 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
FCC
Taking Steps To Aid LPFM, Martin Says WASHINGTON -- October 11, 2007: FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Thursday that low-power FM "provides a lower-cost opportunity for more new voices to get into the local radio market," calling LPFM an "important step to provide more opportunity for small businesses in radio." Martin, speaking before the House Committee on Small Business, mentioned LPFM only briefly in his remarks, but he said the commission is currently considering an order that would "ensure that LPFM stations have reasonable access to limited radio spectrum." Sen. John McCain and Rep. Louise Slaughter introduced bills some time ago that would do away with third-adjacent channel protection for full-power FMs, and FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein has expressed his support for such legislation, but the bills have so far been stalled. (Radio Ink)
10/12/07 Radio & Records magazine:
The letter follows the Thursday (Oct. 11) acknowledgement by FCC chairman Kevin Martin that he would support legislation introduced in June by Sen. Mary Cantwell (D-Wash.), known as the Local Community Radio Act of 2007 (Senate Bill 1675), which aims to drop the third channel adjacency requirements to spawn more LPFMs. The bill has three co-sponsors: Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is a longtime proponent of lifting the restrictions and introduced similar legislation several years ago, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
But the NAB argues that the protection is necessary to prevent LPFMs from crossing over into established signals and disrupting the broadcasts of noncommercial and commercial broadcasters.
In his letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye, Rehr says the ślegislation would allow the FCC to license thousands of micro-radio stations which will interfere with full power FM radio stations. These bills are based upon the results of a flawed study to determine the amount of interference these new micro-radio stations would cause. That study, however, was deficient in its methodology, implementation and analysis of results in assessing the need for third adjacent channel interference protection.
Rehr notes that the FCC has licensed hundreds of LPFM stations around the country and that many more have been granted construction permits or have applications pending. The commission should continue to review and act on pending LPFM applications and facilitate those that have received construction permits. Clearly, there is a process in place for LPFM stations to exist within the current third adjacent protection policy that all stations, both low power and full power, must follow
Rehr, repeating the mantra of his predecessor, Eddie Fritts, also writes, Local broadcasters do not oppose the licensing of LPFM stations. We do oppose the introduction of thousands of micro-radio stations that would cause significant harmful interference to full power FM radio stations. Third adjacent protection exists for a reason -- to guard against interference and to protect our lifeline service to communities.
The NAB's position on LPFM has been the same since the idea of LPFM was conceived nearly a decade ago, before the service was authorized by Congress in January 2006 with the goal to “enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.
A broad, blanket policy change is harmful and unnecessary. Congress should resist any efforts to remove third adjacent channel protections. As you review LPFM legislation during the remainder of the 110th Congress, we hope you will keep in mind the concerns of your local broadcasters and that you would refrain from cosponsoring this legislation, Rehr wrote.
There are more than 500 LPFMs licensed throughout the country, all non-commercial, broadcasting between 10 and 100 watts, with some having the effective radiated power of 250 watts. Prometheus Update on Primary
Status and Third Channel Encroachment Nothing has been promised at this point by anyone at the Commission. I am optimistic that the Commission is sensitive to the problem and does not want to see stations going off the air, so some sort of solution will come about. This is why I do not see primary status as the number one issue in low power fm. until Congress reverses the 2000 bill that says that it hates LPFM, the FCC will have the courage to take more than partial measures to improve things for us. and "primary status" is really a FCC decision, not a congress decision, so we are stuck in a political paradox. Furthermore, a repeal of the broadcast preservation act would give us many more channels that we could move to, in many cases, and also opportunities to choose better, more interference free channels. The legislation in congress has a real chance of winning, and will untie the commissions hands and actually be a sign of the blessing of Congress for LPFM, which should mean better consideration in all matters for the LPFM service. Organizing on the issue of primary status ( and of course, the main forum for that is the FCC), in itself, is not necessarily going to be all that effective-- it is the seemingly straight line which is actually not the shortest distance between the two points-- there are many of these in government. but of course, people with actual encroachments should let the Commission ( and their Congresspeople) know how they feel about being treated as "secondary." putting primary status into the bill would probably make it unpassable, because it is outside the scope of what congress would ordinarily do and raise the hackles of the broadcasters. but passing a pro-l;PFM bill would change the mood at the Commission and lead them, i believe, to do the right thing ( or the mostly right thing) on their own, with their own authority. Myself and Parul Desai from Media Access Project have had meetings with all the Commissioners on this issue, including the Chairman twice-- all over the past 5 months or so. Also, we have met with all the legal advisors to the commissioners, and Peter Doyle and Jim Bradshaw. Most of the commissioners and their advisors have expressed sympathy on the encroachment problem, and a willingness to work on a solution. Kevin Martin said that he was unaware when they passed the Change of Community of License streamlining order, that it would cause LPFMs to go off the air, and that that was not the outcome he wanted. Peter Doyle and Jim Bradshaw acknowledge that there is an encroachment problem, but claim that it is not as big as we believe based on the recnet site.Generally, most everyone at the FCC rejects out of hand our proposal that LPFMs have primary status. However, they have been much more receptive to our other proposals. I'd have to say that the staff feels that the current system of complex waivers (like Spokane) is working, and do not want to change much. the commissioners seem more open to more dramatic changes. This is the set of options we developed for solving the encroachment problem, which was given to the commissioners. we do think that since primary status is a non-starter with the commission, some of the other proposals we have made can also get to the heart of the problems that LPFMs are experiencing with secondary status. stations that are experiencing an encroachment should definitely contact the offices of the 5 commissioners and let them know about their situation. prometheus has some resources that can help help and prepare groups for such a contact. Encroachment of LPFMs The Federal Communication Commission’s recent action in MM Docket No. 05-210, (Commission determined that broadcasters’ change in their community of license for full power stations would now be considered a minor modification, rather than a major modification) has exacerbated an existing issue threatening LPFM stations. LPFMs lack primary status, a standing which renders LPFM stations vulnerable to the movement of full power stations. If a full power station chooses to, they can take the channel of a LPFM station at will. At times these stations lose a portion of their already limited broadcasting radius; other times, the station’s very existence is at stake. Since the Commission has made it easier for full power stations to change their community of license, an accelerating number of LPFM stations (see attachment) are faced with the difficult situation of having to negotiate for their survival, with no compelling laws or policy to aid them in their search for a new frequency. These small stations often face very high engineering and legal costs to even understand their options and protect the few rights they have in this process. Even with a successful defense against encroachment, nothing will prevent the station from being encroached upon again. With respect to full power stations, it is Prometheus’ position that Low Power stations should have primary status. LPFM stations should not be allowed to be encroached upon by full power stations. It may have made sense in 2000, during the creation of LPFM, to think of these stations as "secondary, supplementary" services. In light of the abandonment of local production, and the advent of voice tracking and radio empires, this Commission rationale must adjust to the current reality. It is inexplicable when the only station in town willing to cover the city council meeting – or other local activities – is allowed to get knocked off simply because a Top 40 station wants to shift away from the old small town it serves and move a short distance to be closer to an emerging population center 30 miles away. Solutions: LPFMs and Full Power Stations, in order of efficacy for policy goals of localism: A) Option one: Grant low power stations co-equal status with full power stations. LPFMs would be protected from displacement or new interference by full power station allocations and moves. New LPFMs would still be allowed to be allocated in locations that accept interference to the LPFMs in their predicted contours, when there are no other options for other channels. Primary status would apply to new interference caused to the LPFM. B) Option two: Only allow a full power station to bump a low power station if there exists a channel of equal quality for the low power station to move to. The bumping station should (as part of their showing in their minor modification request) make the engineering showing of the viability of a new channel for the LPFM, and pay the LPFM station’s reasonable and prudent expenses for changing frequencies. C) Option three: Only allow the full power station to bump a low power station if they can make a public interest showing, demonstrating that they will provide more locally originated public service programming than the LPFM does. Additional Matter: A wholly inadequate, but mildly ameliorative measure that can supplement the above options also bears mention. The Audio Division has recently allowed KYRS-LP to change channels when faced with encroachment by a full power change of community of license that would have eliminated their signal. This has been an excellent first step towards one approach to fixing this problem in certain circumstances. The Audio Division granted waiver to the spacing rules on the second adjacent channel, because it was demonstrated that there was zero population in the small radius of potential second adjacent channel interference. This is a common practice for FM translators. The FCC required that the LPFM receive letters of support from the 2nd adjacent channels potentially affected. No such letters are required of FM translator stations. Indeed, KYRS first approached a different commercial station asking for a letter of support of a zero interference waiver, but was refused. We’d ask that the Audio Division conform to the existing practice with translators, and allow LPFMs to receive these waivers without permission from adjacent channel stations.
LPFMs under threat of encroachment from CCOL with available
channels
April
25, 2007
Due
to the recent FCC rulemaking that allows Full Power Stations to
obtain city of license changes by filing a minor change
application, LPFMs around the country are being threatened with
encroachment and the possibility that their station could be
knocked off the air. The changes in community of license for full
power stations not only threaten LPFMs across the country, but do
not, in about half of the move-in cases, fulfill their
responsibility to serve the local community of license but instead
project there signal into an urban market. According to recent
comments submitted in this proceeding by William Clay, in about
half of all move-ins, the community of license is less than 1% of
the station's covered audience.)
As
per our recent conversation, Prometheus studied the
stations that are currently under threat of encroachment..
Seventy-two stations are currently under new or increased threat
of encroachment due to the CCOL applications from full power
stations. Using the FCC LPFM Channel Finder tool (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lpfm/lpfm_channel_finder.html)
we found that of these seventy-two stations, twenty-four have at
least one channel available given the current spacing requirements
for LPFMs. With full engineering reports, some of these
frequencies may also prove to be unavailable. Thus, in at least
two thirds of all cases some form of special waiver would be
required.
In
order to procure a waiver, several thousands of dollars of
engineering and legal work is generally required. Only a
handful of the LPFMs have been able to muster the needed resources
to determine their fate. In at least one case, that of KPCN in
Oregon, despite significant legal and engineering support, no
channel change would be able to save the station. We will continue
to find data on availability of channels in special waiver
situations—however in the current situation it is safe to say
that almost all the stations are finding it cost prohibitive to
even discover what their options are. This bodes poorly as policy,
when so many need expensive waivers in order to maintain the
status quo.
If
all of the applications for community of license are granted to
full power stations, communities across the country will loose not
only the valuable resource of a low power community station, but
will additionally lose the diversity of programming that the FCC
is committed to.
Below
is a list of the LPFM stations that have some
level of threat .. Each station is listed by call sign, name,
location, encroachment level and whether a channel is available
under the LPFM rules.
Low
power FM stations under threat of encroachment from full power
move-ins from change in community of license applications:
|