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.
Service characteristics
Local programming
The FCC requested comments on whether to impose a minimum local origination requirement stating that listeners benefit from local programming, since it often reflects needs, interests, circumstances or perspectives that may be unique to that community. Many LPFM supporters would have the Commission's rules actively promote locally-oriented programming by limiting network programming. The FCC expects to see a significant amount of programming to be locally produced however programming does not have to be locally-produced to have interest or value to listeners in any particular locale. The FCC is inclined to get LPFM licensees the same discretion as full-power licenses to determine what mix of local and non-local programming will best serve the community.
The FCC proposes to not allow an LPFM to operate as a translator, retransmitting the programming of a full-power station.
Commercial programming
Commenters did disagree to whether LPFM should be limited to noncommercial operation. LP-1000 stations may need revenue to remain operational. Some LP-100 stations might sell some form of advertising to subsidize the operation. Similarly, noncommercial licensees may seek underwriting funds from neighborhood groups and businesses. Some commenters stated that a noncommercial restriction would increase the quality of programming to the public and could increase the availability of stations to educational institutions. The FCC requested comments on whether programming should be strictly noncommercial and whether the current eligibility rules are appropriate, which permit educational and nonprofit community organizations to become licensees. If the FCC was not to impose a broad restriction, they note the possibility that part of the FM band will remain reserved for noncommercial operators thus insuring that a significant portion of LPFM facilities would be noncommercial in nature.
Public interest programming requirements
The FCC proposed to require LP-1000 stations to adhere to the same Part 73 requirements for public interest broadcasting that apply to full power FM licensees. Since LP-1000 would not use a table of allotments like full-power radio, their public service obligations would pertain to the listeners within their 60 dBu contour in the same way that a full-power station must serve the listeners in its community of license.
The FCC was disinclined to impose any of these public service requirements on LP-100 and LP-10 stations for the sake of simplicity.
Other service rules
The FCC wanted to know about LPFMs needing to follow other full-power rules such as the main studio rule, public file requirements and ownership reports. The FCC tentatively concluded that LP-1000 licensees should meet the Part 73 requirements but would be disinclined to require these for LP-100 and LP-10 stations.
The FCC proposed that LPFM stations be subject to the environmental rules and responsibilities under the National Environmental Protection Act. The FCC asked how the NEPA rules should apply to LP-100 and whether they should apply to LP-10.
The FCC requested comments regarding the applicability of various political programming rules to each class of LPFM stations.
Operating hours
The FCC proposed that LP-1000 stations should follow the full-service rules regarding operating hours which means two-thirds of the time between 6AM and midnight as a minimum.
For LP-100 and LP-10, the FCC suggests that a minimum operating schedule should not be established unless and until it is shown to be necessary.
Construction, license terms and renewals
The FCC felt that LP-1000 stations should have the same construction period as full-service stations (3 years).
LP-100 and LP-10 stations should be constructed in much less time so they are proposing 18 months for LP-100 and 12 months for LP-10.
The FCC inquired on whether construction permits could be transferrable.
The FCC proposed that LP-1000 stations should follow the Part 73 rules applicable to license terms and renewals. The FCC was open to comments to whether LP-100 and LP-10 stations should only be licensed for a finite period and non-renewable so that other may "take turns at the microphone" or if the concept of non-renewable licenses would discourage investment. Comments were also requested to whether finite licenses would contravene Congress' intention in adopting statutory provisions that provide for a "renewal expectancy" for broadcast stations. There is also language in Section 307(c) of the Communications Act that states that broadcast licenses shall be granted for a term not to exceed 8 years and can be renewed if the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served.
The Commission did not believe it was necessary or appropriate to restrict the sale of any class of LPFM station despite concerns by commenters concerned about trafficked construction permits.
Emergency Alert System
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.
Station identification
The FCC asked whether LPFM stations should have call signs like Low Power TV stations.
Filing Applications
Electronic filing
The FCC proposes that applications be filed electronically. They expect that a substantial number of people will be able to locate and afford to construct LP-1000 and LP-100 stations and expect a greater number for LP-10 stations. For each application, the FCC would have to determine whether the channel requested is available and whether it is mutually exclusive with any other application.
The FCC states that internet access is becoming more common and that interested parties will certainly have access to the internet at their homes, public libraries and other publicly accessible place. The FCC requested comments on the utility and propriety of a mandatory electronic filing system for LPFM. The FCC notes the difficulty of filing windows citing the filing process for LPTV stations, which was proposed in 1980 and then by 1984, they had a backlog of 37,000 applications. By 1986, only 1,675 LPTV stations were authorized and only a fraction had actually constructed.
The FCC may be able to develop a system where the application could be first analyzed against existing facilities and perhaps even against previously filed applications. Such a system could promptly inform the filer whether the requested frequency is available and if the application is acceptable for filing based on current data. The system could not, of course, alert an application to subsequently filed mutually exclusive applications, but reducing conflicting applications, even if not eliminating them altogether, could significantly assist the roll out of LPFM.
With respect to mutually exclusive applications, the FCC could attempt to devise a system where all applications filed during a particular window are analyzed in a batch with the resulting mutually exclusive applications identified and posted on a web page.
Moreover, the filing system could assist applicants in determining height above average terrain and appropriate derating of permissible transmit power.
Filing windows & mutual exclusivity
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.
Both RM-9208 and RM-9242 suggested the use of lotteries for resolving mutually exclusive applications. Many other commenters oppose the use of auctions to settle mutually exclusive applications and prefer lotteries.
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.
International notification
The FCC stated that any application within 320 kilometers of the Canadian and Mexican borders must be coordinated with the other country and subject to the international agreement with the respective country.
Commissioner statements
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."