On LP-10. First some history. When LPFM was being discussed in the late 90s, there were two "camps" that were advocating for the service. The "front line" camp you saw were out in the open. This lead to the visual protests and demonstrations related to the frustrations many had because of the enactment of the Telecom Act, which loosened up the national ownership restrictions, which lead to companies like Clear Channel (now iHeart) to grow to the level they did. This is where the folks like Prometheus Radio Project were doing their thing. The massive rise of pirate radio during this era, as well as people like Stephen Dunifer, who crusaded for tens of thousands of pirate stations on the air, using a kit that his organization, Radio Free Berkeley provided could also be placed in the front line protests.
The "other" camp was the one happening behind the scenes. This is where I spent my time in those early days. There were two Petitions for Rulemaking filed with the FCC. One was filed by a man named Rodger Skinner. His petition, which was known as RM-9242 envisioned an LPFM service which mirrored the LPTV service as a commercial service. Skinner was an LPTV entrepreneur. The Skinner proposed facilities were of the higher power nature (in the league of 100 to 1,000 watts). The other petition, RM-9208, came from the late Nicholas Leggett and Donald Schellhardt. Their main goal was to legalize the existing pirate radio service. They wanted things like amnesty for existing pirates, the ability for operators to use kit built transmitters and proposed services of very low power. One of their first concept was the use of one frequency and to license stations using a "cellular" method where stations would have one watt and cover small "cells" of area. They would later evolve their proposals asking for things closer to the 10 watt level. The bottom line, what Leggett and Schellhardt lobbied for was for a "micro radio" service.
Under pressure from both of these camps, the FCC circulated MM Docket 99-25, which proposed LPFM in three levels. A primary, 1kW @ 60m HAAT service along with a secondary 100w @ 30m service which pretty much mirrored what the Skinner proposals turned into. The FCC also proposed what they called during the proceeding as "microradio", a 10w @ 30m HAAT service. This was obviously to appease Leggett/Schellhardt. The FCC also questioned whether the service should be allowed to go commercial. There was substantial objection from both camps (NAB representing the broadcasters as well as within the "front line" camps) to the LP-1000 service. Skinner was pretty much alone in supporting that service level. There was support at that time for a LP-10 service, which was envisioned as a method of providing urban neighborhoods with their own voices. As the FCC had already picked up the shrapnel created by Bechtel v. FCC, the concept of using auctions for resolving commercial mutual exclusivity (as opposed to comparative reviews) was still very fresh and many had opposed a commercial service due to the need for auctions and the fact that such a commercial service would defeat the very thing the service was supposed to address, the concentration of media by large media companies with no national ownership limits.
In the first Report and Order in MM 99-25, the FCC would move forward with LP-100 and reluctantly moved forward with "Microradio"/LP-10 and both were noncommercial. While the LP-100 service was considered as secondary, the LP-10 service was tertiary. LP-10 stations could be displaced by FM translators and even by LP-100 stations. On that alone, the FCC set up LP-10 for failure. The FCC had also determined that the first filing window series would be for LP-100 stations, a local applicant requirement and a limit of one station per applicant (at the time, there was no local ownership requirement in the rules and there was an ownership cap of 10 stations; these would go away in 2007 at the urging of Prometheus and others based on the outcome of the 2000/2001 LPFM window series and the 2003 Auction 83 translator window). The FCC was supposed to hold a window for LP-10 stations after the LP-100 stations. Because of the delays in processing the LP-100 applications caused by Congress passing the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act (the infamous proceeding that included NAB's CD of simulated third adjacent interference to Congress) and the huge response to the 2003 Great Translator Invasion (Auction 83) window, the LP-10 window never happened.
LP-10 stayed on the books until after the enactment of the Local Community Radio Act. After the enactment of the LCRA, the Commission held several rulemakings that would implement various LPFM operating rules required by the LCRA (including the elimination of the third adjacent channel protection requirement) as well as determining how to divvy out the remaining Auction 83 translator applications while still keeping spectrum available for future LPFM stations. In one of those rulemakings, the FCC, going off a suggestion by Leggett-Shellhardt proposed LP-250 in deep rural areas, restricting it from more urbanized areas in favor of LP-10 stations. At the time, the FCC wanted to get rid of LP-10 altogether.
REC studies showed at the time that even if an LP-10 window was to open, there would be very few places where an LP-10 can be placed where LP-100 can't be. REC joined forces with Prometheus and Common Frequency at the time. We came out in support of killing LP-10, which put us in alignment with the NAB and the New Jersey Broadcasters Association. As a consolation, REC examined the potential of a 50 watt @ 30m service (LP-50). Our thought process at the time was that two mutually exclusive applicants could reduce to LP-50 if it would break a mutual exclusivity. Since day one, the FCC wanted to keep LPFM "simple". So with that, they insisted that distance separation be used and that there was a 20 km "buffer zone" added to the standard service contour sizes of the full-power classes (for example, for distance separation, a Class A station's service contour is normally 28.3 km, in respect to LPFM, it was considered 48.3 km). This same buffer zone size was used for both LP-100 and LP-10. As a result, very few LP-10 stations could ever have an opportunity or like how NJBA described it, nothing but noise floor. The LP-50 service addressed this by allowing the class to break into that 20 km buffer zone and allow LP-50 stations to be spaced at the same distances as the LP-10 service already on the books. We noted that at the same time, the FCC proposed rules for an LP-250 service that used most of the same numbers as LP-100 (other than second adj.) by going into the buffer zone. As a part of this, REC/Prometheus/Common Frequency jointly opposed the rural restrictions proposed by Leggett/Schellhardt for LP-250. Leggett/Schellhardt were the only real vocal camp still supporting the retention of LP-10. They envisioned LP-10 for deep urban and LP-250 for deep rural. The "trifecta" (REC/PRP/CF) wanted LP-250 "wherever it can fit".
The FCC decided to kill LP-10, not do LP-50 and threw in the towel on the LP-250 debate and dismissed the latter as suggesting that there was disagreement between LPFM factions. It is important to realize that despite what the FCC suggested, Leggett/Schellhardt had never lifted any fingers to provide support or assistance existing LPFM stations at the time. They were still regarded as pirate advocates and not a part of the licensed community radio movement. This decision has resulted in a series of Petitions for Rulemaking by REC Networks to revisit the LP-250 issue, "without the distraction of the LP-10 debate", which killed LP-250 from the outset. REC's third version of the service, "Simple 250", RM-11909, is still pretty much alive and well and is still being actively advocated here at REC.
Because the Radio Broadcast Protection Act and the Local Community Radio Act both have some very watertight language regarding engineering of LPFM stations, bringing in LP-10 in a way that it could actually somewhat work (using contour overlap without a buffer zone) is not possible because of statute. Unless we can get a repeal and replace of the LCRA (something that REC supports), LP-10 is dead. I would like to see it come back as part of a codified temporary "special event" and "venue broadcasting" service. There is a version of this concept in our WIDE-FM petition for rulemaking.
