• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

REC Open Letter to existing FM broadcast stations re: interference from LPFM applications in the 2023 Filing Window

Michi

Michi

Moderator
Staff member

REC Open Letter to existing FM broadcast stations re: interference from LPFM applications in the 2023 Filing Window | REC Networks

recnet.com recnet.com

REC Networks is the national regulatory advocacy supporting small radio broadcast stations, such as those in the noncommercial educational (NCE) sector with a very strong focus on the Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast service.

In December, 2023, the FCC had conducted a filing window for new LPFM construction permits. On December 17, 2023, the FCC released the details of the applications filed in that window. A total of 1,336 applications were filed.

LPFM stations must meet specific licensing requirements such as being a local organization that does not have any attributable interests in any other broadcast service (there are some very limited carve outs to this rule). LPFM station must also meet specific minimum distance separation requirements to other FM broadcast facilities (full-service, FM translator and other LPFM) stations on co-channel, first-adjacent and second-adjacent channels. LPFM stations that to not meet the minimum distance separation requirements on second-adjacent channels to full-service and FM translator facilities may include a technical showing that there will not be any interference to listeners of the affected second-adjacent channel station(s) in the immediate area surrounding the proposed LPFM stations. Second-adjacent channel protection is not required between two LPFM stations. LPFM stations are also not required to protect any domestic FM facility on third-adjacent channel nor intermediate frequency (+/- 10.6 or 10.8 MHz) channel.

REC Networks has been receiving reports from applicants in the 2023 filing window that they have been receiving correspondence from representatives of incumbent broadcast stations claiming that the proposed LPFM station will cause interference within the existing station’s “45 dBu area” and that they plan to file an objection.

In respect to LPFM stations, complaints like this are mistaken and inappropriate.

The translator interference rules​

In 2019, the FCC issued a Report and Order in MB Docket 18-119 (34 FCC Rcd. 3457 (2019)) ("R&O"). In this R&O, the Commission amended 47 CFR §§ 74.1203 and 74.1204 in respect to interference received to broadcast facilities (including full-service, LPFM and FM translators) from subsequently authorized FM translators. The R&O established an evaluation area of the 45 dBu from the incumbent site as to where if in the event that the undesired to desired (U/D) ratio exceeds -20 dB for co-channel situations at a particular listener's location, that listener's information can be included as part of an interference complaint "package". A threshold of such listener interference complaints, based on the population that is served by the incumbent station is required prior to the interference complaint being accepted. The rule does require that the proponent for the subsequent station be contacted first.

As such, the interference redress policy that involves the use of the “45 dBu contour” only applies if the interfering or potentially interfering subsequent facility is an FM translator. This rule does not apply if the proposed/new/modified facility is an LPFM station.

FCC rules related to new LPFM interference to full-service FM stations​

The applicable rule in this case is 47 CFR §73.209(c), which states:

Permittees and licensees of FM stations are not protected from interference which may be caused by the grant of a new LPFM station or of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except as provided in subpart G of this part.

Further, 47 CFR §73.809(a) states:

If a full service commercial or NCE FM facility application is filed subsequent to the filing of an LPFM station facility application, such full service station is protected against any condition of interference to the direct reception of its signal caused by such LPFM station that operates on the same channel or first-adjacent channel provided that the interference is predicted to occur and actually occurs within:
(1) The 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of such full service station;

(2) The community of license of such full service station; or

(3) Any area of the community of license of such full service station that is predicted to receive at least a 1 mV/ m (60 dBu) signal. Predicted interference shall be calculated in accordance with the ratios set forth in § 73.215 paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). Intermediate frequency (IF) channel interference overlap will be determined based upon overlap of the 91 dBu F(50,50) contours of the FM and LPFM stations. Actual interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the signal radiated by the LPFM station.

The provisions of §73.809(a) are only in force if a full-service station files an application to modify their licensed facility in a manner that would cause the relevant interfering contour of the LPFM station to overlap into the proposed full-service 70 dBu community coverage contour. Since these are new stations and the full-service FM station is not making a modification, §73.809(a) is not applicable.

FCC policy related to new LPFM interference to FM translator and other LPFM stations​

When the FCC created the LPFM service, they decided to use distance separation requirements to establish interference protections in order to “preserve the integrity and technical excellence of the existing FM radio service.” (Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Report and Order 15 FCC Rcd. 2205, 2223-33 (2000)).

In the 2016 Packinghouse case where an existing LPFM station claimed interference from a new LPFM station, the FCC had denied the complaint because the two stations do meet the minimum distance separation requirements. (Calvary Chapel of Redlands d/b/a Packinghouse Christian Fwp., Letter, 31 FCC Rcd. 12694 (2016)).

Neither the LPFM service nor the FM translator service have any specific rules to redress potential or actual interference caused by a subsequently authorized LPFM facility as long as that subsequent LPFM is operating their authorized facilities.

It is important to note that since FM translators use contour overlap instead of distance separation to protect the LPFM service, existing LPFM stations can seek redress from subsequently filed FM translator facilities using §§ 74.1203 and 74.1204.

Conclusions​

All LPFM proposals must meet the minimum §73.807 distance separation requirements to all existing full-service FM (commercial and noncommercial) facilities as well as to existing FM translators and LPFM stations.

Because distance separation is used, the protections afforded to existing stations pursuant to §§ 74.1203 and 74.1204 do not apply when the new or modified facility is an LPFM. It only applies when such station is an FM translator.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.
 
I've dealt with incursions a few times. I helped Indiana University getting WIUX-LP licensed. Then, several commercial stations decided they needed to change community of license and frequency. One station was going right on top of WIUX. So, my wife and I prepared a petition to deny which was then signed by a university official. Luckily for them another FM chose to move to Kentucky which opened up a new channel for WIUX-LP. WIUX also got a $14,000 donation from the guys who displaced it.

Then there was WYRZ-LP. I helped that group get a CP and license near Indianapolis. Not so long ago, a translator came on their frequency and crushed their signal. They complained and the commercial broadcaster played nice and installed a directional antenna.

These two stations are popular and have a lot of community support.
 
Flying Dutchman said:
Then there was WYRZ-LP. I helped that group get a CP and license near Indianapolis. Not so long ago, a translator came on their frequency and crushed their signal. They complained and the commercial broadcaster played nice and installed a directional antenna.
Click to expand...
Just curious; who did the LP complain-to? From what I've seen, the Commission doesn't play favorites to secondary services.
If I were the station with the translator, I'd tell the LP to pound sand. But that's me...
 
Kelly A said:
Just curious; who did the LP complain-to? From what I've seen, the Commission doesn't play favorites to secondary services.
If I were the station with the translator, I'd tell the LP to pound sand. But that's me...
Click to expand...

I'm glad its not you, then.. that may be perfectly legal to do, but itll stir up a world of bad feelings you dont want, but you know that already
 
Flying Dutchman said:
Also I do think we should thank Michi for all the hard work on LPFM! Thankyou!
Click to expand...
I agree! 👏

While I am philosophically opposed to LPFM overall, I can't ignore how Michi has tried to be a voice of reason, responsibility and respect in that arena. As we see from the latest round of filings, that group is terribly laden with people with no understanding of radio or listener behaviours and interests; Michi is a standard-bearer for good practices (and that is why she is a moderator here, too!).
 
Kelly A said:
Just curious; who did the LP complain-to? From what I've seen, the Commission doesn't play favorites to secondary services.
If I were the station with the translator, I'd tell the LP to pound sand. But that's me...
Click to expand...
§74.1203 and §74.1204(f) applies when the impacted station is LPFM, FM translator or full-service and there is interference or potential interference from a subsequently applied for/authorized translator.
 
Michi said:
§74.1203 and §74.1204(f) applies when the impacted station is LPFM, FM translator or full-service and there is interference or potential interference from a subsequently applied for/authorized translator.
Click to expand...
I don't read any verbiage that mentions potential interference. Actual interference complaints need to be documented in some actual listeners' complaints. Not the LPFM itself: Quoting 74.1203:
"Interference is demonstrated by:
(i) The required minimum number of valid listener complaints as determined using Table 1 of this section and defined in § 74.1201(k) of this part;
(ii) A map plotting the specific location of the alleged interference in relation to the complaining station's 45 dBu contour;"

Defining what amounts to a listener complaint in 74.1201(k):
"Listener complaint. A statement that is signed and dated by the listener and contains the following information:
(1) The complainant's full name, address, and phone number;
(2) A clear, concise, and accurate description of the location where interference is alleged or predicted to occur;
(3) A statement that the complainant listens over-the-air to the desired station at least twice a month; and
(4) A statement that the complainant has no legal, financial, employment, or familial affiliation or relationship with the desired station."

Not knowing the intricate details of the Dutchman's example; assuming the translator's original application met the separation criteria listed in 74.1204, then all the LPFM would have as reason to complain would be 'documented listener complaints' from inside the 1mV/m contour of the affected LPFM. Now, what we know about how many LPFM's play fast and loose with the facts, it could very well be that the LPFM licensee was successful in bamboozling the translator owner by threatening to complain to the Commission without technical merit, or the LPFM found some friends inside the 1mV/m contour of this station to file complaints.
 
The commercial broadcasters cut the LPFM's a break because they wanted to do the right thing in their hearts. Sometimes life cuts us a break. And, that's what makes humans special. I can't say I agree with anyone on this board 100 percent. But I can learn from and respect other opinions. And, it's just radio right? I have met wonderful people in community radio and commercial radio too.
I do understand why a commercial owner would be horrified at the idea of a new LPFM coming on their frequency within their coverage area.
 
Kelly A said:
Not knowing the intricate details of the Dutchman's example; assuming the translator's original application met the separation criteria listed in 74.1204, then all the LPFM would have as reason to complain would be 'documented listener complaints' from inside the 1mV/m contour of the affected LPFM. Now, what we know about how many LPFM's play fast and loose with the facts, it could very well be that the LPFM licensee was successful in bamboozling the translator owner by threatening to complain to the Commission without technical merit, or the LPFM found some friends inside the 1mV/m contour of this station to file complaints.
Click to expand...
The complaint process also involves a technical study that shows the U/D ratios based on contours at the complaining listener's locations. This requires someone who has the technical knowledge to use ComStudy, V-Soft or the tools at REC. Only valid listener complaints that meet certain U/D ratio requirements can be included in an interference package and the number of complaints needed is based on the population of the victim station's service contour.
 
Flying Dutchman said:
The commercial broadcasters cut the LPFM's a break because they wanted to do the right thing in their hearts.
Click to expand...
Not sure I'd call spending company capex to accommodate an LPFM 'the right thing', but you're correct in saying it was the translator owner's call, providing the LPFM wasn't manipulative in their tactics.

Flying Dutchman said:
I do understand why a commercial owner would be horrified at the idea of a new LPFM coming on their frequency within their coverage area.
Click to expand...
And my feelings about LPFM's existence in general, reflect that horror.
 
I've known radio stations that were popular outside their primary coverage area. It's a shame when er lose them to something that's not as good.
 
Flying Dutchman said:
I've known radio stations that were popular outside their primary coverage area. It's a shame when er lose them to something that's not as good.
Click to expand...
You know as well as I do that 'good'-anything is completely subjective. Someone might think a program like 'Music for Cornhole-ing' is creative and wonderful programming, but the vast majority would see that as a joke. LPFM stations are not restricted from streaming outside their tiny OTA coverage area, so they could go worldwide with whatever eclectic programming. Just like broadcasting locally, it's only money.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom