Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
February 17, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 801 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF DAVID MAXSON ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD COMMITTEE
ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS
BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE TELECOMMUNICATIONS & FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - COMMERCE ON SPECTRUM INTEGRITY AND HR 3439, THE "RADIO
BROADCASTING PRESERVATION ACT OF 1999".
BODY:
Introduction:
My name is David Maxson, I am co-founder and
have been managing partner of Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP, Cambridge,
Massachusetts since its inception in 1982. I was Vice President, Director of
Engineering of Charles River Broadcasting Company, whose flagship radio station
in Boston is the highest-rated classical music station in the nation. I served
the company for twenty years.
Broadcast Signal Lab was contracted by the
National Lawyers' Guild to evaluate a sample of consumer radios for their
susceptibility to interference under a variety of conditions. We are here today
at the request of the Subcommittee to address the interference question in the
matter of Low Power FM broadcasting (LPFM). My role is that of
an engineer, and the National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic
Communications has asked me to testify today on its behalf in that capacity.
They are, of course, very concerned with the free speech issues involved in the
creation of LPFM, and have asked me to introduce the attached Statement of
Fundamental Principles Relating to Spectrum Integrity into the record.The areas
I will touch on include the following key points:
On behalf of NLG and
related parties studied 11 consumer radios to develop an understanding of their
susceptibility to interference under a variety of conditions.
For the
most part the radios had a much greater ability to reject interference on 2d and
third adjacent channels than was assumed when the rules relating to interference
were written half a century ago.
Study shows that previous FCC
protection standards could be relaxed without causing significant increased
interference. Study shows that there is no more reason to protect stations from
signals on the third adjacent channel than there to protect them from the 4th
adjacent channel, which everyone agrees is not necessary.
These stations
are so low power, and the separation distances prescribed by the FCC for LPl00s
are so conservative, that if any interference occurs, it will be no greater than
the de minimus interference accepted by the FCC under a variety' of other
circumstances.The separation requirements for LPl00 stations are 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.
Only studies using a signal carrying audio can derive data
which is meaningful in the real word environment. Studies based on empty radio
signals exaggerate apparent interference.
In the unlikely event that
there is a conflict with a non-commercial translator's ability to receive a
distant signal the FCC should permit Alternative Signal delivery (e.g. a
dedicated phone line or a microwave link).
Statement re LPFM and
Spectrum Questions
The FCC decision to authorize an LPFM service is very
conservative from a technical perspective. Its changes to the technical rules
are the least one could make. While LPFM stations are being permitted to overlap
with signals of third adjacent channel stations, the protections afforded to
existing stations on the first and second adjacent, or on channels the same
channel are extremely conservative. The FCC chose to employ a simple LPFM
distance separation methodology that in the Commission's words "will preclude
new LPFM stations in some areas." (FCC 00-19, par. 70)As a point of comparison,
consider the other two low power FM services peacefully
coexisting with full power stations--Class D and translator stations. There are
plenty of Class D stations and translators that would not meet the LPFM
separation distances. One of our clients, WBRS, at Brandeis University, has a
Class D station operating at 35 watts ERP at about 150 feet above average
terrain. It is very similar to an LP-100 facility in its power and antenna
height. This station is directly in the middle of the protected contours of
third adjacent stations on 100.7 and 95.5. This station is also at a location
and frequency that would not meet LPFM separation distances. The FCC licensed
this station because the area of third adjacent channel overlap was contained
within the college campus. In reality, even on the campus, there is no
interference from the Class D to the third-adjacent stations.
Therefore,
based on practical experience, and our evaluation of radio receivers, ten or
100watt low power FM radio stations that meet the FCC's
conservative criteria will have an interference effect that is at worst, de
minimus, with respect to the existing radio environment.
The
interference issue, in our opinion, is a red herring in this proceeding. I
respectfully encourage the subcommittee to spend its precious time on
considering the policy issues related to the LPFM service, not the interference
issues.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 19,
2000 
