|
Common Frequency: LPFM Is ‘Open for Business’
|
Interest groups have been
busy assessing what they got or didn’t get out of the FCC’s recent ruling on
low-power FM.
Common Frequency now
checks in. The nonprofit group believes “every town should have a common
frequency on which peoples’ voices can be broadcast and heard.” It plans to offer
LPFM consulting services for the expected wave of applicants for next fall’s
filing window.
Assessing the FCC action, it wrote: “Advocates like Common Frequency,
Prometheus Radio Project, REC Networks and many others filed dozens of comments
determined to maintain a level playing field for the new radio service. … So
what did we win and what did we lose?”
The group believes the outcome
of years of LPFM debate represents “a lifting of the barriers of entry into noncommercial
broadcasting that have resulted in media ownership diversity statistics hitting
record lows.” And it sees this action as “a liberation of the public airwaves
and a huge expansion of communication rights.”
Regarding the competing
interests of translators, Common Frequency believes “rampant speculative sales
and a dysfunctional translator marketplace convinced the commission the public
interest demanded corrective action and changes to the existing rules.”
LPFM advocates had worried
that if the backlog of translator applications were processed first-come,
first-served, there would be little space for new channels. Common Frequency
credits itself, Prometheus and REC Networks with developing “new protocols to
give new LPFM stations a fighting chance, maintain fairness for genuine
translator applications and crack down on speculative sales and frequency
monopolization by just a few.” It said the final rules — a national cap of 70
translator applications for any applicant and a three-per-market application
cap in the 150 top markets — were “largely crafted” by these advocate groups.
It also believes new rules
for channel spacing and interference are “a large victory for low-power advocates
and allow the new broadcasting service freedom from onerous standards and
frivolous interference complaints.”
It cited “significant
victories” in the handling of interference issues. These include routine
processing of second adjacent waivers on request; the ability to use
directional antennas to avoid existing broadcast signals; the ability to
transmit at lower ERPs to mitigate interference; and the ability to transmit at
different rates of polarization for the same reason.
The group noted that the
rules take steps to “prevent the making of mini-media empires with a low-power
permit and a bunch of translators,” and establish a points system to decide who
gets a signal if there are multiple qualified applicants — rewarding applicants
“for values that uphold commission goals for localism and diversity in media.”
These involve factors like having an established local community presence;
providing at least eight hours a day of local origination; and providing a main
studio in the signal area for 20 or more hours a week.
But Common Frequency expressed
disappointment at failure to obtain licensing for peripheral services at
different wattages. “At various points, service at 10 watts, 50 watts and 250
watts had been proposed as supplements to the 100 watt low-power service to
meet particular needs. In the case of LP250, it was hoped the service would
provide greater coverage for low-power stations in rural and remote areas with
low population density and remove the need to look for local translators to
achieve greater reach. In dense cities, LP10 and LP50 would have added more available
frequencies in a crowded band.”
Read its full statement here.
/Portals/0/common_frequency121212.doc
Related:
LPFM Power Boost Coalition Forms
LPFM Reactions: Conexus’ Take
LPFM Advocates Exhale
|