379
edits
LPFM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions
→Filing Applications
| Line 381: | Line 381: | ||
=== Electronic filing === | === 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 === | === 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 == | == 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." | |||