the benefits to the public that may accrue from the economies of scale made possible by group station ownership. However, the FCC was concerned that consolidation may have a significant impact on small broadcasters and potential new entrants to radio broadcasting by driving up station prices making it more difficult to enter the industry and survive as an independent operator.
The FCC had received over 13,000 inquiries from individuals in the past year from individuals and groups showing interest in starting a low power FM radio station and notes the comments made in the rulemaking proceedings that urged the FCC to create opportunities for low power, locally oriented low power radio services. A low power station could be designed to operate similar to a full-power station, as a supplementary commercial or noncommercial service or simply as a low cost community service used principally to convey information to listeners without concern for financial support
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.
Spectrum considerations
As an initial matter, the FCC is proposing to put the low power service on FM only, thus rejecting calls for low power AM citing the interference and congestion on the band. The FCC will not place low power stations on alternate spectrum outside of the FM (or AM) band as that would require the purchase of a new receiver. Because of the fact that there are over 7,000 FM stations currently licensed on the 100 FM channels (88.1~107.9), the FCC can not fulfill the suggestion from RM-9208 which requested one dedicated channel for low power FM stations and acknowledges that there is not one specific segment of the FM band that is generally move available than any other. Therefore, all 100 channels would be available for LPFM stations. Commercial services would be prohibited from using the Reserved Band channels from 88.1~91.9. The NPRM also asks about LPFM stations seeking to also operate auxiliary facilities.
Technical Overview of LPFM Services
LP-1000
1000 watts ERP at 60 meters HAAT
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.
| Other station Class | Co-channel minimum distance | First-adjacent channel minimum distance | Second adjacent channel minimum distance reserved band | Second/Third adjacent channel minimum distance commercial band | Intermediate Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 79 | 50 | 33 | 31 | 7 |
| C3 | 90 | 60 | 44 | 27 | 9 |
| B1 | 105 | 70 | 50 | 46 | 9 |
| C2 | 103 | 73 | 57 | 54 | 13 |
| B | 137 | 95 | 71 | 67 | 13 |
| C1 | 123 | 94 | 77 | 75 | 20 |
| C | 143 | 113 | 96 | 94 | 28 |
| D | 56 | 27 | 10 | 8 | 4 |
| LP-1000 | 65 | 35 | --- | --- | --- |
LP-100
100 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT
The FCC proposed LP-100 to be a secondary service that would meet the demand of people who would like to broadcast affordably to communities of a moderate size such as a rural area or as part of a large urban area. The LP-100 service was proposed to permit stations of 100 watts ERP at 30 meters (98 feet) HAAT. This would create a service contour of 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles). Depending on the population density, an LP-100 station may serve a few hundred to several thousand listeners. The FCC describes LP-100 as comparable to the RM-9242 proposed service class of 50 watts at 150 feet HAAT. In the NPRM, the FCC asks whether there should be a different power limit for this service, such as 30 watts, whether alternate levels of power or height should be used and whether the service should be limited to noncommercial use, commercial or both. Like with LP-1000, the FCC proposes LP-100 stations to only provide co-channel and first-adjacent channel protections to other facilities as well as provide intermediate frequency protections to full-service FM stations. Additional, the FCC asks if stations should also be required to provide second or third adjacent channel protections and whether LP-100 stations should have lower spectrum use priority than LP-1000 stations and whether LP-100 stations should be primary over FM translator and booster stations. Also like with LP-1000, the FCC is inquiring whether LP-100 stations should be permitted to operate boosters.
| Class | Co-channel minimum distance | First-adjacent channel minimum distance | Second-adjacent channel minimum distance reserved band | Second/Third adjacent channel minimum distance commercial band | Intermediate Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 47 | 36 | 30 | 29 | 7 |
| C3 | 58 | 47 | 41 | 40 | 9 |
| B1 | 67 | 54 | 47 | 46 | 9 |
| C2 | 71 | 60 | 54 | 53 | 12 |
| B | 92 | 77 | 68 | 67 | 12 |
| C1 | 91 | 80 | 74 | 73 | 20 |
| C | 110 | 100 | 93 | 93 | 28 |
| D | 24 | 13 | 7 | 6 | 4 |
| LP100 | 24 | 14 | -- | -- | -- |
Microradio (LP-10)
Up to 10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT
The FCC proposed a third class of LPFM station that would be intended for an individual or a group of people with limited means to construct a station and reach listeners within the confines of a very localized setting. This service would operate between 1 and 10 watts ERP with a maximum antenna height of 30 meters HAAT. This would create a 60 dBu service contour between 1.8 and 3.2 kilometers (1 to 2 miles). This type of facility is similar to what was proposed in RM-9208 but on any FM channel instead of a dedicated channel as originally proposed. The FCC sees microstations to be used for limited coverage at schools, small neighborhoods, subdivisions and town centers. The FCC did seek comment to whether such facilities could satisfy some of the demand expressed for inexpensive community radio services, particularly in places where LP100 cannot work because of interference to financial constraints. The FCC estimates that the costs would be low, potentially in the hundreds of dollars for some facilities. The FCC questions whether this service should be restricted to noncommercial applicants, commercial applicants or both.
Under the FCC's proposal, the Microradio class would be technically tertiary as it would not be protected by FM translators, FM boosters or LP-100 stations. They further state that because of the low powers, that second or third-adjacent as well as intermediate frequency interference would not be a serious threat but they are concerned if many stations are operating in the same general area. The FCC requested comments on how these stations would affect full-power stations would impact their current operations or transition to digital.
| Station Class | Co-Channel minimum distance | First-Adjacent channel minimum distance | Second-adjacent channel minimum distance reserved band | Second and third-adjacent channel minimum distance commercial band | Intermediate Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 34 | 31 | 29 | 28 | 5 |
| C3 | 45 | 42 | 40 | 39 | 7 |
| B1 | 51 | 48 | 46 | 45 | 7 |
| C2 | 58 | 55 | 53 | 52 | 10 |
| B | 73 | 69 | 67 | 65 | 10 |
| C1 | 78 | 75 | 73 | 72 | 18 |
| C | 97 | 94 | 93 | 92 | 26 |
| D | 11 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 2 |
| Microradio | 7 | 4 | -- | -- | -- |
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.")
Transmitter certification
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.
Interference protection
Use of distance separation
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.
Because the requirement for second and third adjacent channels would substantially limit availability, the FCC is inclined to authorize LPFM without second and third adjacent channel protection standards.
Third-adjacent channel protection
The FCC believes that there is a strong case for not requiring third-adjacent channel protections. Authorizing LPFM without a third-adjacent channel requirement would entail, at worst, little risk of interference to existing radio service. Areas of interference would be very small and would occur only within the immediate vicinity of the LPFM station. An LP-1000 station at maximum facilities is predicted to create interference to a distance of 1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) and even this small predicted interference zone could possibly pose a potential problem to other stations only if the LP-1000 station was located very near the outer edge of the protected station's service contour.
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.
Relaxed interference standards for LPFM stations may be the only way of "finding" sufficient spectrum in medium or larger markets to create any viable service of 100 watts or more. According to a staff analysis, with a third-adjacent protection requirement, no LP-100 or LP-1000 stations could be authorized in Denver, and only 3 LP-100 stations could be authorized in Minneapolis, where without the third-adjacent requirements, one LP-1000 or four LP-100 stations might location in Denver and perhaps one LP-1000 or nine LP-100 stations could be located in Minneapolis.
Second-adjacent channel protection
The FCC had found that in cases where a "grandfathered short spaced" FM station was permitted to modify facilities without regard to second or third-adjacent channels between 1964 and 1987, they did not receive any interference complaints from such modifications. They found only a small risk of interference in that context, which was outweighed by improved service. The FCC has also found this to be the case in the noncommercial service in the case of "Raleigh Waivers" where the FCC has been able to accept small amounts of second and third adjacent channel interference where such interference is counterbalanced by substantial service gains.
Concern regarding second-adjacent channel protections has also been made in connection with the deployment of In Band On Channel (IBOC) digital radio, now known as HD Radio. It is possible that one or more of the variations of IBOC that would use the outer edges of a channels specified bandwidth or portions of the adjacent channel to transmit a digital signal. The elimination of second-adjacent would reduce the frequency separation (guard band) that insulates between channels.
Staff analysis suggests that second-adjacent protection standards would be a substantially larger impediment to LPFM service than the third-adjacent channel standard, especially in large and medium size cities. The Commission questions whether a reduced bandwidth or a second-adjacent channel protection requirement is necessary for LPFM.
Emissions and Bandwidth
The FCC believes that the extent to which LPFM stations would degrade second-adjacent channels would be considerably limited due to lower ERP and HAAT levels. The FCC is also seeking to know other technical means to reduce interference. These could include establishing a strict emission mask and/or reducing the bandwidth for LPFM stations. The FCC is also proposing that all LPFM stations use certified transmitters, which they believe would be necessary especially if the LPFM service does not include any second- or third-adjacent channel protection requirements.
The NPRM goes into length about the benefits of LPFM stations operating at reduced bandwidth and how radio receivers would perform attempting to receive those lower bandwidths.
Ownership and Eligibility
Local and cross-ownership
The FCC saw that because of the increased opportunity for entry, enhanced diversity and new program services as being the principal benefits of a new LPFM service, that it would be hard, if not impossible to achieve these opportunities if LPFM stations were made available to existing broadcasters or if a number of LPFM stations in the same area were under common control. As a result, the FCC tentatively concluded that strict local and cross-ownership restrictions would be appropriate.
The FCC proposed that no person or entity with an attributable interest in a full power broadcaster should have any ownership interest in any LPFM station in any market and to prohibit joint sales agreements, time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management agreements between full-power broadcasters and low power radio entities.
The FCC also requested comments on whether they should permit AM licensees to file applications contingent on the divestiture of their AM station in the event they are successful in getting an LPFM station.
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 asked whether the proposed cross-ownership restrictions would prevent individuals and entities with valuable broadcast experience from contributing to the success of the service, whether those with attributable interests should be able to be involved in LPFM in areas where they do not have stations and whether cross-ownership rules should be extended to include newspapers, cable systems and other mass media.
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.
National ownership
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 seeks comments on whether a limit of 5 or 10 stations nationally would provide a reasonable opportunity to attain efficiencies of operation while preserving the availability of these stations to a wide range of new applicants.
Residency requirements
Although urged by many commenters, the FCC did not propose to establish a local residency or "integration" (day-to-day management of the station) requirement for LPFM stations. For LP-1000, the FCC has long recognized that full-power stations require neither residency or integration between ownership and management to assess and address the local needs and interests as such a requirement would frustrate any attempt at achieving certain efficiencies from national multiple ownership long recognized as beneficial for full-power stations. In addition, because the service areas of LPFM stations will be relatively small, a potential new entrant can hold residency in a location where LPFM stations are not available or available at the higher classes, such as LP-1000. The Commission also points out the statutory requirements in respect to alien ownership.
Qualifications of unlicensed broadcasters
While the FCC feels that the basic character qualification policies that apply to full-service radio should also apply to LPFM, they have expressed a certain concern regarding unlicensed radio operators citing the many cases of interference, including to aviation communications as well as the enforcement process. The FCC considers those who persist in unlawful operation after the FCC has taken enforcement action as those who could be deemed as per se unqualified and seeks comments on whether they should be ineligible for LPFM and whether there should be any circumstances where a party could be considered as rehabilitated.
The FCC feels that the reliability as licensees of parties who may have illegally operated for a time but have ceased operation after being advised of an enforcement action as not being as suspect. The FCC seeks comments on the propriety of accepting as licensees, parties who may have broadcast illegally but have promptly ceased operation when advised by the FCC to do so or who voluntarily ceases operations within 10 days of the publication of the summary of this NPRM in the Federal Register.