The WAVM story continues on National Public Radio. I think everyone concerned with FCC policy here on this board will want to listen to this. This aired January 31st, 2006:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181109
This station wanted to upgrade their facilities from 10 watts to 250 watts, and has served their community for many, many years. Your tax-payer supported Federal Communications Commission "tenatively" gave the license to an out of state bible-thumper, Living Proof, Inc. out of California. The FCC claims Living Proof can serve more people with a non-commercial service. In their decision, they did not count the existing service contour and population served by WAVM. But they did give consideration to Living Proofs' entire contour and population served in their application. Thus, WAVM was not treated like the other station. WAVM demands that they play on a level playing field. In point of fact if they were, WAVM would win this allocation, serving more people than Living Proof as a non-commercial station. And if the FCC considers WAVM as an existing FM authorization, then by the Commissions' own rules WAVM is entitled to file a minor change. We remind the staff in the Allocations' branch of Audio Services that Section 307(b) and Mutual Exclusive (MX) applications are only for initial licenses, not for existing authorizations. WAVM can do a minor change if applying for co-channel, 1st, 2nd or 3rd adjacent channel, without triggering apps from other parties.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181109
This station wanted to upgrade their facilities from 10 watts to 250 watts, and has served their community for many, many years. Your tax-payer supported Federal Communications Commission "tenatively" gave the license to an out of state bible-thumper, Living Proof, Inc. out of California. The FCC claims Living Proof can serve more people with a non-commercial service. In their decision, they did not count the existing service contour and population served by WAVM. But they did give consideration to Living Proofs' entire contour and population served in their application. Thus, WAVM was not treated like the other station. WAVM demands that they play on a level playing field. In point of fact if they were, WAVM would win this allocation, serving more people than Living Proof as a non-commercial station. And if the FCC considers WAVM as an existing FM authorization, then by the Commissions' own rules WAVM is entitled to file a minor change. We remind the staff in the Allocations' branch of Audio Services that Section 307(b) and Mutual Exclusive (MX) applications are only for initial licenses, not for existing authorizations. WAVM can do a minor change if applying for co-channel, 1st, 2nd or 3rd adjacent channel, without triggering apps from other parties.