NAB Wants LPFM Stations to Remain Secondary to Full Power FM
The FCC shouldn’t alter rules on co-adjacent and first-adjacent full power FM stations, NAB said in response to the latest Commission proceeding on low-power FM (LPFM) ownership and technical issues. NAB said action on suggestions to reduce interference protection of full power FM stations “could deny thousands of listeners the benefits of FM station upgrades or new FM service, including digital radio.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The FCC had asked if full-power stations should be able to displace LPFM stations and if local LPFM stations should be able to displace non-locally programmed translator stations. NAB said the FCC should focus on “constructive” means by which to relocate an operating LPFM station displaced by new or upgraded full power FM service without creating interference. The NAB also suggested the FCC not give LPFM stations higher regulatory status than FM translators.
NAB also urged the Commission to lift a freeze on pending FM translator applications. In March, the FCC imposed a 6-month freeze on FM translator new construction permits while it weighed options to expand and strengthen LPFM service (CD March 21 p3). “Translators have proven to be a critical component of delivering essential news, weather, emergency information and Amber Alerts,” NAB said. The National Translator Assn. (NTA) agreed: “The purpose of LPFM stations was to provide alternative outlets for ideas. It becomes a far different matter when the Commission is considering allowing LPFM stations to supplant or block FM translators.”
However, many translators of noncommercial FM stations are fed by satellite in the noncommercial band, and lack access to the local community, NTA said. If the FCC finds sufficient basis to allow LPFM some primacy over translators, it should limit that primacy to satellite- fed, non-local stations in the noncommercial band, NTA said.
To minimize the extent to which LPFM and FM translators inhibit each other, the Commission should apply the same interference criteria, based on actual terrain, for both classes of station, NTA said. The Longley-Rice interference analysis for low power TV stations and TV translators can be used equally for FM stations, the association said.
A coalition of LPFM stations and national and local citizens groups told the FCC it has a duty to protect LPFM service: “The Commission should implement policies that generally discourage full power stations from moving out of their original community of license or expanding into an LPFM community of license.”
The FCC, meanwhile, granted an REC Networks motion for a 15-day extension to file reply comments in the LPFM proceeding. The volume of comments filed requires more time to review before filing replies, REC said. Replies are now due Sept. 21.