Congressman Michael G. Oxley Fourth Ohio District Oxley Subcommittee Statement on the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act   Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection   February 17, 2000  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our witnesses.  I especially look forward to the testimony of our favorite FCC Commissioner, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, who I understand will be joining us after this morning's Commission hearing.
 
First, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for calling today's hearing.  I believe the FCC's decision to establish a new low power FM radio service raised more questions than it answered, so I am pleased that we will be hearing from experts on both sides of the issue.
 
Certainly, the foremost question in my mind is the interference question.  The record of public comment and technical analysis suggests to me that low power FM will cause significant interference with existing services, to the detriment of broadcasters and listeners alike.  I expect that we will hear conflicting testimony on that point this morning, so I suggest that Members pay close attention to the standards used in determining what constitutes "unacceptable" interference.
 
As Members know, I introduced legislation on November 17 to prevent the FCC from implementing rules authorizing new low power FM stations.  Joining me in introducing H.R. 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act, were Representatives Stearns, Cubin, Pallone, and Ehrlich.  Since then, a total of 113 Members of the House have cosponsored H.R. 3439, including 20 Members of the Committee on Commerce.  I thank each of them for their support.
 
When I introduced H.R. 3439, I did so in response to grave concerns expressed to me by radio station managers in my congressional district.  I had previously written to the Commission twice with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), to express apprehension about low power radio and the interference it would cause.  By introducing the bill, I wanted to send the additional message that there were Members who were prepared to act legislatively if the Commission's final rules did not adequately address the interference question.
 
While I will closely review this morning's testimony, after scrutinizing the Commission's action, my initial conclusion is that the new rules do not offer adequate protection against harmful interference.  I was disappointed that the Commission chose to weaken its interference safeguards to make room for low power FM.  This decision will undoubtedly lead to increased interference with existing stations, thereby harming loyal listeners and undercutting the value of the investments of current license holders.  To the Commission's assertion that there will not be a meaningful increase in interference, I ask:  why did you have to weaken your standards?
 
I am concerned, as well, that the rules jeopardize the conversion to digital radio.  Unlike television broadcasters, who are being given additional free spectrum to broadcast in digital format, radio broadcasters must use their current spectrum allocations to transmit both digital and analog signals -- making adjacent channel safeguards all the more important.
 
And I must object to the provisions making former unlicensed pirate radio operators eligible for low power licenses, thus re-enforcing their unlawful behavior and encouraging new unauthorized broadcasts.
 
It is my hope, and frankly my expectation, that the Subcommittee will soon be marking up H.R. 3439.  I have yet to hear an adequate reason why we should not.
 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I yield back.
  The Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act   more Speeches, Statements, and Letters - home