Howdy,
>From this morning's FCC web site (www.fcc.gov) comes the following news of
interest...
The FCC today proposed to license new 1000 watt and 100 watt low power FM
(LPFM) radio stations, and sought comment on also establishing a third
"microradio" class at power levels from 1-10 watts.
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted today, the Commission said its
goals are to provide new opportunities for community-oriented radio
broadcasting, foster opportunities for new radio broadcast ownership and
promote additional diversity in radio voices and program services, while
protecting the integrity of the spectrum. It said that new LPFM stations
could provide a low-cost means of serving urban communities and
neighborhoods, as well as populations living in smaller towns and
communities. It said it had received over 13,000 inquires in the last year
from individuals and groups showing an interest in starting a low power
radio station.
The Commission said it was proposing a number of interference protection
criteria that would help to insure that any new low power FM radio service
would protect existing radio services and preserve the technical integrity
of radio service today which has been fostered and maintained by existing
FCC rules.
It proposed minimum distance separations between LPFM stations as the best
practical means of preventing interference between low power radio and full
power FM stations. It said it would require co-channel (or same channel) and
lst adjacent channel protections, but felt that 3rd adjacent channel and
possibly 2nd adjacent channel protection would not be necessary in view of
the low power levels and other factors. It specifically asked for comments
on any potential adverse effects from LPFM stations on future digital radio
developments, particularly In Band on Channel systems.
The Commission said the proposed new services could meet a variety of local
needs and capabilities from broad community coverage to smaller neighborhood
areas. It proposed one service with primary frequency usage status to
operate at a maximum effective radiated power and antenna height of 1000
watts and 60 meters which would produce a service area with a radius of
about 8.8 miles. It proposed another service with secondary use status to
operate at maximums of 100 watts and 30 meters with a service radius out to
3.5 miles. It also asked for comments on a 1-10 watt microradio class of
stations with an antenna height of 30 meters with a service radius of one to
two miles.
The Commission proposed to require the LP 1000 watt class of stations to
follow most or all of the rules applicable to full-power broadcasters. It
asked for comments on its inclination not to apply most radio station
service rules to new LP100 and 1-10 watt microradio stations in view of the
smaller size of the operations and secondary status of these services. It
stated that it was proposing to not permit any LPFM station to operate as a
translator station retransmitting the programming of a full-power station.
The Commission asked for comment on whether LPFM stations would need to
generate revenue from advertising or underwriting, and whether the
population in these service areas could sustain an advertising base.
Alternatively, it asked for comment on whether these LPFM stations should be
strictly noncommercial and whether educational institutions are the best
potential LPFM licensees.
Because of the increased opportunity for new entry and diversity from LPFM
stations, the Commission proposed to apply strict ownership restrictions by
not permitting existing broadcasters to own or have any joint sales or
marketing agreements with an LPFM station and by prohibiting anyone from
owning more than one LPFM station in the same community. It asked for
comment on whether a limit of five or ten stations nationally would provide
a reasonable opportunity to attain efficiencies of operation while
preserving the availability of these stations to a wide range of new
applicants.
The Commission proposed an electronic filing system, with short windows of
only a few days each for the filing of applications, but asked for comment
on whether longer windows or a first-come, first served procedure would be
preferable. It said that mutually exclusive applications would have to be
resolved by auctions. However, it asked for comments on the best means to
fulfill the statutory obligation to explore other means to avoid mutual
exclusivity prior to ordering competitive bidding for the LPFM station
authorizations.
Action by the Commission January 28, 1999, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(FCC 99-6). Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness, Powell and Tristani, with
Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting; Chairman Kennard and Commissioner
Tristani issuing a joint statement, and Commissioners Ness, Furchtgott-Roth
and Powell issuing separate statements.
------------
This could be interesting... I'm too busy wrapped up in work to comment much
right now, though.
Take care,
Shane Rhyne
Knoxville, TN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
