Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
February 17, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1363 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD W. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
& FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - PROTECTION ON THE FCC'S
LOW-POWER FM: A REVIEW OF THE FCC'S SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES AND H.R. 3439, THE RADIO BROADCASTING PRESERVATION ACT
LOW POWER FM RADIO
BODY:
Thank you Chairman Tauzin. distinguished members of the
Telecommunications, Trace, and Consumer Protection Subcommittee. for inviting me
to testify on the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision to create
a new class of"low power" radio service -or, put another way, to degrade the
quality of radio service on the FM band for listeners nationwide.
As you
know Mr. Chairman, I dissented from both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) and the Order adopting final rules on this matter. At the outset of the
low power proceeding, however, I made clear that I was not - nor am I today
-opposed to the creation of a low power radio service per se. Whatever new
service could have been provided within the range of existing interference
regulations would have been worth considering. But I did not believe that we
should create new stations at the expense of those interference protection
standards. That, unfortunately, is precisely what the Commission did last month.
Under the well established protection standards in place at the time of
the NPRM, the Commission could have authorized so few new stations - not more
than a handful across the country -- that the results would hardly have
warranted the effort of printing the new regulations. In order to create any
marginal amount of new service, protection standards had to be loosened so as to
eliminate long-standing third adjacent channel safeguards. In my view, this
action represents a severe incursion on the rights of current FM band
licenseholders, as well as on the value of their licenses. These licensees
reasonably expected that the Commission would protect the integrity of the band
on which they were licensed to operate, and they invested heavily in their
businesses based on this reasonable expectation.
Perhaps more
importantly, this action also impairs the ability of current licensees to serve
their listeners, who must not be forgotten. While a few new people may be able
to broadcast, others may lose their ability to receive and listen to existing
stations due to interference. I do not think that radio listeners will be
pleased to find out that their favorite station is no longer listenable on their
radio. Troublingly, however, the Commission never made any effort to assess,
much less quantify, the effect on existing stations and listeners of eliminating
these well established interference protections.
Clearly, the
Commission's action harms existing license holders and their listeners. On the
other side of the ledger - the "benefits" side -- let's consider what the
Commission has actually achieved.
According to the NPRM in this
proceeding, elimination of third adjacent channel protections for 100 watt
stations will allow for the creation of one such station - in Houston, Texas --
in the top five American cities. No such stations will be created in New York,
Los Angeles. Chicago. Philadelphia. San Diego, Dallas. San Francisco.
Washington, Charlotte, or Miami.
At the very last minute - in fact, the
evening before the final vote took place, and without the knowledge of this
Commissioner -- these numbers were rejiggered so as to produce slightly more
stations. Current and final estimates are that in the five largest cities there
will now be a total of three stations. And, where there were previously no
stations, there will now be one station in Philadelphia, four in Dallas, two in
San Francisco, three in Washington, and four in Miami. But there will still be
no stations in New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, or Charlotte. Of course, the
extra stations that were created between the NPRM stage and the final Order were
bought at the price of dropping proposed spacing requirements that would have
protected low power from full service stations.
So while there may be a
few more stations now than originally thought, they are still very few in
number, and those stations are defenseless in terms of interference from regular
power stations, further decreasing the utility of these stations. So much for
the goal of creating low power stations to serve urban communities; there will
be precious few new licensees in urban markets, and these small-scale licensees
will have to contend with a sea of interference from full power broadcasters.
In fact, the bulk of new licensees will be in smaller markets. In many
of these areas, full power stations likely could already be dropped in without
changing third adjacent channel standards at all. (At least, there is no
indication of an effort on the part of the Commission even to consider such an
alternative approach.) Given that there is little existing demand for additional
full-power stations in these markets, there is no evidence of commercial
viability. Indeed, the evidence suggests that such stations are not capable of
existence as going concerns.
Perhaps there is a demand for lower power
noncommercial stations. Theoretically, however, any such actual demand could be
met by the dispensation of licenses within our previous rules -i.e., by giving
out 101 watt licenses consistent with the 100 watt minimum requirement. Notably,
the rationale for the 100-watt minimum was efficiency in spectrum distribution.
It was thought inefficient, unwise, and unmanageable to license radio stations
at operating powers any less than this. The Commission has never explained why
it is any less inefficient today than it has been for decades to allocate radio
spectrum at lower levels.
In any event, we receive few if any
applications for 101 watt licenses, even in the noncommercial arena. Similarly,
if somebody really wanted to operate a 50-watt station, they might file a
request for waiver of the 100-watt minimum rule. As far as I can tell, though,
no such waiver has ever been filed, again suggesting a lack of any real demand
for such licenses. In short, there is no evidence in the behavior of license
applicants that suggests any pent-up demand for the stations in question.
After creating this new class of licensees, the Commission then loaded
them up with the same heavy regulatory burdens that most broadcasters must
shoulder. For instance, the newly recreated Equal Employment Opportunity rules
will apply to low power stations to the same extent that they apply to all
broadcasters. Also applicable are all the political programming rules,
cross-ownership restrictions, special ownership limits for low power stations,
and a slew of other FCC regulations.
The required actions and paperwork
for compliance with these regulations may well prove overwhelming for the
operators of low-power radio stations. If these duties are taken seriously by
operators and enforced by the Commission, low power operators will spend more
time attempting to figure out what Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
requires of them than they will spend broadcasting.
The net result of
the foregoing is that there is very little evidence - in the form of
applications for, say, 101 watt stations or waivers of the 1 O-watt minimum -
indicative of current market demand for the stations now being created. Layered
on top of the apparently low state of demand for these licenses today are the
many regulations to which the stations will be subject. Any current demand for
100 and 10 watt stations will only be dampened by these regulatory burdens.
In short, the Commission has, at the expense of established service
quality and existing radio listeners, created: a handful of new stations in
primarily non-urban areas,failing to fulfill one of its own chief goals;
stations that themselves may well be unlistenable due to interference from high
power stations: a threat to the development of digital radio services: a heavy
regulatory scheme, including ownership, cross-ownership, political programming,
and EEO rules, to govern these very small operators: and more enforcement and
administration burdens for the Commission.
To conclude, this is not a
wise balance of interests. Nor does it comply with our fundamental statutory
charge to "make available., a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide and world-wide wire
and radio communication service." 47 USC section 151 (emphasis added).
Thank you.
END
LOAD-DATE:
February 19, 2000