Full Power, LPFM Organizations Clash on Second-Adjacent Waiver Standards

NPR and NAB reiterated their concerns for the potential waivers for second-adjacent channel protections. NPR urged the FCC not to upset the balance of full-power and LPFM interests “in facilitating additional LPFM service and protecting primary and existing secondary broadcast services from interference,” said an ex parte filing in docket 99-25 (http://xrl.us/bn27vz). NPR also urged the FCC to avoid significant alterations to the LPFM service rules. It opposed authorizing 250 watt LPFMs, “which would depart from the LPFM service that Congress was addressing when it enacted the LCRA."

NAB said it’s concerned that, despite the best efforts of LPFM waiver applicants, “many LPFM stations will simply lack the experience and expertise to accurately assess potential interference and lack the resources to correct any subsequent problems.” Full-service stations that may be impacted by grant of the waiver request should be given advance notice by the applicant, NAB proposed in an earlier (CD Nov 23 p12) filing (http://xrl.us/bn27v9).

Prometheus Radio Project called for a fair waiver standard, “modeled after the rules used by FM translators,” which is necessary to allow LPFM stations in urban areas. Prometheus reiterated that LPFM applicants shouldn’t be required to adhere to additional requirements, in seeking second-adjacent frequency waivers beyond those applied to FM translators (http://xrl.us/bn27wm). Prometheus said it opposed NAB’s proposal for the FCC to direct second-adjacent waiver applicants to give clear and convincing evidence that a proposed LPFM station won’t interfere with full-powers. “There’s no reason they should have different hurdles than any other station,” Prometheus Policy Director Brandy Doyle told us. “The commission is authorized to grant them in cases where a low power station won’t cause interference and that’s exactly the same standard that FM translators use.” The Act specified that LPFMs and translators are equal in status, she added: “It’s very clear what they've laid out."

Educational Media Foundation doesn’t want a cap on applications for FM translators from a 2003 filing window which the order to be voted on this week also will address to exclude smaller markets, EMF said. “Generally there is no spectrum shortage in these markets, and the provision of new services to these markets is in and of itself a public interest benefit.” A further application cap, particularly one that applies in rural areas, “only serves to deprive the public in those areas of a choice of programming services,” the translator owner said an ex parte filing (http://xrl.us/bn27w4). EMF also offered reasons as to why it didn’t build a number of translators from Auction 83 that were granted before a freeze. In some cases, while the applications were pending, EMF acquired full-power stations “that served the areas proposed by the translators, and thus these translators were no longer necessary,” the licensee said. In other cases, there was more interference from other full-power stations, “or transmitter sites became unavailable or prohibitively expensive,” it said.

Prometheus hopes that during the FCC monthly meeting, commission staff offer a date for the LPFM application window next year, Doyle said. “It will be much easier to mobilize and prepare community groups to apply for stations if they have some certainty that the window is coming and when it’s coming.”