LPFM enthusiasts- email or call your senator

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

On Friday the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow for expansion of the LPFM population.

If this bill is to become law, it needs to be passed by the Senate before they go home.

They have a LOT of bills trying to get their attention. An outpouring of nice, pleasant contacts encouraging them to deal with this bill this coming week before they go home would get their attention. Such a message can be quite short. It is NOT the time for big long argumentative tirades. Just "I am interested in being involved in such a station and I hope you can see fit to get this bill on the Senate agenda before adjournment" is all that is needed.

The NAB gave their blessing to the NEW VERSION of the House bill. Hopefully the NAB will also be encouraging the Senate to move forward. The NAB wants a predictable future for the commercial broadcasters they speak for. The current mish-mash of how interference in calculated and dealt with is not their friend.

 

[w9wi]

On Friday the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow for expansion of the LPFM population.

Does this bill address the 3rd-adjacent restrictions in the existing legislation?

(do you have a bill number?)

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-6533

Sometimes what we think is an angel is really The Devil is disguise.

I hope the Senate and President Obama put this in the toilet bowl and

flush it to Hell.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just now downloaded a copy of the bill as it was introduced Thursday. (There was a previous version earlier but this one reflects whatever changes were agreed to to get the NAB on board.) What I do not know is whether any changes were made in floor action.

Yes! After reading the bill, my personal observation is that the bill has as its only significant purpose the removal of the Third Adjacent Frequency restriction.

There is considerable language instructing the FCC on how to handle disputes over lingering problems with interference, including 3rd adjacent frequency.

The LPFM licensees are given both the opportunity and the responsibility of working with listeners who have complaints about interference. Traditional broadcasters have long dealt with such nit-picking complaints. I am sure there will be a lot of LPFM participants that have never dealt with keeping the FCC happy who will find all this to be quite bureaucratic and burdensome.

I hope to be part of someones new LPFM venture. I will strongly advise that even before going on the air, we reach out to all broadcasters who could possibly have a complaint when our signal goes on the air, and let them know we plan to work with them, and request their friendly co-operation in return.

You can download a PDF of the bill from the Government Printing Office: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6533ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6533ih.pdf

My blog site on this subject has been dormant for some time now. I will be bringing it back to life later today.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Good morning to you in Indiana, Flying-Dutchman.

I suspect your unhappiness with this bill has to do with the facts that:

1. it seems to put ALL the burden of dealing with interference complaints on the LPFM side

2. it does not address the problem that when the big commercial operators start moving their stations around and swapping frequencies around so a third station can be moved, LPFMs have to say "Excuse me, I will get out of YOUR way."

When the FCC bureaucrats get around to turning this law (assuming the Senate and President approve it) into Regulations, we will then know if we have something reasonably good, or something really evil.


There is going to be some difference of opinion in the LPFM community. If you already have your station... which you do... I can see this bill creating new problems and responsibilities for you.

For those of us in communities where the present law and regulations will never, never, never allow us to have an LPFM... we may be a bit more tolerant of "the shortened leash" that this bill may be.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

Any frequency that could have technically been used for a translator should have
been made available for an LPFM. This bill will create very few new opportunities.

Even though LPFMs were not considered a primary service, FCC policy was to treat
them as such and not boot them off the air. This may change.

The LPFM rules should have been put in place in the 1980's when I filed the first
petition with the FCC. It's now 25 years later.

 

[w9wi]

I just now downloaded a copy of the bill as it was introduced Thursday. (There was a previous version earlier but this one reflects whatever changes were agreed to to get the NAB on board.) What I do not know is whether any changes were made in floor action.

Yes! After reading the bill, my personal observation is that the bill has as its only significant purpose the removal of the Third Adjacent Frequency restriction.

There is considerable language instructing the FCC on how to handle disputes over lingering problems with interference, including 3rd adjacent frequency.

The LPFM licensees are given both the opportunity and the responsibility of working with listeners who have complaints about interference. Traditional broadcasters have long dealt with such nit-picking complaints. I am sure there will be a lot of LPFM participants that have never dealt with keeping the FCC happy who will find all this to be quite bureaucratic and burdensome.

I hope to be part of someones new LPFM venture. I will strongly advise that even before going on the air, we reach out to all broadcasters who could possibly have a complaint when our signal goes on the air, and let them know we plan to work with them, and request their friendly co-operation in return.

You can download a PDF of the bill from the Government Printing Office: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6533ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6533ih.pdf

My blog site on this subject has been dormant for some time now. I will be bringing it back to life later today.

Thanks for posting that info, appreciated!

I concur with your suggestion about part (a) of Section 3 being the only significant purpose of the legislation. It doesn't seem to make any significant changes elsewhere.

Paragraph 6 is interesting. (and maybe an exception to 3(a) being the only significant purpose) The way I read it, full-service FM stations will be protected from 3rd-adjacent LPFM interference in areas beyond their normally protected contour, as long as the full-service station is licensed to a community in New Jersey. (there are only two states with population densities of more than 1,000/mi^2, and Rhode Island has only about 1million population.) In the rest of the country, the LPFM is *required* to protect within the protected contour and *encouraged* to protect outside it.

I would rather see LPFM a higher priority service than FM translators, or at least non-fillin translators. But I don't see it imposing any restrictions on LPFM that don't already exist. And, as with certain other better-known recent legislation, I think this is probably the best bill that stands a chance of passing.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

We need to leave it to the FCC to pass rules. They know better than Congress.
It would have gone better if we would have let the FCC do their job.

The FCC would have opened an LPFM filing window years ago if Congress hadn't
tied their hands.

Just wait! Take a look into the future. The full powers will have to go digital
to bring broadcasting into the digital age. Then the LPFMs will be moved into
an old low band VHF TV channel. There will be no one with a receiver to hear
your LPFM.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

A little on my background, I have as a volunteer helped many in getting
licenses from the FCC. Most of these groups did not have the money to
pay for lawyers and consultants to obtain their license. But, they were
able to build and operate their radio station. I know how to do FCC filings.

The FCC was considering adopting the translator technical specs for LPFM.
This would have created thousands of new LPFM channels. Some of them
would have been in major cities. But, this bill will eliminate this opportunity.

I know many meant well. They have been sold a snow job.

 

[w9wi]

...but this one reflects whatever changes were agreed to to get the NAB on board...

This is why we got what we got.

I agree that the right thing to do would be to adopt the translator specs for LPFM. The interference-creation potential is identical; the interference protection should also be identical.

It's not going to happen.

Right now, I see three choices.

• 1. Do nothing. Allow this legislation to die. 3rd-adjacent LPFM operation continues to be banned under all circumstances.
• 2. Pass this legislation. 3rd-adjacent LPFM operation becomes possible in many cases where it's not possible now.
• 3. Veto this legislation and demand something better. Something that allows LPFM operation on the same terms as translator operation.

#3 will not happen. The NAB will not allow it. If we must choose between #1 and #2, #2 is by far the better option.

it's also not final. Nothing in this legislation prevents Congress from readdressing this in the future, if the political climate changes in a way that would make it possible. This legislation itself is evidence that the legislative climate can change.

 

[Timewarp]

This bill won't create any LPFM stations here in Chicago. Read it carefully. This new bill may
destroy many existing LPFM's In fact, it may destroy more than it creates.

There is a lot of talk about community radio in political circles. But, it is just talk and
nothing more. The tide is turning more and more against those who want to start new
community stations.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

For better or for worse, we have the bill. INSIDE RADIO has just reported that the Senate passed the bill late this afternoon.

Let the conversations begin. More importantly, let the ideas flow toward the FCC.

I agree with Flying Dutchman. They should let the FCC run its course. However, what was happening today was the UNDOING of a previous BAD congress. Someone, and whether we are right or wrong, many of us assume it was the NAB that convinced a previous congress to pass a law that MANDATED that the FCC impose the 3rd Adjacent Frequency nightmare. So the good news is, this current version of congress has undone what a previous congress should NOT HAVE DONE!

He is what has us biting our nails. There appears to be some language in the newly passed legislation that has congress telling the FCC how they should herd the cattle they are in charge of. Congress seems to be saying: We know the existing long-time commercial broadcasters are always the good guys in white hats, and you are to assume that the LPFM folks wear black hats, and when there is trouble out in the coral, the FCC seems to be instructed that they should demand that the LPFM black-hat herd members are responsible for solving the disputes.

In my lifetime I have worked in several industries. This is the way legislation works. This is the way regulation works. It is like a pendelum that swings back and forth. Now those of us in LPFM and those of us who choose to enter the LPFM world have our work cut out for us convincing the FCC that we, too, wear white hats. And where the law is bad, and where the regulations turn out to be bad, we go cry on the shoulder of the next congress, and maybe the one after that. As the doctor has them put on the prescription bottle: "Repeat As Necessary".

 

[bturner]

I ceetainly have to chime in on this and the point I want to make is that this is a beginning. If you're trying to win a football game, it is every first down, completed pass or advancing run that leads to field goals and touchdowns that win the games.

Any legislation is subject to change after it is enacted. We needed the first down and it looks like we got it, but the goal line is still going to take a long hard fight to reach. We found a starting place. What is our next baby step.

Take heart. When translators started, you could only fill areas that should have been in your coverage area but the terrain prevented it. Now you have a translatter in ever place in the country where you can get a license. They didn't get this in one fail swoop.

We need to work on the 'responsibility' factor to get it equal. The NAB twists the words to shape them as the guys in white hats. I won't share me feelings of the NAB. I'd like to see some 'good' they offer the industry so I can 'like' them, but I suppose I haven't looked hard enough or paid attention closely enough.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This bill won't create any LPFM stations here in Chicago. Read it carefully. This new bill may
destroy many existing LPFM's In fact, it may destroy more than it creates.

I just looked at Chicago and I suspect you are right. I had to go out to Marengo to find a space where one might fit. I didn't look in the other directions.

Is Chicago lacking something that a new LPFM will fix? Will the FCC be asking applicants from all over the country, from communities large and small: "This spectrum you are asking for is precious commodity. Not enough to go around. Is there something in YOUR community this radio station can fix?"

There is some language in the bill that I need a lawyer and a consulting engineer to explain before I understand what it means.

What in the bill that was passed today do you see that may destroy many existing LPFMs?

 

[Groove1670]

So when do you think the FCC will open a window?

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

It would have been better if the politicians had repealed their last 2 mistakes
instead of tightening the noose around the neck of the FCC.

Democracy did not win. Many Americans have filed comments on Docket 99-25.

Now the comments of the people are toilet paper.

This was The Devil in disguise.

 

[w9wi]

If I'm reading the Library of Congress website properly, this bill passed the Senate yesterday, without amendment. (so it can go directly to the President for his signature. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that Obama will veto it.)

So when do you think the FCC will open a window?

No idea. I suspect they will first deal with existing LPFMs which have been silenced by conflicts with new full-power service, and then with existing LPFMs which are operating but could provide better service on a 3rd-adjacent.

_________________________________________________

I am very curious how the situation will be handled here in Nashville. We have a LPFM operating under waiver on a 2nd adjacent. It's working reasonably well but suffers a fair amount of interference from an out-of-market full-service station on the same frequency. The LPFM could have provided much better service by operating on a 3rd adjacent, but that wasn't permitted.

At the same time... a local AM station has an FM relayer operating under STA due to Cuban interference. (this is NOT an FM translator relaying an AM station, it predates that program.) The FM relayer recently moved to.. the 3rd adjacent that would be best suited to hosting the LPFM.

I wonder if the FCC would allow the LPFM to bump the STA AM relayer?

(or might it become a moot point, as the AM station's owner has just acquired a full-service FM station in the market... the existing STA relayer is only allowed to operate at night, there is no such restriction on the full-service FM.)

 

[TheBigA]

This is what happens when people want the government to make a decision it doesn't really want to make. I see this a lot with the government, most currently the Performance Rights Act. The government sees no real upside to taking one side or the other there. It doesn't gain anything. Same really with LPFM. The government doesn't gain any significant tax revenues or spectrum fees. Sure, the FCC is on record wanting to increase program and ownership diversity and localism. But it also recognizes that a big chunk of current full power licensees are in trouble and are looking for some kind of relief, and the FCC is not going to do that. Sure there were a lot of comments filed on 99-25, from citizens and full power licensees. They read those comments and knew someone was going to get hurt. The FCC has already over-licensed the FM spectrum. It certainly hasn't helped by allowing IBOC. And while they talk a lot about the goals of LPFM, I really think they were relieved by having Congress make this decision, so they don't get yelled at by full power licensees. This is how business is done. Compromise. You go to Congress with a deal already done, it's seen as a win-win, the Congress has nothing to lose, and everyone is happy. Except for all the folks who had wanted the government to do something else.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I am very curious how the situation will be handled here in Nashville. We have a LPFM operating under waiver on a 2nd adjacent. It's working reasonably well but suffers a fair amount of interference from an out-of-market full-service station on the same frequency. The LPFM could have provided much better service by operating on a 3rd adjacent, but that wasn't permitted.

I don't know if you are talking about WRFN or not, but I know they have had some struggles over frequency.

Whether you are talking about them or not, I would suggest anyone within a day's drive of Nashville who considering becoming part of an LPFM application take a good look at the WRFN operation.

They may be THE POSTER CHILD of the movement that pushed the government hard to establish this class of stations. You may not agree with who they are and what they are (liberal, progressive, community activist) but they are doing something very novel in reaching out BEYOND their own frequency.

The last time I read up on them, they were using an alternate language channel on a TV station and I think it was also on a digital FM station sub-channel and they stream on the Internet. This way they can reach audience way, way beyond their LPFM transmitter coverage, 2nd channel interference and all.

Even in your programming plans include some version of conservative Christianity or a more conservative approach to community action and involvement, these people have been creative in how to get things done.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

I was able to get the FCC to consider reinstating a low power broadcast service
in the 1980's by convincing them that this could provide a chance for ethnic minorities in
America's major cities to have radio stations.

This would have been accomplished had we adopted translator technical specs
for LPFM.

The people who actually started the Low Power movement were not consulted or used
in the negotiations with the NAB. There should have been no quarter.

This kind of reminds me of a story told to me by a Native American friend about
how the Indian lands were lost here in Indiana and Ohio. Men of power called men
chiefs who were not in the authority of chiefs, got them drunk, and had
them sign it all away.

There should have been no such deal with the NAB. It was simple. Repeal the
Radio Preservation Act and let the FCC make rules. Their engineers undrestand
radio better than the politicians who made the mess in the first place. Let the
FCC do their job!!!