Microsoft: we listen to broadcasters, not customers

From Cory Doctorow in Boing Boing:

Danny sez, "A Microsoft spokesperson told CNet today that 'Microsoft included technologies in Windows based on rules set forth by the (Federal Communications Commission). As part of these regulations, Windows Media Center fully adheres to the flags used by broadcasters and content owners to determine how their content is distributed and consumed.' Do they really mean that they're obeying the broadcast flag that courts and Congress rejected as being executive overreach by the FCC? The ones they have no obligation to follow?" This is about the defunct "Broadcast Flag," an illegal proposal to have the FCC regulate devices (PCs, set-top boxes, etc) so that they'll only include approved technologies that the entertainment industry likes. The Second Circuit ruled that the FCC couldn't make these rules. But Microsoft's devices are following the rules anyway, refusing to allow you to record your favorite TV shows with your Windows PC if the broadcaster has marked them as "no record."

NPR's war on Low Power FM: the laws of physics vs. politics

From Matthew Lasar in Ars Technica:

National Public Radio continues to move aggressively against Federal Communications Commission proposals that would, if not allow nonprofits to build more Low Power FM stations (LPFM), at least let existing ones survive the intrusion of new full power neighbors. NPR is quite plain about the matter in its FCC filings: it stands opposed to the Low Power exceptions, even though they might help keep FM offerings diverse. NPR charges that the FCC is putting feel-good policies ahead of the laws of physics.

"The laws of physics have not changed, and a system of full power broadcast stations serves many more listeners with less interference compared to low power broadcasting," NPR told the FCC this month. "While LPFM stations may advance the interests of localism and diversity, the Commission cannot assume that LPFM is inherently
better than full power service."

NPR opposes proposals to strengthen rules allowing LPFMs to obtain channel interference waivers when an "encroaching" full power station arrives on the scene. And the broadcaster decidedly dislikes measures that would require new full power signals to offer technical and even financial help to an LPFM that they've suddenly squatted on (or squatted next to).

This is a serious issue, because over the last decade the NPR service has expanded from 635 to 800 affiliated stations. Public radio's stance on this puts it at odds with practically every media reform group in the country. But first, let's recap the history of this bitter struggle, which goes back almost a decade.

After years of highly-publicized battles between pirate radio stations and the FCC, agency Chair William Kennard's Commission in 2000 set up some rules to establish two classes of LFPMs: an LP100 class with a maximum of 100 watts of power and an LP10 class with a limit of ten watts. License applicants for this new service had to honor various limits: nonprofit status and a "second adjacent" rule which meant that an LPFM could not set itself up within two channel notches of a full power station.

The FCC established that restraint in defiance of National Public Radio and the National Association of Broadcasters. Both entities demanded that a three notch No Man's Land be thrown up around a full power signal. NPR pursued this goal with particular vigor, going so far as to suggest that the FCC disregarded laboratory tests that showed that LPFM stations without third adjacent restrictions would interfere with its member stations. Nonetheless, the agency stood these accusations down. It concluded that "imposition of a third-adjacent channel separation requirement would restrict unnecessarily the number of LPFM stations that could be authorized."

So the big guys raised hell and asked Congress to stomp the FCC's 2000 Order. Capitol Hill complied with a rider to a District of Columbia appropriations bill that instructed the FCC to put that third adjacent rule in there, despite the FCC's own conclusions.

This was a big setback for LPFM, because it meant that significantly fewer such stations could be licensed in more densely-populated areas. As the FCC later conceded, various "otherwise technically grantable applications" became "short spaced," prompting "the eventual dismissal of those applications." The agency subsequently canceled 17 licenses and almost 100 construction permits "for failure of the holder to satisfy certain procedural and/or technical requirements."

The DC Congressional rider did contain one silver lining. It authorized the FCC to commission an engineering study on the third adjacent problem, which the government did. The wheels of agency process moved slowly, but they moved. A little over two years later the Mitre Corporation submitted a report on the second/third adjacent problem, from which the FCC once again drew the conclusion that the third adjacent rule was not necessary.

Then, on December 11th of last year, the FCC enacted an Order and Proposed Rulemaking asking Congress to permit it to re-establish that second adjacent guideline. Mike Doyle (D-PA) in the House has sponsored such a bill, as has Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in the Senate.

The Commission's December 11th Order also asked for comment on other proposals to help keep afloat the estimated 809 LPFMs broadcasting in the United States. These include more firmly establishing procedures for second adjacent waivers. At present, if a new full power station shows up too close to an LPFM, agency practice has been to consider a waiver if the smaller signal suddenly finds itself afoul of the second adjacent limit. The FCC now wants to turn that occasional practice into a rule, but it also wants guidance on under what circumstances it should grant such leeway. And the Commission wants public wisdom on whether its waiver procedures should be expanded to first and even co-adjacent situations.

Second (and NPR truly hates this idea), the FCC wants to know if the "encroaching" full-service station should be required to offer technical assistance and even financial help to an LPFM that can demonstrate full power interference. This might include paying for filtering technology and other interference aides. And the agency thinks that a full power station should give an LPFM advance notice if the former anticipates interference with the latter.

"It should also be required to cooperate in good faith with the LPFM station in developing the best technical approach," the Commission contends, "including a possible LPFM site relocation, to ameliorate the interference and/or displacement impact of its proposal." In addition, the FCC proposes to raise standards for the kinds of LPFMs that get this sort of help, and seems to be leaning towards codifying these new policies only for stations that provide eight hours of local programming on a daily basis.

Finally, the FCC proposes to use contouring methodology to license new LPFM stations. Contour measurement is a more flexible way of assessing the possible interference of a broadcast signal. It takes into account mountainous and watery areas, therefore offering station applicants a wider range of "new licensing opportunities," as the FCC puts it.

On April 7, a medium-sized platoon of public interest groups and radio stations filed a 23-page statement on behalf of these proposals. They included the usual suspects: Prometheus Radio, Free Press, Benton, Future of Music, and Reclaim the Media, plus quite a few parties you don't come across very often, such as the Forest Hills School District of Cincinnati, Ohio. These 46 groups enthusiastically endorsed the FCC's suggestions.

"Low power radio stations are governed and operated by community based organizations with limited resources," they wrote. "It is only fair, then, that full-power stations that choose to move into the low power radio's community must provide technical and financial assistance to assist the low power station in resolving interference or in its move to a new channel."

In addition, the filing took on the delicate issue of FM translators, which NPR affiliated stations rely on heavily to expand their audience reach. Prometheus wants to limit the number of translators. No entity, Prometheus et al says, should be able to own more than ten translators in the biggest 303 Arbitron measured markets "on a basis that is primary to an LPFM station that pledges to provide local originated programming." In addition, LPFMs should not be able to convert to translators.

Needless to say, NPR sees these matters very differently, and was not afraid to be blunt about its perspective in its filing, submitted the same day as Prometheus. When Congress created the Low Power FM service, NPR's comment argues, it intended these stations to broadcast "where full power stations could not." Thus the Commission should understand LPFM stations as "secondary to full power stations," NPR writes.

From this point of departure, practically everything that the FCC recommended in its December 2007 Order becomes illegitimate in NPR's eyes, ignoring "longstanding policy determination that full power service is the most efficient use of broadcast spectrum." If an LPFM wants a second adjacent waiver, it must first "resolve all actual interference complaints," NPR insists, and prove that "other factors" have not caused the problem. But it should get no help from the encroaching full power station in question: "The Commission has no place demanding that one NCE [Non-Commercial Educational] station reallocate its scarce resources to another, unrelated one, no matter how deserving the Commission believes the latter to be."

And as for notifying an LPFM of impending signal interference, NPR says that's not an All Things Considered broadcasters' job. "If the Commission perceives a special need to alert LPFM stations to potentially significant Commission actions or provide other accommodation, the Commission itself should take on those tasks." In a more recent filing, submitted to the FCC on April 21, NPR also opposed the ten translator limit.

In a sense, NPR has traveled full circle on this matter. In 2000 it protested imagined signal interference from LPFMs. Now it insists that real interference from its affiliates' signals should be someone else's problem.

In its FCC comments, National Public Radio claims that it "continues to support the LPFM service and the Commission's efforts to ensure that it remain true to its original ideal." But a detailed examination of public radio's stance on LPFM will lead some to a different impression. "To the extent the Commission is motivated by the desire to prevent the loss of LPFM stations," NPR writes in the same statement, "we also regret the community's loss of a valued public service, but risk is inherent in the secondary nature of the LPFM service."

Perhaps, then, NPR sees LPFM as a lesser species that, with time, will be driven to deserved extinction. That is, if the Federal Communications Commission does not enact rules that thwart the survival of the fittest.

F.C.C. chairman rejects Skype petition

From The Associated Press via The New York Times:

The Federal Communications Commission should reject a petition by eBay Inc.'s Skype division to require wireless operators to allow any device on their networks, the agency's chairman said Tuesday.

To applause, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told an audience at the CTIA Wireless trade show that the industry's recent push toward openness makes such a rule unnecessary. Skype, which provides free voice calls and videoconferencing over Internet connections, asked the commission in February 2007 to apply the 1968 Carterfone decision to wireless networks. The decision opened AT&T's wireline network to phones not made by the monopoly phone company. Martin cited Verizon Wireless' decision to open its network to any device or application by the end of this year, and the participation by T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel Corp. in Google Inc.'s Open Handset Alliance, which is developing new software for phones.

''In light of the industry's embrace of this more open approach, I think it's premature for the commission to place any other requirements on these networks,'' Martin said. ''Today I'm going to circulate to my fellow commissioners an order dismissing the petition by Skype that would apply Carterfone requirements to existing wireless networks.'' EBay said it was disappointed in Martin's statement. Recent industry changes were positive, but incomplete, the company said Tuesday. The petition was meant to protect consumers' rights ''to use any application and any device on a wireless network,'' eBay said in a statement.

''While we are cautiously optimistic that the carriers will deliver greater openness, unfortunately, if the FCC acts on the chairman's recommendation, it will have given up the tools to protect consumers if they do not,'' said Christopher Libertelli, a director of government affairs for Skype. Martin's order would need the support of two other commissioners to take effect, support that's likely to come from the two Republican appointees.

Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps criticized the chairman's move. ''This is not the time for the FCC to declare victory and withdraw from the fight for open wireless networks,'' Copps said in a statement. ''While we are all encouraged by preliminary commitments from some of the major carriers, we haven't seen the details yet on how they are going to proceed -- and the devil is always in the details, isn't it?'' The FCC did apply open-access requirements to a segment of the 700 megahertz spectrum it recently auctioned for a total of $19.6 billion. Verizon Wireless bought most of the airwaves set off for open access.

Airwaves Up for Grabs: How much free space is left in the broadcast spectrum?

From Chris Wilson in Slate:

Just a day after Verizon Wireless spent nearly $10 billion in its bid for a valuable slice of the airwaves last week, Google asked the Federal Communications Commission to open up other unused pieces of the spectrum for wireless broadband. The plan calls for allowing companies like Google and Microsoft to beam wireless Internet access on frequencies between those allocated for television channels—in the so-called "white space"—as well as frequencies reserved for channels that don't exist in a given area. How much of the broadcast spectrum is still up for grabs?

It depends where you are. The "broadcast spectrum" refers to a portion of the full electromagnetic spectrum that is ideal for telecommunication, with frequencies much lower than infrared or visible light. Federal law grants the FCC the authority to determine who can broadcast on which frequencies between 9 kHz and 400 GHz, i.e. the entire range of radio waves and microwaves, to prevent interference between stations. For example, the 410 MHz band is reserved for radio astronomy, while the range from 88 to 108 MHz is for FM radio. (If the government didn't keep track of who broadcast in which frequencies, there would be tremendous interference between broadcasts, making a clear signal very difficult to find in congested areas.) But frequencies allocated by the FCC aren't always in use. Whether a given region of the spectrum is occupied depends on the size and demand of the local population. An urban area with a lot of broadcast stations might fill up most of the spectrum allocated for radio and television, while a rural area would leave much of it unused.

Google's white-space plan concerns television broadcast frequencies, which are divided up by channel throughout the spectrum. The chunks that the FCC just auctioned off to Verizon and others, in the 700 to 800 MHz range, have long been reserved for television stations broadcasting analog signals. But once TV broadcasting goes fully digital in February 2009, the stations will clear out of those frequencies. Meanwhile, companies are interested in using parts of the spectrum that are already allocated, but not always occupied. To accomplish this, they'd need to produce devices that can search for competing signals and suss out any frequencies that happen to be vacant. Proponents like Google say the vast majority of the airwaves go unused most of the time and will remain so until these devices are widespread.

So far, early testing of these "White Space Prototype Devices" has not gone particularly well. In an initial round conducted in July 2007, two prototypes were either unable to detect competing signals or detected signals that were not actually present. (Microsoft claims they sent a defective version of their model to the FCC.) This poses a real problem for the white-space plan: If a device tries to initiate a broadcast at the same frequency as an existing signal that it failed to detect, it could cause interference. Digital broadcasts might begin to skip or freeze, like a scratched DVD. Opponents of the white-space plan, including the National Association of Broadcasters, cite these reports as evidence that the technology is not ready for public consumption. The FCC is currently conducting a second round of tests.

Boing Boing: 'Tell the FCC not to let telcos censor your text-messages!'

From Cory Doctorow in Boing Boing:

Verizon's new policy on text messaging could give it the ability to go on blocking political text-messages that its customers have asked to receive. Public Knowledge wants you to tell the FCC that you don't want your phone company deciding what kind of political speech you can enjoy:

This past September, Verizon blocked its customers from receiving NARAL Pro-Choice America action alert text messages—messages that Verizon’s customers asked to receive...
Explain to the FCC now how you use text messages. Tell them if you subscribe to alerts from causes you believe in, if your organization text messages or short codes to reach its supporters, and tell them every other way in which text messaging and freedom of speech on our phone networks are important to you.

Verizon also seems to cut free103point9 off whenever we stream audio or video from New York City locations. It seems to run sweeps to cut off anyone uploading any content except VOIPs. So we are now using Skype to send out a series of audio web streams this month from Experimental Intermedia in Manhattan.

FCC releases list of groups of mutually exclusive applications for new noncommercial FM stations

From David Oxenford in Broadcast Law Blog:

On Friday, the FCC released a Public Notice setting out several groups of applications for new noncommercial FM stations which are mutually exclusive with each other. These applications were filed in the October window for new noncommercial FM stations (information about which can be found here). According to the Public Notice, the identified groups are those where there are 4 or fewer applications which are mutually exclusive with each other. The list can be found here. The Commission is asking that applicants named on this list advise the Commission within 30 days whether the FCC's determination of mutual exclusivity is correct, and also whether the named applicants anticipate reaching a settlement or share time agreement. If nothing is filed within that 30 day period, the Commission's staff will start applying the point system to determine which of these applicants should be preferred and granted.

The Public Notice also makes clear that there are other applications which are part of larger mutually exclusive groups. These applications will be dealt with at a later date. The Commission has already processed over 800 other applications which were either granted as "singletons", not mutually-exclusive with other applications, or which were dismissed because the applicant exceeded the 5 station filing cap. Thus, the FCC is moving quickly to process these applications for new noncommercial stations. Applicants should carefully review their options in light of this new public notice.

free103point9's application for a full-power FM station covering most of Greene and Columbia counties in New York on 90.7-FM is included on the list. free103point9 has three competiting applications, but all law and broadcast experts consulted say that free103point9's application will prevail under the FCC's point system.

Dates set for comments on the relationship between Low Power FM stations, FM translators, and Full Power FM upgrades

From Broadcast Law Blog:

Federal Register publication of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Low Power FM (LPFM) stations and their relationship to FM translators and upgrades of full-power FM stations occurred today. This sets the comment dates in that proceeding - with comments due April 7, and replies on April 21. This proceeding looks at technical issues of whether LPFM stations (which were originally authorized as secondary stations, subject to being knocked off the air if they caused interference to full-power stations (including new stations or increases in the facilities of existing stations), should be protected against interference from such new FM facilities. Also, the proceeding looks at whether LPFM should get a preference over FM translators, perhaps even being able to bump existing FM translators off the air to make way for new LPFM stations. We wrote more about this proceeding, here. FM station and FM translator licensees should be sure to file comments with the FCC on how this proceeding could affect their operations.

Also, free103point9's Tom Roe and Dharma Dailey met last week with the FCC in Washington, with a large group of low-power FM advocates organized by the Prometheus Radio Project, and were told they would publish the MX groups for the recent full-power non-commercial filing within "two to three months."

F.C.C. pulls plug on H.F.R.A. Radio Free-radio pirates remain determined

From Santa Cruz IMC:

On Sunday, December 16, the Federal Communication Commission paid a surprise visit to the Humboldt Free Radio Alliance studio wielding a cease operations order. Two agents, reportedly from San Francisco’s FCC office, delivered the order in response to an unspecified complaint. The agents did not confiscate any studio equipment and left without verifying the exact location of the studio. The in-studio D.J shut down the transmitter and contacted other HFRA members. Because of the visit, the station is off the air until further notice.

This is not the first time the FCC has tried to curtail the 45-watt transmission from this small radio station. At least two other visits have been made over the last several years never resulting in a significant shutdown of HFRA. “We are usually able to get back on the air a couple days after the FCC visits, but this hiatus will be prolonged because we have to find a new studio.” says Downbeat, a long time HFRA member. In addition to the cease operations order, the FCC contacted the owner of the property and the property management company of the studio’s location. “That is the first time the FCC has gone after the property owners when trying to shut us down.” laments a DJ who broadcasts under the name Ann Archy.

The Humboldt Free Radio Alliance has broadcast without a license in the Humboldt Bay area since 1999. It is part of a long tradition of free-radio activists broadcasting in Humboldt County going back to the early nineties. In recent years, HFRA moved to 99.9 FM where it broadcasts Thursdays through Sundays. “We believe that local communities should dictate the content of their airwaves. Out of touch bureaucracies like the FCC base their actions and laws around the profit gains of big media, not free speech.” asserts DJ Thrash, who broadcasts several hours a week on HFRA. The FCC crackdown on HFRA came two days before FCC chairman Kevin Martin pushed through a ruling that loosened media ownership regulations allowing media companies to further consolidate control in local markets. Thrash indignantly adds, “Can you believe the nerve? Harassing our small community station with one hand while stroking the pockets of media giants with the other. This is exactly why HFRA and other low power stations are more important than ever.”

Despite the setback, HFRA is determined to continue broadcasting in Humboldt County, however they remain off the air until a new home for their studio is found. Downbeat claims with confidence, “We not only plan to remain on the air in defiance of the FCC order, but we intend to expand our radio transmission so we can reach more Humboldt Bay [WINDOWS-1252?]communities.” He adds, “We are an all-volunteer collective that needs financial and community support from individuals and businesses alike.” From: http://www.freakradio.org/

Comments in Localism Proceeding due March 14

From Brendan Holland in Broadcast Law Blog:

The [Federal Communications] Commission's Localism Report and related Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on a slate of proposed new rules has been published in the Federal Register. Accordingly, Comments in this rule making proceeding must be filed with the Commission by March 14 and Reply Comments must be filed by April 14. This is a very short period of time in which to comment on a number of significant proposals that are poised to return the broadcast industry to the regulatory structure of the 1980s. As we reported earlier, the Commission proposes to re-regulate broadcast stations, and the NPRM suggests a number of substantive rule changes, such as effectively re-instating ascertainments, eliminating the unmanned operation of broadcast stations, imposing quantitative programming requirements, and requiring that main studios be maintained within a station's community of license. This NPRM proposes a number of potentially burdensome requirements, many of which were eliminated by the Commission long ago, and many of which go beyond what the FCC has ever required. Given the potential impact that the FCC's proposed rules could have on broadcast stations, broadcasters are encouraged to file comments in this important rule making proceeding. Comments can be filed with the Commission in paper or electronically through the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System. When submitting comments, commenters should be sure to reference the docket number for this rule making, MB Docket No. 04-233.

We interrupt this broadcast

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who represents parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, has an op-ed column in today's The New York Times worrying about white space static next year when television frequencies move from analog to digital:

"Microsoft, Google and others are asking permission to use white spaces — free of charge — for millions of unregulated and unlicensed devices for personal networking systems that they would like to sell, including P.D.A.’s, wireless broadband devices and even toys. These devices could disrupt the new digital TV signals that government and industry have spent so much time and money to promote.In my district, which includes New York’s theater district, performers use wireless microphones on these “unused” frequencies, as do news crews conducting live interviews on the street. Every major sports franchise relies on these channels for in-game communications and sideline interviews. And in rural areas, white spaces are often used for broadband access. Unlicensed devices, like wireless laptops and remote-controlled toys, operating in the white spaces will probably cause havoc to TV viewers, theater goers and sports fans. They could potentially render digital television sets and the government-subsidized converter boxes inoperable. Low-income households, the elderly and people living in multifamily buildings who don’t have cable service and rely on antenna systems could be prevented from watching their favorite programs and from receiving important emergency information — nationwide, that’s 45 million to 60 million people," he writes.

The good FCC

From Matthew Lasar in Laser's Letter on the FCC:

On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission, by a bare majority, voted to lift its over three decade old prohibition against an entity owning a newspaper and a television station in the same market. Most FCC watchers will now shift their visors to Congress and the circuit courts, where media reform activists will doubtless turn in a bid to reverse this ruling.

But the agency also made four important decisions this month and last that deserve a second glance, not only because they could have an impact on broadcasting, but because they illustrate the extent to which the Commission can promote measures that clearly serve the public interest—when it wants to.

Low Power FM

When the FCC created its Low Power FM (LPFM) service in the 1990s, it ruled that these new, locally based non-profit frequencies did not have to protect so-called "third adjacent" full power FM stations. The National Association of Broadcasters moved almost instantly to quash the provision, using its enormous influence to get Congress to pass the "Radio Broadcast Projection Act," which restored the third adjacent rule.

This meant that a full power FM station at 94.1 megahertz could demand that no LPFM station be built anywhere from 93.5 to 94.7 on the dial. A half dozen big FM stations on the lower end of the dial could thus create a prohibitively large no-fly zone for any prospective non-profit broadcaster.

But the FCC's plucky Media Bureau commissioned a study to test the NAB's assertions, and the engineering firm found that the agency's original ruling was solid.

"Based on the measurements and analysis reported herein, existing third-adjacent channel distance restrictions should be waived to allow LPFM operation at locations that meet all other FCC requirements," the MITRE Corporation's engineers concluded in 2003.

It took a while, but on November 27th, the FCC formally recommended that Congress remove the requirement that LPFM stations protect full power stations operating on third adjacent channels. The Commission's Order also tightened up rules for LPFM that will make sure that these stations keep their broadcasting local and non-repetitious.

And only one LPFM to a non-profit customer, the FCC warned. No more. That move means that the megachurches can't crowd out the rest of us.

Diversification of broadcast ownership

Women and minorities own a pathetically small percentage of radio and television stations in the United States. Last year Howard University's Carolyn M. Byerly looked at FCC ownership data circa 2005 and found that of 12,844 radio and TV stations that filed documentation with the FCC in 2005, minorities owned 3.6% and women owned 3.4% of these frequencies.

On the same day that it relaxed its newspaper/TV ownership limits, the FCC passed a series of reforms that will make it easier for women and minorities to buy and retain broadcast media. The provisions smooth the way for financially distressed stations to sell their signal to a female or minority buyer. They allow minority/women owners more time for construction permits.

The provisions make it easier for big media companies to sell off pieces of "grandfathered" combinations of radio, TV stations, and newspapers to minority/women bidders. And they initiate an annual "access to capital" conference to match minority media buyers with media investors.

It's a hodge podge of provisions that won't change anything overnight, but a "first step," as FCC Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate called it.

"Unfortunately, a step that has already taken this Commission too long," she added, "and therefore we need to move forward expeditiously—beginning today."

Cable subscriber caps

The FCC also approved an Order on December 18th that sets at 30 percent the number of subscribers a cable company can serve.

"In so doing, we ensure that a single operator cannot unduly limit the viability of a new independent network in its formative years," declared FCC Chair Kevin Martin in a comment that does not corroborate his public image as the subservient poodle of big media.

Indeed, Martin found his allies on this issue not with his fellow Republicans, but with his traditional adversaries: Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.

Both Republicans dissented on this decision, and the cable industry is furious at the move. While Martin's reform does not force any company to sell off properties, the Order limits the reach of Comcast, which now controls around 27 percent of pay television subscriber receipts. That is, if the decision survives a court challenge.

Localism

Like their decisions on media diversity, the FCC's December 18th ruling on localism will not shake the media landscape, but it could knock it about in some potentially interesting ways.

Among other suggestions, the Order asks for public comment on its conclusion that "licensees should establish permanent advisory boards (including representatives of underserved community segments) in each station community of license with which to consult periodically on community needs and issues." The document also says that the FCC should adopt guidelines "that will ensure that all broadcasters provide some locally-oriented programming."

At present, the only broadcast stations that must create community advisory boards are those that receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). This is an appropriate requirement. But it also turns CPB stations into conduits for public anger with all of media. It's about time that commercial stations had to take some of that heat.

Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein reacted with cynicism to this Order.

"If history is any guide, the odds are that the Commission will either neglect to finalize these proposals," Adelstein said in his partial concurrence to the decision, "or when it comes time to finalize them, they may be so diluted as to render them meaningless."

All the more reason why the public should tell the FCC that it takes them seriously. The FCC should not only require license holders to create advisory boards, it should require those boards to hold at least two annual public meetings that are announced by the station over-the-air, during the day.

The Commission should also make stations submit accurate summaries of those meetings, with explanations of how the broadcaster will implement the suggestions received.

If we want the Federal Communications Commission to serve the public interest, we have make visible what the agency does right, as well as what it does wrong. We have to reinforce the Commission's promises to do good at least as much as we raise the alarm against the its efforts to reward influence and power.

We may be confronted by a very different FCC relatively soon. So let's think positively. They say that it helps your health.

New York Times freelance writer provides no news on Brooklyn microradio

Today's The New York Times has a severely under-reported story about the plethora of microradio activity on the Brooklyn airwaves for the past fifteen years.

Without any sort of news peg (Ditmas Park Blog is taking credit for tipping off the Times), Alex Mindlin quotes folks from WBGO (88.3-FM) and WFUV (90.7-FM), with George Evans, the head engineer of the latter, going so far as advocating the draconian Florida law that allows local police officers who know nothing about Federal broadcasting regulations to arrest so-called pirate radio station personnel. Since the Federal government, and not the states or cities, regulate the broadcast spectrum, this Florida law will surely be thrown out once it is challenged in court.

Mindlin mentions the January 2007 $10,000 fine charged against Elroy Simpson of Prospect-Lefferts Gardens, but fails to mention the Federal Communications Commission's Nov. 2 letter of Notice of Unlicensed Operation to Sean Buckner in Brooklyn for operating on 94.3-FM without a license, or any other recent FCC action.

The FCC is constantly contacting and fining Brooklyn-based microradio stations, and most of the stations remain on the air, operating on the few NYC frequencies that have any breathing room at all between licensed stations. Mindlin correctly mentions the many Haitian-oriented stations, and the several Hasidic operators, and grasps that the Flatbush area is a hotbed of activity. But he fails to mention several prominent hip hop and hipster stations, and fails to address the "why" at all. Mindlin's main news flash: WFUV's web site has received 294 complaints about interference from pirates since August, though they could all be from one person as he doesn't question this number at all.
--Tom Roe

The FCC's preordained mistake

From Ryan Blethen in the Seattle Times:

The divergent views of the Republicans and Democrats on the Federal Communications Commission is a startling and yet informative glimpse into how the media cross-ownership ban was obliterated.

The commissioners' opening statements spoke volumes about the deep division at the FCC. The Republicans ­ Kevin Martin, Deborah Tate and Robert McDowell ­ spouted nonsense about multiple platforms providing competition, and how a failing newspaper can be saved by acquiring a broadcast outlet.

The new rule permits a company to own a newspaper and broadcast station in any of the nation's top 20 media markets as long as there are at least eight media outlets in the market. If the combination includes a television station, that station cannot be among the top four in that market. The FCC can grant a waiver to companies that
don't meet the criteria.

The FCC also made permanent 42 waivers, and made it possible for companies outside the top 20 markets to gain cross-ownership waivers. The Democrats Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein eloquently spoke about the need to preserve a diversity of voices in a democracy. "Central to our American democracy is a rich and varied supply of
news and information," Adelstein said.

Copps and Adelstein also explained the FCC's horrid process used to review media-ownership rules, which ignored the public's overwhelming support of the cross-ownership ban.

Copps: "Everywhere we go, the questions are the same: Why are we rushing to encourage more media-merger frenzy when we haven't addressed the demonstrated harms caused by previous media-merger frenzy?"

The question begs for an answer. Martin, McDowell and Tate all bragged about the deliberative, thorough and open process the commission embarked upon 18 months ago.

"I believe that the process we have engaged in over the past year and a half has been open, transparent, and thorough ­ a true example of our vibrant democracy at work," said Tate.

Life must be magical in Tate's sunshiny world. How she and McDowell rolled over as Martin continually abused the trust of his colleagues and the public is beyond explanation.

Anybody who pays attention to the FCC or covers it witnessed how Martin sprung proposals and hearings on the commission at the last minute, ignored Congress and the public's shouts to halt media consolidation, and ignored studies he commissioned that did not agree with a preordained outcome.

Adelstein and Copps highlighted in their statements how Martin continued with his cloaked process to the end. Copps said that at 9:44 p.m. Monday he received a revised draft of the proposal. Then at 1:57 a.m. Tuesday, the day of the vote, he was told of more revisions, then at 11:12 a.m. another bunch of changes were e-mailed as he was leaving his office for the vote.

"This is not the way to do rational, fact-based and public interest-minded policymaking," Copps said. "It's actually a great illustration of why administrative agencies are required to operate under the constraints of administrative process ­ and the problems that occur when they ignore that duty. At the end of the day, process matters."

The Republican's insistence that newspapers can only be saved by owning a broadcast outlet added to the unbridgeable gulf between the camps.

McDowell said, "The evidence in the record tells us that if you are under 30, you are probably not reading a traditional newspaper or tuning in to your local broadcasters."

He did not elaborate how a company owning a newspaper and a television station in the same market would convince the under-30 set that they should subscribe to the newspaper or watch television newscasts.

It is encouraging that the FCC is concerned about newspapers. But it's unfortunate it does not realize media consolidation has damaged the industry by making it beholden to the aggressive demands of Wall Street. The rule approved Tuesday will only further drive the press toward corporate journalism.

"Newly merged entities will attempt to increase their profit margins by raising advertising rates and relentless cost-cutting," Copps said. "Herein is the real economic justification for media consolidation within a single market."

At best, the FCC majority was confused by the data, which clearly show the damage done by consolidation. This probably is not the case. I fear that they do understand.

Who needs LPFM? - Why not just expand the FM dial?

From David Oxenford in Broadcast Law Blog:

At last Tuesday's FCC meeting, the Commission adopted a controversial order, over the objection of two Commissioners, that could limit the processing of some applications for improvements by some full power FM stations, and would restrict translator applications, all in the name of encouraging Low Power FM (LPFM) stations to provide outlets for expression by groups that cannot get access to full-power radio stations (see our summary of that action here). In recent weeks, two ideas have received some publicity providing an alternative outlet for these prospective local broadcasters - and both provide a simple solution (one more immediate and ad hoc than that other), but both leading to the same result - why not just extend the FM band by using TV channel 6?

The current FM band begins at 88.1 MHz, a channel that is actually immediately adjacent to TV Channel 6. The FCC has for years restricted operations of noncommercial FM stations (which operate from 88.1 to 91.9 on the FM dial) in areas where there are Channel 6 TV stations in order to prevent the radio stations from creating interference to the reception of the TV stations. That's while you will often find fewer noncommercial stations, or ones with weaker coverage, in communities that have TV Channel 6 licensees. TV stations use an FM transmission system for their audio. Thus, you will also find that most FM receivers (especially ones without digital tuners) will pick up the audio from TV channel 6 if tuned all the way to the left of the dial. The short-term solution to expanding the FM band came from one broadcaster who noted that fact.

In recent weeks, a new FM station has surfaced in New York City - one which is not really an FM station at all, but instead a TV channel 6 operation being programmed like a radio station to emphasize the audio that can be picked up on FM radio dials. Any FM station in New York would have easily cost many tens of millions of dollars to buy - so instead a new radio outlet was created by taking this low power television station, previously targeted to a narrow ethnic audience, to reach a much broader radio audience in the City. A unique solution to the search for a spot on the crowded radio dial - and one that will not disappear in 2009 at the end of the digital conversion, as LPTV stations currently have no mandatory digital transition deadline.

As a longer term solution, why not just take all of channel 6 and use it for FM operations? That proposal was one that was advanced by consulting engineer Jack Mullaney in Comments recently filed in the digital television proceeding. In his comments, Mullaney advocates the use of channel 6 (which has not been used by the FCC for digital operations of television stations to avoid interference to noncommercial FM stations, except in a few isolated cases where no alternative digital channel was available,) for FM operations after the digital television transition has been complete. As set out in Mullaney's comments, this could increase the FM band by 30 channels (there currently are 100 FM channels), which could create enough spectrum to allow for channels set aside for specific uses like LPFM, without having to worry about interference to full power stations. Or channels could be set aside just for FM translators. A section of the band could even be reserved for "pirate" radio - allowing anyone to start a radio station without an FCC license, provided that they stay on-channel and observe specific power limitations.

These innovative solutions to the current perceived scarcity of FM channels would be more advantageous than the Commission's current attempt to repeal the laws of physics by cramming LPFM stations into the existing band without displacing or otherwise interfering with other authorized users - a seemingly impossible proposition. The proposal has been made - how will the FCC react to Mr. Mullaney's suggestion?

FCC meeting adopts rules favoring LPFM, restricting translator applications, and possibly impeding full service FM station upgrades

From David Oxenford in Broadcast Law Blog:

In an unusually contentious FCC meeting, the FCC adopted rules that promote Low Power FM ("LPFM") stations seemingly to the detriment of FM translators and improvements in the facilities of full-power FM stations. While no formal text of the decision has yet been released, the Commission did release a Public Notice summarizing its action. However, given the lack of detail contained in the Notice as to some of the decisions - including capping at 10 the number of translator applications from the 2003 FM translator window that one entity can continue to process and the adoption of an interim policy that would preclude the processing of full-power FM applications that created interference that could not be resolved to an existing LPFM station - it appears that the Press Release was written before these final details were determined. And given that the two Republican Commissioners dissented from aspects of this order supported by their Chairman (and also dissented on certain cable items considered later in the meeting), one wonders about the process that resulted in the Republican chairman of the FCC voting with the two Democratic Commissioners on an item that in many respects favors LPFM stations to the detriment of existing broadcast operators.

In any event, specific decisions mentioned in today's meeting include:

*Treating changes in the Board of Directors of an LPFM station as minor ownership changes that can be quickly approved by the FCC
*Allowing the sale of LPFM stations from one non-profit entity to another
Tightening rules requiring local programming on these stations
*Maintaining requirements that LPFM stations must be locally owned, and limiting groups to ownership of only one station
*Limiting applicants in the 2003 FM translator window to processing only 10 pending applications each, and requiring that they decide which 10 applications to prosecute before any settlement window opens (the two Republican Commissioners favored allowing applicants to continue to process up to 50 applications)
*Adopting an interim policy requiring that full-power FM stations that are improving their facilities in such a way that their improvement would interfere with an LPFM station to work with the LPFM to find a way to eliminate or minimize the interference. If no resolution could be found, the full-power station's application would not be processed (which we have expressed concerns about before)
*Urging that Congress repeal the ban on the FCC making any changes that would eliminate protections for full power stations from third-adjacent channel interference from LPFMs.

In a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission will apparently go further to aide LPFM applicants. The Further Notice will ask for comments on:

Potentially giving LPFM stations a status superior to that of FM translators
Looking at the relationship between LPFM and full power stations to see what permanent rules can be adopted to avoid having changes in full power stations preclude the continued operation of a LPFM facility - including the possibility that full power operators would have to pay the costs of relocating LPFM stations to different channels or transmitter site locations. Revising the LPFM rules to use contour protection interference techniques, rather than the strict mileage separations currently required. The new rules, and the new proposals could have a significant effect on broadcasters. Applicants who had a significant number of applications still pending in the 2003 window will likely have most of their applications dismissed (losing their investments in time and money in preparing those applications in 2003). The dismissal of many of these applications may impede service to the public as some of these translators would likely replace translators that may be bumped by new noncommercial stations proposed in the recent noncommercial FM filing window. And AM licensees who were hoping that some of these translators could be granted to provide them with FM translators on which their signals could be broadcast may not have such as many opportunities.

For full power stations, many of the simplified city-of-license change procedures that were only recently adopted to allow easier improvements for FM stations may now be complicated again, as LPFM stations will have to be protected. These LPFM stations, which were licensed as secondary facilities, may now be precluding new service by full-power primary stations.

As stated above, the full text of the decision has not been released - this summary is from statements made at the FCC meeting and from the Press Release that is lacking in many essential details. Broadcasters should be alert for that order to determine exactly how these new rules, and the potential for even more changes in the future, may affect their current or planned operations.

Multiple ownership heats up, final FCC public hearing set for Nov. 9

From Broadcast Law Blog:

This afternoon the [Federal Communications] Commission announced that it will hold its sixth and final public hearing on media ownership issues in Seattle, Washington on Friday, November 9, 2007. The hearing will be held from 4 to 11 p.m. at the Town Hall in Seattle, and will conclude the Commission's tour around the country to gather information on media ownership to assist it in reworking its media ownership and cross-ownership rules. More importantly, the timing of this final public hearing seems consistent with Chairman Martin's publicly announced target of wrapping up the Commission's reconsideration of the multiple ownership rules by the end of the year.

The Chairman apparently remains undeterred by congressional calls to slow the rule making process down. Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee announced that it would hold a hearing on media ownership on Tuesday November 6, and today the House Energy & Commerce Committee has followed suit by announcing that it will hold its own hearing on the issue on December 6. While these hearings may put more pressure on the Commission to refrain from enacting new rules this year, by concluding its ownership tour next week, the Commission appears to still be aiming for a December action on the issue. And according to at least one news article, the Chairman is aiming to publicly outline his media-ownership proposals by November 13, in theory to advance those proposals before a vote at the next FCC Open Meeting tentatively set for December 18.

Obama calls FCC "irresponsible" on media ownership rule plans

From Matthew Lasar in Lasar's Letter on the FCC:

Presidential hopeful and U.S. Senator Barack Obama has asked the Federal Communications Commission Chair Kevin Martin to rethink its proposed timeline for revising the agency's media ownership rules. "According to press accounts, you intend to present specific changes to existing rules in November with a Commission vote on that proposal —whatever it may be—on December 18, 2007," Obama wrote to the Commission today. "I believe both the proposed timeline and process are irresponsible."

Last week The New York Times and Associated Press both ran stories suggesting that Martin wants to fast track a vote on the FCC's media ownership rules. Up for grabs are caps limiting how many newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations a single entity can own. Martin has long favored relaxing restrictions that would prevent an entity from owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same city.

The AP article reported that Martin plans to propose new media ownership rules soon, likely at a hearing on October 31. The public would be allowed to comment through mid-November and some of December. The Commission would vote on the proposal at a meeting on December 18. The Commission would also hold its last hearing on its media ownership provisions in Seattle on November 2nd, according to the story.

Obama's letter to the FCC said that he found it "disturbing" that the FCC is considering these changes. "It is unclear what your intent is on the rest of the media ownership regulations," he wrote. "Repealing the cross ownership rules and retaining the rest of our existing regulations is not a proposal that has been put out for public comment; the proper process for vetting it is not in closed door meetings with lobbyists or in selective leaks to the New York Times."

The statement calls for the FCC to create an independent panel to explore ways to further media ownership diversity, something that FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, has proposed. "In closing, I ask you to reconsider your proposed timeline, put out any specific change to the rules for public comment and review, move to establish an independent panel on minority and small business media ownership, and complete a proceeding on the responsibilities that broadcasters have to the communities in which they operate," the letter concludes.

FCC eyes LPFM order

From Radio World:

The battle over low-power FM and possible resulting interference has been off the front page for a while, but it’s simmering on Capitol Hill.

Speaking before the House Committee on Small Business last week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said the agency is considering an order that would guarantee low-power FM stations will “have reasonable access to limited radio spectrum.”

He said this in the context of describing how the commission is providing opportunity for small businesses in radio with the advent of the LPFM service.

We recently reported that attorneys in a legal session during the NAB Radio Show said the FCC is holding up some major modification applications for full-service FMs if the changes would result in taking lower-power stations off the air — a big change in policy, considering LPFMs are licensed as secondary services.

FCC will keep testing white space devices

From Matthew Lasar in Lasar's Letter on the FCC:

Everybody had something to tell the Federal Communications Commission about so-called "white space" or "unlicensed" devices last week, including Cox Communications and the "Open Mobile Video Coalition."

The chatter culminated in Friday's decision by the FCC to initiate a new round of tests of the machines: cognitive receivers that can tap into unused television frequencies, or "white space," and use them for broadband purposes: video, streaming audio, extended LANs or "community mesh networks."

"The Commission is committed to working with all parties to continue the process of investigating the potential performance capabilities of TV white space devices in an open and transparent manner," the agency announced on October 5. "To that end, the Laboratory will be conducting additional laboratory and field testing of prototype devices."

The prototypes come from Microsoft and Phillips, big boosters of the technology and leaders of the "White Space Coalition," which also includes Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel.

Their FCC filings promise that "unlicensed devices operating in the TV band will offer longer transmission ranges using the same power, less risk of signal attenuation or harmful interference, and less power consumption at the same range than Wi-Fi."

TV broadcasters, on the other hand, have roundly denounced the technology, likening it to a potential epidemic spread by signal interference laden "germs . . . with the ability to attack the TV receivers in people's homes, apartments, hotel rooms, hospital rooms, dormitories, etc."

On September 21 Microsoft and Phillips submitted the results of their latest unlicensed device tests to the FCC. Their tests confirm that it is feasible for white space devices to pick up TV signals at a signal strength "that is far too weak for a television set to produce a broadcast television picture," their filing concluded.

But the broadcasters aren't letting up on this issue. The Open Mobile Video Coalition's October 2nd comment urges the FCC to test unlicensed devices for interference with mobile receivers [eg, cell phones], and "not to permit unlicensed devices to operate in the DTV spectrum unless there is fully effective protection against interference to the mobile broadcast service from mobile devices."

The filing is signed by reps from Tribune, Cox Television, Telemundo, Media General, Gannett, and Fox, among other broadcasters.

Independent of this group, Cox submitted several statements to the FCC on the same day, arguing that the "state of these cognitive radio technologies - as demonstrated by the [FCC's] laboratory tests - is too immature to ensure protection of broadcast and cable services."

LPFM slowing processing of full power FM stations

From Broadcast Law Blog:

During a panel at the NAB Radio Show, FCC Audio Services Division Chief Peter Doyle was asked a question about the processing of FM applications filed under the new simplified process for upgrades in their technical facilities and for changes in their cities of license (see our post here for details about that process). The question dealt with rumors that the processing of certain FM applications were being delayed if the proposed upgrade would cause interference problems to any LPFM stations which would threaten their existence. We have written about our concerns that such a policy was possible, here. According to the response yesterday, these delays are indeed taking place - meaning that LPFM stations that are supposed to be secondary services which yield to new or improved full-service stations are now blocking improvements in the facilities of these full-power stations.

Doyle explained that, at the moment, there is no policy of denying the full-service station's application - but these applications are being put on hold if they would impede an LPFM's ability to continue to operate in order to study options as to how the LPFM service might be preserved through a technical change or through agreements to accept interference. While no final determination has been reached as to what will happen to the applications if there is no available resolution to the LPFM interference issue, he pointed to the pending rulemaking (pending for almost two years) that would give LPFM's higher status, and in effect allow them to preclude new or improved full-service operations. There was some indication that these actions were being taken pursuant to the potential policies set out in that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - even though these policies were simply proposals advanced for public comment and have not yet been adopted by the full Commission.

This seems to be a troubling case of the Commission adopting rules and policies before formal rulemaking proceedings are completed. In some cases, ad hoc policy changes may benefit broadcasters, but in cases like this, they may harm them and effectively impede the full implementation of a Commission decision that was long in the making. And this change is in a policy that was fundamental when the FCC first authorized LPFM - that low power FM stations that serve limited areas, and which have great potential for preclusive effects on large stations serving much larger populations, would be secondary to the greater service provided by the full-power stations. While the Commission can always change that policy, it would seem that they should do so in a reasoned rulemaking process, analyzing all of the pros and cons in the change in policy, through a resolution of a rulemaking proceeding like that which they started two years ago. Obviously, we have to see how the application process plays out (and it indeed may just be an attempt to help the LPFM stations in a benign fashion that will not affect the upgrades of the full service stations) but if these processing policies do indeed result in denial or permanent limbo for some full-service station applications, this certainly would look like the prejudgment of an important issue without an analysis of all of the legitimately-raised counterarguments that have been submitted to the Commission in its rulemaking proceeding.

Freepress and consumer groups win extension on media ownership study proceeding

From Lasar's Letter on the FCC:

The Federal Communications Commission has extended to October 22 the window for public comments on its ten new media ownership studies. That's three weeks more for the public to respond to the surveys, which media reform groups charge have not received adequate peer review.

The proposal for an extension received strong opposition from the Media General company, which owns newspapers, radio, and TV stations in the southwest, and often calls for the relaxation of the FCC's media ownership rules.

"While we agree with Media General that undue delays in this proceeding should be avoided when possible, here we find that a brief extension of the filing deadlines is warranted," the FCC ruled today. "We believe that the public interest and our goal of assembling a full record in this proceeding would be best served by granting an extension of the comment and reply comment filing deadlines so that parties will have additional time to review the studies and underlying data."

For weeks, Freepress, the Consumers Union, and the Consumer Federation of America have argued that the studies, which survey media ownership patterns in the United States, run afoul of the Data Quality Act, because not enough of the information they used has been disclosed so that other scholars can duplicate the various reports' conclusions. "The Commission has not provided the sufficient data for enough time to perform such analyses," the three groups wrote earlier this month. "The public cannot evaluate these ten studies under the Commission’s rushed timeline."

The FCC released the studies with a 60-day comment cycle, which critics charged was an inadequate window for public comment. The public may now comment through the Oct. 22, and reply to comments through November 1.

Attorney General nominee no friend of pirates

From DIYMedia:

Recently, former federal judge Michael Mukasey was nominated to be the next Attorney General of the United States. There's lots of punditry going on within the mainstream media about his past legal leanings (surprise, they're reactionary!), but Mukasey's also been involved in microradio case law to a degree not experienced by any other contemporary Attorney General. It was back in 1998, when the [Lower East Side-based] Steal This Radio collective preemptively sued the Federal Communications Commission in hopes of stopping a station raid or other major, life-threatening enforcement action.

STR's lawsuit was not the most well-thought-out piece of legal argument. It took a shotgun approach to the FCC’s licensing authority: some claims alleged the Communications Act itself was unconstitutional because it gave the FCC excessive latitude to restrict access to the airwaves via the licensing mechanism; one claim specifically attacked the practice of auctioning off commercial radio licenses for limiting "free expression" only to those who can afford it. Another posited the radio spectrum as a public forum, which necessitated the strictest scrutiny of government attempts to regulate it; under such analysis, the broadcast licensing regime was overly restrictive and therefore also unconstitutional.

Then-judge Michael Mukasey, working the Southern District of New York, first used a "jurisdictional wiggle" to avoid addressing some of STR's more substantive allegations. After doing so, he savaged their claims. Steal This Radio’s open display of lawlessness [on 88.7-FM] coupled with the scarcity rationale were enough to doom their case. However, Mukasey’s ultimate reasoning disqualified them based on the preemptive nature of their lawsuit - they had no standing to seek redress for harm not yet suffered, irrespective of whether the rights in question exist.

Now, as (possible) Attorney General, Michael Mukasey will not be adjudicating such cases any more. But he will be in a position to change the entire federal prosecutorial stance on select "crimes," such as unlicensed broadcasting, so as to give the FCC more muscle with which to pursue pirates. For example, Mukasey could write a memorandum cordially requesting all United States Attorneys to be more cooperative to the FCC's pleas for enforcing its fines and/or pursuing injunctions or other criminal-prosecution tools.

After all, Mukasey has personal experience with the issue, and a stance on crimefighting in general which borders on jack-bootery. It's just another reason why he isn't an optimal choice for the job.

A new push to address multiple ownership?

From Broadcast Law Blog:

Over a year ago, the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on amendments to the FCC's multiple ownership rules. Issues from newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership, to local TV and radio ownership limits are all being considered. Our summary of the issues raised in the NPRM is available here. The FCC has been holding field hearings throughout the country on its proposals, gathering public comment on the proposals - the most recent having been held in Chicago last night. Only one more field hearing to go and the Commission will have conducted the six hearings that it promised. Many, including me, had felt that the timing was such that no decision in this proceeding could be reached until 2008 and, as that is an election year, the decision could quite well be put off until after the election to avoid making it a political issue. However, there are now signs that some at the FCC are gearing up to try to reach a decision late this year or early next - presumably far enough away from the election for any controversy to quiet before the election. With this push, others are expressing concern about a rush to judgment on the issues, and may well seek to delay it further.

Evidence of the FCC's increasing attention to the multiple ownership issues include the recent Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, asking questions about minority ownership and making proposals on how that ownership can be encouraged. The FCC has also asked for comment on several studies that it commissioned to look at the effects of ownership consolidation in the broadcast media. Comments on the Further Notice and the ownership studies are due on October 1, with replies due on October 15. Some have suggested that this time table is unnecessarily accelerated, especially as certain peer review documents on the ownership studies were just recently released.

At last night's Chicago field hearing, the two Democratic Commissioners expressed their concern about a rush to judgment. Commissioner Copps, in his remarks at the hearing, expressed concern over the short time frame given for comments on the issues raised by the Further Notice. Commissioner Adelstein suggested that the Commission appoint an independent panel of experts to review the ownership studies and report back to the FCC before any decision on the ownership rules is made.

At this week's Future of Music Policy Summit in Washington, DC, a legal assistant to Commissioner Adelstein expressed concern over this rush to reach a decision, suggesting that the Chairman wanted to see the decision out before his term ended, and was looking for a decision early next year. Several Congressional staffers on a panel about Capitol Hill activities that affect the music industry, as well as Senator Dorgan of North D