ALLEGATION:
"Rush to Judgment?"
Opponents allege the FCC has "rushed to judgment" in adopting the low power
FM radio service ("LPFM").
FACT: There was no rush to judgment in the FCC's decision on January
20, 2000 to authorize LPFM service. In fact, all parties, including the National
Association of Broadcasters and individual broadcasters, had ample opportunity
over an almost two-year period to participate in this proceeding. Here are the
facts:
- The FCC placed the initial petition for rulemaking in this matter on
Public Notice on February 5, 1998, over two years ago.
- After extensive comment on the Public Notice, the FCC issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on January 28, 1999. The NPRM established
an unusually long, three-month public comment period.
- The NAB and its members then requested and were granted four extensions
for more public comment. Other parties vigorously opposed some of these
extensions.
- As a result of the FCC's granting all four of these extension requests,
the original three- month comment period became a 10-month comment period, an
extension of over seven months.
- Throughout the extended comment period and thereafter, the NAB filed
voluminous comments, reply comments, technical studies, and other submissions,
all of which were thoroughly reviewed by the Commission and its expert staff.
- For these reasons, the Commission on January 13, 2000, in a letter to
Eddie Fritts, President, NAB, denied the NAB's request to delay further
Commission consideration of the LPFM item beyond the January 20, 2000 open
meeting.
ALLEGATION:
"Crosstalk?"
Opponents allege that LPFM stations will result in intelligible "crosstalk"
interference on nearby FM radio stations, i.e., listeners will hear
actual words being spoken on an LPFM station on a nearby FM radio station.
FACT: The type of "crosstalk" interference suggested by the NAB in
its misleading CD demonstration on Capitol Hill, where you can intelligibly hear
portions of both transmissions, is not likely to occur from actual LPFM stations
operating on 3rd adjacent channels when the receiver is properly tuned to the
desired station:
- Any such interference that might occur from an LPFM station would nearly
always appear as noise or hissing, as shown in the FCC's own CD demonstration
on Capitol Hill. The NAB "crosstalk" demonstration therefore does not
represent actual FM radio performance and thus is meaningless.
- The NAB also incorrectly states that the FCC considers a 3% level of total
harmonic distortion plus noise from interference to be acceptable. This also
is wrong. The FCC Report and Order refuted a similar, previous NAB
assertion and clearly indicated that the Commission based its evaluations on a
1% level. To continue to make the argument in its CD about an alleged 3% level
of harmonic distortion in the FM band acceptable to the FCC can only be viewed
as a deliberate misrepresentation by the NAB of the FCC's findings and
analysis.
ALLEGATION:
Not Addressing NPR Concerns?
Opponents allege the FCC is not addressing the concerns of National Public
Radio about the impact of the LPFM service on protecting the inputs to NPR
translators and interfering with radio reading services for the visually
impaired.
FACT: The FCC, in fact, is seriously reviewing NPR's concerns during
the current period of agency reconsideration of the new LPFM service, both with
regard to translators and radio reading service issues:
- With regard to translators, the FCC indicated in its Report and
Order that applicants for new or modified low power FM radio facilities
will be required to protect the existing service of FM translator and booster
stations. This protection is afforded through minimum separation requirements
for co-channel stations, 1st adjacent channel stations, and 2nd adjacent
channel stations.
- With regard to radio reading services for the visually impaired, some of
these services have raised concerns about interference to their services from
LPFM. Radio reading services, which carry newspapers and information aurally
to the visually impaired, operate as sub- carriers ("SCA") on FM frequencies.
Just as FCC testing has determined that existing stations will not experience
harmful interference, the Commission stated in its Report and Order on
LPFM service, on p. 46, that sub-carriers on these frequencies should not
experience harmful interference.
- The concerns about radio reading services are related more to the
technology of the receivers than to the signal itself. The Commission is
currently testing a number of SCA receivers used for radio reading services
that were provided to it by National Public Radio. If it is found that there
is a significant potential for 3rd adjacent channel interference that will
affect service provided through these receivers, the Commission can and will
take steps to protect radio reading services.
- In this regard, we also note that only a relatively few FM stations
provide radio reading services on their SCA channels. The FCC should thus be
able to protect such services, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis.
ALLEGATION:
Licenses Issued on March 27?
Opponents allege the FCC started to issue LPFM licenses on March 27, 2000.
FACT: On March 27, 2000, the FCC conducted a lottery to determine the
order by state in which the Commission will accept applications for the new LPFM
service. The first LPFM applications will be filed no earlier than late May and
the first LPFM licenses will be granted no earlier than late August or early
September.
ALLEGATION:
Impact on Digital Radio?
Opponents allege that LPFM service will impede the development of digital
radio.
FACT: The development of digital radio will not be impeded by the
adoption of LPFM service:
- The proponents of the in-band, on-channel ("IBOC") digital transmission
systems for FM radio have consistently indicated that they are engineering
their systems to perform in the current FM radio environment. When compared to
the current interference environment, LPFM will be a miniscule interference
source because any effects it might have would occur in only very small areas.
- The engineering submission of a major proponent of digital radio, USA
Digital Radio ("USADR") expresses no concern about 3rd adjacent channel
protection. USADR's concerns relate to 2nd adjacent channel protection that
would occur outside a station's protected contour.
- The IBOC systems will transmit duplicative information in both the upper
and lower sidebands of an FM signal. If any interference were to interrupt
temporarily the upper sideband, for example, the digital receiver will be able
to provide service from the lower sideband, and vice versa.
ALLEGATION:
Abandonment of Spectrum Management Mandate?
Opponents allege the FCC has abandoned its responsibility to maintain the
integrity of the FM spectrum. They allege the administrative record in this
proceeding does not support the conclusion that the new LPFM licenses will not
result in unacceptable interference. They also allege that the FCC has conducted
no proper studies and developed no satisfactory record.
FACT: In adopting the LPFM service, the Commission has taken a
conservative approach in protecting existing FM service. Moreover, the new LPFM
radio service has been subject to extensive public comment and engineering
testing. The administrative record in this proceeding is thousands of pages
long. It includes thousands of public comments as well as four major technical
studies of 75 consumer FM radio receivers of various types and performance
capabilities, including automobile radios, component tuners or receivers,
portable radios such as "boom boxes," personal radios such as "Walkman" type
units, and clock radios. For example:
- The FCC did not adopt its original proposals to permit 1000 watt,
commercial LPFM stations and to allow LPFM operations on 2nd adjacent
channels.
- In addition to specifying low power operations, the new LPFM rules provide
a number of other safeguards to protect existing FM stations, such as
limitations on antenna height and separation requirements for low power
stations with respect to full-power stations operating on the same channel, on
1st and 2nd adjacent channels, and on intermediate frequency channels.
- The FCC also added a 20 km buffer zone to the required separation
distances between LPFM and full service stations that are operating on co- and
1st adjacent channels. This buffer will provide an additional margin of
protection for full-power stations that modify or upgrade their facilities.
- The LPFM stations will be of such low power, and the separation distances
prescribed by the FCC for 100 watt stations are so conservative that if any
interference occurs it will be no greater than the minimal interference
accepted by the FCC and the listening public on current radio receivers.
- Over 400 full-power FM stations authorized prior to November 1964 do not
meet the 3rd adjacent channel protection requirements. In 1997, the FCC
grandfathered these "short spaced" FM stations. These full-power stations,
which operate with only one or two channels between them and the next station
on the dial, have consistently met the Commission's criteria for
distortion-free signals.
- The separation requirements for 100 watt LPFM stations are also much more
conservative than those which apply to existing, grandfathered low power
"Class D" stations which have been successfully coexisting with full-power
stations for many years.
ALLEGATION:
Only Expensive Radios Tested?
Opponents allege the FCC only tested expensive radios before adopting the
LPFM service.
FACT: The FCC study tested a wide range of 21 radios. These included
both new and used car radios, boom boxes and low-cost home stereos. These 21
radios were certainly not fancy, high-priced radios-what some engineers call
"lab queens." In fact, the radios tested included a couple of their own personal
radios that FCC Laboratory engineers were about to discard:
- FCC engineers found that all of the radios we tested far exceeded the
current interference protection standards for the 3rd adjacent channel.
- Moreover, all but two of these 21 radios we tested exceeded the current
interference protection standards for even the 2nd adjacent channel which we
nonetheless decided to retain, erring on the conservative side of our spectrum
management mandate.
ALLEGATION:
Impact on Minorities?
Opponents allege the LPFM service will have a negative impact both on
minority, low-income listeners and on minority-owned radio stations.
FACT: LPFM service will benefit listeners in low-income, minority
communities as well as the larger listening public. Moreover, minority-owned
stations will not have to compete with LPFM stations for any advertising dollars
since the new LPFM service is non- commercial.
ALLEGATION:
Impact on "Pirate" Radio?
Opponents allege the FCC will be giving LPFM licenses to "pirate" radio
operators.
FACT: The FCC under Chairman William Kennard has vigorously enforced
the broadcast licensing scheme, and will continue to be vigilant in its
enforcement. Those organizations that broadcast without a license in the past,
or individuals serving as officers or directors of organizations which broadcast
without a license, are ineligible for an LPFM license, unless they certify that
they promptly ceased operations when notified of their violation by the FCC and,
in any case, ceased operations as of February 26, 1999.