Why does the Media Bureau insist on imposing very conservative channel/distance separation rules for LPFMs operating in the 88-92 MHz Reserved Band?
For example, thanks to directional antennas, two co-channel Oregon NCEs are just 25 miles apart: KSLC, KSAI. But try that strategy with an LPFM and a Class A using the LPFM ChannelFinder - Forget it! Even in an area with lots of mountains to block interference, a non-directional LPFM, non-overlappimg F(50,50)/F(50,10) contours, etc., that a completely "technically valid" shortspacing strategy.will not accepted.
Any comment? Am I missing something here?
It seems the separation rules between LPFMs and higher class stations are too rigid.
The rules were designed to keep LPFM "simple". Class A stations are defined as any facility that has a 60 dBu service contour between 6 and 27 kilometers. In the commercial world, Class A stations are afforded the same protections regardless of whether they are the minimum 100 watts at 30 meter HAAT or the full 6 kW at 100 meter HAAT. Commercial uses the distance separation like LPFM does. Full-service stations are also afforded some flexibility under §73.215 to use contours to "short space" those distance requirements but even with that, they are still required to maintain a certain shorter level of distance separation.
Noncommercial stations in the reserved band (88~92) do not use distance separation, but instead use contours. This is why two full-service stations in the reserved band can be closer than the normal distance separation requirements of their non-reserved band (92~108) counterparts. However, noncommercial stations on the high end of the reserved band must protect stations in the non-reserved band using distance separation with the §73.215 option also being available to them. Going the other way, commercial stations at the low end of the non-reserved band must protect noncommercial stations in the reserved band using distance separation and can only short space to them using the guidelines in §73.215.
The LPFM rules also treat reserved band Class B and B1 stations as having a 54 or 57 dBu service contour despite only using a 60 dBu service contour. For second-adjacent waivers, the FCC will allow for a reserved-band Class B/B1 station to be protected at the 60 dBu service contour. This is how I was able to get 89.1 here in Riverton. Ironically, in the original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, there was a proposal to have different distance separation tables for reserved band Class B/B1 stations vs. those in the non-reserved band. That distinction never panned out in the final rules.
As
@fybush alluded to, the distance separation requirements for LPFM are intentionally written with overprotection. For co-channel and first-adjacent channel separations, the FCC added a 20 kilometer "buffer zone" to the distances. This buffer zone was originally touted by the FCC as a way that would protect LPFM stations from encroaching interference in the event that a full-service station was to make a short modification. The buffer zone does not apply to: (1) second adjacent channel protections, (2) FM translator protection and (3) protections to foreign FM allotments.
The Local Community Radio Act of 2010 in Section 3(b) made it a statutory requirement that LPFM stations must use the (§73.807) distance separation tables that were in effect on the date of the enactment of the LCRA in respect to protections between LPFM and full-service FM facilities. After the LCRA, I attempted to implement a hole in that statute through RM-11810. I had proposed two different rule changes:
(1) Stated that the 3(b) language only applied to relationships between LPFM stations and "full-service" FM stations and not the relationships between LPFM and FM translators and other LPFM stations. I had proposed an
option where LPFM stations, in modifications only, to be able to use contour protection instead of distance separation to FM translators and other LPFM stations. Translators are protected by LPFM stations at a level based on the translator's service contour size (as calculated using the translator's ERP and HAAT over 8 radials) and placed into three "sub classes" of service contour sizes of 7.3, 13.3 and 20 kilometers.
(2) Stated that at the time that the LCRA was signed into law, there were LP-100 and LP-10 distance separations on the books. I had proposed a "§73.215-like" method of protecting full-service stations where LPFM stations could, on modifications only, use contours to protect full-service facilities (similar to how translators can) but they would still have to meet a reduced distance separation using the LP-10 distance tables.
The FCC rejected these concepts due to their complexity. They also continued to misinterpret the statute. If anything, a significant part of the RM-11810 petition was intended to call out the many ways that the agency misinterpreted the LCRA. The FCC also rejected the concept of using contours because of a lack of an interference remediation rule similar to what translators have. The FCC did not want to see such a rule because they felt that it would bankrupt LPFM stations from the get go. This is why I specifically proposed these options
only for modifications of existing stations and only as an option. I supported an interference remediation rule only if the LPFM station elected to use one of these contour methods. The nice feature of distance separation is that the Commission has long held that two stations that meet minimum distance separation meet the interference guidelines, even if there is contour overlap. There is language in §73.209 which states that existing full-service stations are not protected by LPFM stations that are subsequently authorized as long as the LPFM station proposed facilities met the distance separation requirements at the time of filing.
While the concept of doing option (2) above is very controversial from a statutory perspective, I do still feel that there are inroads for option (1) and we need a Commission and Bureau staff who have the fortitude to stand up to the NAB and their members. LPFM stations do deserve more flexibility and should not be treated like the bastard children of broadcasting.
