LPFM, Full-Power Broadcasters Disagree on Potential FCC Rules
Broadcasters disagreed on whether the FCC should require full-service stations to give money and technical help to low-power FM broadcasters when the full-power stations seek to change the town where they are licensed. The NAB, National Public Radio and radio companies said the FCC shouldn’t require such assistance when full-power stations move their transmitters or other gear closer to low-power outlets. Prometheus Radio Project and others contended such help is necessary and warranted. The comments in filings this week were on an FCC notice that “tentatively” found full-power broadcasters should bear costs and reduce interference to LPFMs when moving (CD Nov 30 p5).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Low power stations shouldn’t be forced to move because a full-power outlet is doing so unless the LPFM gets a new channel of equal quality and coverage to the existing one, said a joint filing by the Benton Foundation, Consumers Union, Free Press, Prometheus, United Church of Christ and several dozen low-power stations. The filing said full-power stations boost their value by such moves, which often are into more populated areas. “It is only fair, then, that full-power stations… must provide technical and financial assistance” to LPFMs to resolve interference or switch to another channel, it said: “Reimbursement of all costs, such as legal and engineering costs, is consistent with the commission’s policy for displaced full-power stations.”
NAB said “wholesale changes” aren’t needed to FCC interference procedures because just one LPFM has been displaced and the commission has applications before it covering only another 40 more. “The continuation of voluntary engineering and/or financial assistance from full power FM stations is entirely reasonable” but shouldn’t be required, NAB said. Cox Radio said the FCC proposes to give LPFM the same interference protection as full-power “without imposing any of the burdens of being a full-power station.” NPR asked the commission to “withdraw, or at least limit” proposals to require full-power broadcasters to “bear the cost of LPFM station interference.” Cox, NAB, NPR and others also said the FCC shouldn’t remove second-adjacent channel protection, which could result in LPFMs causing more interference to their full-power counterparts. “Such Swiss- cheesing of interference protection is unsound policy and contrary to congressional intent,” said NAB.
Prometheus said legislation to remove third-adjacent channel protection is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill. The group noted that the Local Community Radio Act (HR-2802) has more co-sponsors than any other telecommunications bill pending in the House. HR-2802 has 76 co-sponsors. A similar bill (S-1675), passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee, has eight co-sponsors. “It is anticipated that legislation could be passed this year returning full authority to the FCC to license LPFM stations on the third adjacent channel,” said Prometheus, noting all three presidential candidates back the Senate bill. NAB said it opposes efforts to loosen interference protections. “It defies the laws of physics to think that hundreds of new stations can be shoehorned into a crowded radio dial and think that there will not be increased levels of interference,” said an NAB spokesman.