LPFM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Difference between revisions

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."

{{LpfmProceedings}}