Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now


“Extreme Similarities” of LPFM Apps Concerns Advocates

Dueling LPFM advocates differ over validity of certain applications

Things are heating up between some LPFM activists and a group of potential low-power FM station owners.

REC Networks and other organizations representing LPFM applicants protested to the FCC about 245 applications filed by Antonio Cesar Guel and Hispanic Christian Community Network.

REC’s Michi Bradley says on her website that the large number of applications, and their similarities, filed by Guel on behalf of HCCN, raised a red flag. “In the event that your organization is one of the 245 applicants that REC has filed an informal objection against, REC is willing to withdraw our objection against the specific application,” provided specific information is supplied, she states, such as proof that the names listed on the applications are really a part of the organization, and “a statement from the property owner of the transmitter site as well as the proposed main studio location giving permission for the placement of a broadcast tower and/or radio studio at the location.”

The attorney representing Guel and HCCN, Dan Alpert, opposes the objections filed by “filed by national organizations, local broadcasters, competing LPFM applicants and concerned citizens,” as characterized by Bradley. He tells the commission the allegations against the consultant HCCN “are unfounded and untrue” and the objections should be denied.

Further, he says his client is a real nonprofit entity and does have assurances of the property owners to use the transmitter sites.

The needs of HCCN clients “evidently conflict” with the needs of REC Networks clients, asserts Alpert on behalf of Guel, who tells the commission that’s what the objections are really all about.

REC has rebutted “false statements” made on behalf of Guel, telling the FCC the “extreme similarities” of the 245 applications have caused “a major concern” across the LPFM advocacy community, much like the Calvary Chapel applications did during the original LPFM filing window.