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.

Low power FM advocates push solutions for spectrum availability and encroachment for local community radio

From Pete TriDish at Prometheus Radio Project:

Prometheus Radio Project, working closely with Media Access Project, Common Frequency and students from Penn State, University of Colorado, University of Pennsylvania, and Temple, have released a set of comments and report designed to move the debate forward on the future of LPFM.

In these comments, Low Power advocates praised the Commission for actions that they took last fall to protect low power stations from encroachment, and recommended several measures that would further protect stations. These measures included requiring that if a low power station was displaced by a full power station, that the full power licensee pay full reasonable costs incurred by the LPFM. We also recommended that displacements not be allowed to occur unless a channel was found of equal coverage and quality for the LPFM station. Full power licensees had put in several petitions against the FCC's new policies on encroachment, and much of the comment was devoted to disproving their arguments.

On spectrum availability, low power advocates did extensive study of the current state of the FM band. We found evidence that while the FCC's measures from last fall were very helpful, they did not do enough to open up spectrum for Low Power radio stations. The FCC has limited pending translator applications to 10 per applicant, and tentatively concluded that they would allow Low Power FMs to use the contour overlap method for allocating low power stations. However, the FCC did not make a decision on priority between LPFMs and translators, and invited more comment. An extensive, painstaking study was conducted of translators on the FM band, and their preclusive impact upon potential low power channel availability.

Our studies found that unless there was a significant change in priority between LPFMs and translators, many translator owners would continue to have hundreds of repetitions of their signals while the FCC tells LPFMs that there are no channels available.

Earlier proposals from LPFM advocates have focused on limits to the number of translators that any entity can own, or physical distance from the translator to its originating station. Translator owners continue to insist that they are entitled to as many translators as they feel like having, and have fired off a mountain of legal action and lawsuits at the Commission to prevent the FCC from taking any actions, however small, to promote localism through licensing of LPFM stations.

Low Power advocates advanced a plan which proposed an innovative, dramatic compromise. Building on an idea from the always insightful communications attorney Michael Couzens, we have developed a concept that should accommodate all reasonable use of translators while capping some of the abuses prevalent in repeater licensing today. Translator owners could have up to 10 translators with coverage inside the top 303 urban markets as described by Arbitron. Radio stations could have up to 10 repetitions of their originating signal inside the top 303 markets. These first ten would be primary to new low power signals. Any additional translators would be subject to displacement by a low power applicant who pledged to meet a locally produced programming requirement. Appropriate limitations would be placed on buying and selling of translators and other speculative behavior. Separately, the idea was also brought up that translator owners, under certain circumstances, might be enabled to sell translators to groups that could not find another channel.

Prometheus hopes that legitimate users of translators will join us in these ideas for reasonable "rules of the road" for translators and reject the speculators and empire builders in their midst, who have succeeded in gumming up the legitimate licensing system for everyone seeking licenses from the FCC.

Comments also supported the Creation of LCFM, or Local Community FM, a new class of licensing identical to LPFM but using the more technically flexible "contour overlap " method, which would allow LPFMs to do technical studies (similar to the ones currently used by translators). to find viable channels currently not available under the current LPFM licensing system. Stations would have to pay for an engineer to conduct a channel search, and these stations would have to protect existing stations from any interference complaints. The prospect of finding available channels even in some of the densest urban areas would be an exciting step forward for community radio, though our studies have found that availability will be low for LCFM unless there is a re-ordering of priorities between translator applicants and LPFM.

Technical Research by Rachel Healy, Patricia McCarthy, Jan Schieffer, Sakura Saunders, Pete Tridish, Todd Urick, and John Wenz. Legal research by Andrew Christopher, Daniel Goshorn, Michael Hartman, David Wilson and comments were authored by Parul Desai. Outreach for comments was done by Kate Blofson, Muna Hijazi, Megan Sheehan, Hannah Sassaman and Steven Bluhm.

Comments were endorsed by:
PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT
NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDIA COALITION
RECLAIM THE MEDIA
COMMON CAUSE
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION, INC.
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS
FREE PRESS
BENTON FOUNDATION
NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA
CONSUMERS UNION
FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION
CCTV CENTER FOR MEDIA & DEMOCRACY
CENTER FOR DIGITAL DEMOCRACY
MEDIA ALLIANCE
COMMON FREQUENCY
MEDIA MOBILIZING PROJECT
KFOK-LP, KFOK COMMUNITY RADIO, GEORGETOWN, CA
KOWS-LP AND THE OCCIDENTAL ARTS AND ECOLOGY CENTER,
OCCIDENTAL, CA
KPYT-LP, PASQUA-YAQUI INDIAN TRIBE, TUSCON, AZ
KYRS-LP, THIN AIR COMMUNITY RADIO, SPOKANE, WA
MEDIA BRIDGES, CINCINNATI, OH
MONTAGUE COMMUNITY TV, MONTAGUE, MA
WCNH-LP, HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, CONCORD, NH
WCOM-LP, COMMUNITY RADIO OF CARRBORO, CARRBORO, NC
WEZU-LP, ROANOKE RAPIDS, NC
WCRX-LP, BEXLEY PUBLIC RADIO FOUNDATION, BEXLEY, OH
WPVM-LP, MOUNTAIN AREA INFORMATION NETWORK, ASHEVILLE, NC
WRFN-LP, RADIO FREE NASHVILLE, PASQUO, TN
WSCA-LP, PORTSMOUTH COMMUNITY RADIO, PORTSMOUTH, NH
WXOJ-LP, VALLEY FREE RADIO, NORTHAMPTON, MA
AUSTIN AIRWAVES, INC., AUSTIN, TX
CHIRP-CHICAGO INDEPENDENT RADIO PROJECT
NEW MEXICO MEDIA LITERACY PROJECT
KDRT-LP, DAVIS COMMUNITY RADIO, DAVIS, CA
KREV-LP, 104.7, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ESTES PARK, CO
KXRG-LP, HONOLULU, HI
WXCS-LP, CAMBRIDGE COMMUNITY RADIO ASSOCIATION,
CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS, PA
WCRS-LP, SIMPLY LIVING, COLUMBUS, OH
WRYR-LP, WRYR COMMUNITY RADIO, SHERWOOD, MD
WXBH-LP, LOUISVILLE COMMUNITY RADIO, LOUISVILLE, KY
KPCN-LP, PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE, WOODBURN, OR
MULTICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN OREGON, KSKQ COMMUNITY RADIO
WIDE-LP MADISON, WI
FOREST HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, CINCINNATI, OH
KKDS-LP, BLUE OX YOUTH AND COMMUNITY RADIO, EUREKA, CA
WSLR-LP, Sarasota Local Radio, Sarasota, FL
KLDK-LP, Embudo Valley Community Library, Dixon, NM
KOCZ-LP, Southern Development Foundation, Opelousas, LA

The Comments are available at the Electronic Comment Filing system page on the FCC's website, and will be up on prometheus' website soon.

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."

The presidential candidates on FCC-related issues

Lasar's Letter on the FCC is constantly updating this page charting all the presidential candidates stands on various media issues. Interesting notes:

*The Democrats all support net neutrality; Ron Paul is against it; others have no opinion.

*John "Edwards says he will lift restrictions on Low Power FM radio, making it easier for applicants to get licenses."

*"Paul is strongly critical of the provisions of the Patriot Act that have been used to justify surveillance of the e-mail and phone calls of Americans, and has attempted to overturn the law."

Curiously not mentioned is Senator John McCain's co-sponsorship of LPFM bills. But this is the best site online we've seen comparing the various candidates positions on a variety of media issues that may inform your decision. Common Sense also has a comparison chart here, and Broadcasting & Cable have a Q&A here.

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.

NAB responds to FCC LPFM announcement

From Friday Morning Quarteback:

The National Association of Broadcasters has responded to the FCC's announcement of a number of rules and policies relating to Low Power FM (LPFM), which took place late Tuesday. NAB EVP Dennis Wharton said in a statement, "We look forward to reviewing the final text of the Commission's action, which will provide broadcasters with a better understanding of the rules going forward. However, in general, NAB is pleased the Commission clarified that LPFM stations must indeed be locally-owned with locally-originated programming, and limits ownership to one station per licensee."

In reference to the FCC considering giving LPFM stations "enhanced stature," Wharton said, "We share the concerns expressed by Commissioners Tate and McDowell about the Commission's decision to adopt interim processing guidelines without full notice and opportunity for comment, but we look forward to working with the Commission to find a solution that works for all."

And speaking about the recommendation by the FCC to Congress to eliminate third adjacent channel protections, Wharton said, "Though this is a recommendation identical to one made several years ago by the FCC, NAB continues to believe that statutory third-adjacent channel protections are critically important to protect listeners against interference. The idea that hundreds, if not thousands, of
additional LPFM stations can be shoe-horned into an overcrowded radio dial without causing considerable interference simply defies the laws of physics."

Of course, that last quote is ridiculous. When LPFM was first approved, the NAB made a fake CD for Congress of what they said that interference would sound like if LPFM stations were allowed on third-adjacent frequencies. Congress bought their nonsense, but mandated a study to see if the interference existed. The eventual MITRE study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that tiny LPFM stations would not interfere with giant full-power stations (but you didn't need a study to figure that out, did you?). The third part of the MITRE study was to find out the cost of this suppossed interference. They said, in effect, we can't study the cost of nothing, because we have found no interference. "Our principal finding is that LPFM stations can safely operate three channels away from existing FPFM [full-power] stations," the MITRE study said.
--Tom Roe

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.

Statement of the Prometheus Radio Project on announcement of impending FCC notice on LPFM radio

From Prometheus Radio Project:

On Tuesday, November 20, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it was ready to pass a set of provisions amending the rules that govern the low power FM radio (LPFM) service -- a noncommercial radio service that hundreds of schools, churches, municipalities, and community groups use to connect with their local communities. Below is the press statement of Pete Tridish, founder of the Prometheus Radio Project, on the announcement.

Click here for a printable copy of this statement: http://www.prometheusradio.org/media/rulemaking_announcement_LPFM_nov_21_2007_final.doc

Click here for a link to the FCC meeting agenda, announcing their intent to make some major decisions on the low power FM radio service: http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/#nov27.

Click here for a statement from Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Congressman Lee Terry (R-NE), sponsors of the Local Community Radio Act of 2007, on the priority of low power FM radio stations over translators: http://www.prometheusradio.org/media/doyle_terry_translators_FCC_july_2007.pdf

Contact: Pete Tridish, Prometheus Radio Project Founder: 215-727-9620 x 501, 215-605-9297, petri@prometheusradio.org.

"In recent weeks, the Federal Communications Commission, and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, have made strong public statements about supporting the low power FM radio service, and the vital work that it does nationwide. As the commission works at its November 27th meeting to make decisions about the future of LPFM, they must lay the groundwork to ensure that LPFM will not only be available in rural areas in the future. They must also protect the low power stations from losing their frequencies to full power stations that encroach upon their signals, and threaten to knock them off the air.

As a diverse set of groups, including Prometheus, have proposed over recent years, the FCC must prioritize local low power FM radio stations over translator chains fed by distant signals. The FCC has frozen the granting of translator licenses for the time being, to investigate the practices of these chains and to balance the priority of distant translator use with the needs of local radio. The FCC cannot move to lift the current freeze on the granting of licenses to these translator chains without prioritizing local radio over these distant-fed translators. Without remedying this problem, the Commission is telling the American public that they are prioritizing these distant voices, once and for all, and informing local groups that would like one single, local, hundred-watt-or-less radio station that there is no room on the dial left for them.

When Congress temporarily limited LPFM in 2000, they mandated that the FCC study whether or not there would be room for these vital stations in America's cities and smaller communities. During the exact moment when this study and its technical field tests were being completed in 2003, the FCC made the mistake of allowing a handful of speculators to apply for translator licenses on thousands of the very same channels that had been promised for LPFM use. When it comes to translators and low power FM radio stations, the FCC allocates spectrum based simply upon who filed their application first. If the FCC chooses to prioritize these translator applicants, all of the frequencies that the FCC designed for LPFM use back in 2000 will have been given away.

In that 2003 window, a single translator applicant applied for 2500 licenses to broadcast, nationwide. One radio station currently has 792 translator applications repeating its signal.

In 2005, the FCC wisely froze translator applications like those listed above in order to find an intelligent resolution. In recent statements, Chairman Martin announced a limited proposal to reject some of these applicants, but if the FCC wants to support low power FM radio, they have a lot of work to do.

No matter what happens in Congress, LPFM will only be available in America's cities if the FCC acts to make room for it. The Commission needs to revise the spectrum priority relationship between LPFMs and these distant translator chains. There are a number of ways that this can be done without affecting the legitimate use of repeating stations by local networks.

In terms of low power FM stations being encroached upon by full power stations that want their signals -- while dozens of stations are under threat of this happening in the next weeks or months, the Commission and its staff should be commended for the work they've done, case by case, to make room for both these threatened stations and the full power stations moving into their path.

We encourage the Commission to continue to address the simplest displacement cases now and relieve the hold up on some of these less problematic encroachments. The few, tougher cases should remain on hold for settlement until, through further comment, more innovative solutions are found. Also, hasty judgment should not be made on the fate of low power stations suffering dramatically increased interference through encroachments -- more solutions can be found in these cases after further comment. Another excellent option for frequency availability for LPFMs at the disposal of the Commission is to use more detailed engineering methods -- methods which can open up a limited number of new options for communities. This could be exciting if the order of application problem (between the chains that got an opportunity to apply before communities got their chance) were resolved.

The statements that the FCC and Chairman Martin have made on the small ameliorative measures they might take for LPFM are helpful and well intentioned, and we'd like to give credit where credit is due -- but all of these measures pale in contrast to the prospect of America's cities never getting a fair chance at low power radio, and the importance of keeping low power FM radio stations serving their full communities.

Prometheus would heartily congratulate the hard work of the Chairman Martin and the FCC staff on this new low power notice, so long as the Commission does not:

1) foreclose the LPFM opportunity in the cities by ignoring the translator/LPFM priority problem, and

2) make hasty judgment on the hardest encroachment cases, and cases that do not involve displacement but do involve significant interference. These should be resolved after another round of comment and creative problem solving."

LPFM and the fight for community radio

From Liz Berg in WFMU Beware of the Blog:

Ever since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, the FCC has been required to periodically review the country's broadcast ownership rules. For those who may not know, the 1996 Act was responsible for widespread media consolidation: as ownership regs were loosened, companies like Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting were allowed to purchase many more stations across the country (and were also allowed to own more than two stations in a single market). Most recently, the FCC's 2006-07 review of the media ownership landscape has been met with unprecedented outcry; citizens are not happy about the homogenization of their airwaves, and are serving the feds with tons of public testimony and mounds of comments, urging them to steer clear of further ownership deregulation.

Localism, dull/homogeneous programming, and concerns about the lack of station ownership by women and minorities appear to be at the crux the public's beef with broadcast radio and TV. These sentiments were reflected during the FCC's town hall meeting on media consolidation in NYC last year which I attended, and you can read the wrap-up on this post (as well as listen to the whole damned thing).

It would seem as though the teeming masses who are upset with the current state of radio are simply asking for more community-based broadcasters. There is space reserved for community radio on the low end of the dial, but in many areas, religious conglomerates and NPR affiliates outbid local community groups for non-commercial, educational spectrum. So now, even non-commercial frequencies are sounding more and more alike across the U.S. No wonder the people are angry.

How do we solve the larger, interrelated problems of media consolidation and crappy programming? How do we allow more voices to be heard on the non-commercial end of the dial, especially those who don't have the resources to purchase and manage a full-powered FM station? A loaded answer would be LPFM.

The FCC re-established low-power radio licenses in 2000 as a response to an outraged citizenry, who were upset over massive media conglomeration just like they are today. Many believe that LPFM was not a real solution to the problem, as it relegates community radio to the teeny cracks of spectrum left over once the commercial giants and moneyed national non-profit groups had bought up all of the full-powered frequencies. Let the big guys broadcast at 50,000 W, and toss out 100 W scraps to community groups.

Although these inequities certainly illuminate the secondary (or some might argue tertiary) status of local broadcasters, something is better than nothing. The fact that local groups were even given a space on the public dial was monumentous in itself.

Today, the idea of establishing even more LPFM stations is gaining steam, with the Senate Commerce Committee voting to remove certain interference limitations for low-powered stations. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is arguing (as they did in the late 90s) that LPFM stations will cause third-channel interference problems for their member stations (mostly large commercial broadcasters). Although a study debunking this theory was just released, NAB is claiming that these findings are flawed and will continue to lobby against LPFM and S.1675 (the Local Community Radio Act). LPFM cannot be expanded until the House and Senate vote for this bill.

Prometheus Radio and Free Press are encouraging LPFM supporters to write to their representatives in support of S.1675. New Jersey residents in support of LPFM should pay special attention, as Senator Lautenberg has added an amendment to S.1675 that would essentially block any new LPFM licenses from being allowed in the Garden State.

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.

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.

Bills to expand Low Power FM radio to America's cities introduced in Congress!

From Prometheus Radio Project:

Hello supporters of low power FM Radio, and Greetings from the Prometheus Radio Project! Read below to get your Congressmembers signed on to expand low power FM radio to America's cities, smaller communities, and your neck of the woods.

You last heard from us in late June, when community radio hopefuls and broadcasters alike announced a breakthrough in the fight to bring low power FM radio licenses to thousands more cities and towns. On June 21, Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) joined Congressman Lee Terry (R-NE), as well as Senator John McCain and Senator Maria Cantwell, to introduce the Local Community Radio Act of 2007. This bill -- H.R. 2802 in the House and S. 1675 in the Senate -- is what we have been fighting for for years -- a chance for community radio hopefuls from Omaha to Orlando to get new licenses to build their own low power FM radio stations. (Learn more about how Congress limited low power FM radio in most American cities here -- http://www.prometheusradio.org/take_action/lpfm_in_congress).


Please help us to continue this momentum and get more Congressmembers to support low power FM radio. If we are able to get more Congressmembers to cosponsor this bill over the next week before Congress goes on vacation -- we'll be in great shape for a vote to expand community radio in the fall. No one will do this work for you -- we need you to make this call, or write a letter, for community radio, today.

You can find your Congressmember's information at
http://www.congress.org, or by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. You can also look them up at http://www.freepress.net/lpfm/.

Want more background? Read House Bill 2802 here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2802: -- and read Senate Bill 1675 here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1675:.
Or get summaries of low power FM facts at http://www.expandlpfm.org,
http://www.prometheusradio.org, or http://www.freepress.net/lpfm.

Check and see if your Congressmember has cosponsored the low power FM radio bill here -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02802:@@@P -- some Congressmembers have committed to signing on, like the ones mentioned above, but aren't listed yet!

PPS -- Read a few great stories about the low power FM bills at MyDD.com:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/21/13024/5742

At the Black Agenda Report:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=259&Itemid=39

And from the United Methodist Church:
http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2072531&ct=4027825

PPS -- Here's Mr. Doyle's question on low power FM radio today, at the Congressional Oversight Hearing for the FCC:

In 2004, the FCC issued a report to Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program after getting public comment on the engineering studies it commissioned. After reviewing all the facts, data and potential for interference, the FCC said in that report quote "Congress should re-address this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third-adjacent channel distant separation requirements for LPFM stations." Anyone disagree with that?

(silence) Good.

Let the record show that the silence was deafening. My friend, Lee Terry and I have a bill to allow the FCC to expand the benefits low power FM onto more places on the radio dial across the country. LPFM has been critical during emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, to religious groups trying to spread their message and to community groups interested in serving their community. It's my hope that the Commission will continue to support these stations until and after we get this bill
signed into law.

Low Power FM expansion comes before the Senate

From Reclaim the Media:

Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain have introduced a Senate bill to authorize hundreds of local, noncommercial Low Power FM radio stations to communities across the country. A companion bill was introduced in the House. The Local Community Radio Act of 2007 would remove the artificial restrictions imposed on LPFM by a 2000 law passed at the urging of corporate radio giants and NPR, claiming that small community stations would interfere with the signals of larger stations. While these claims were debunked by a taxpayer-funded study in 2002, Congress has not yet acted on those results - denying many communities the opportunity to apply for LPFM stations.

If passed, this bill will pave the way for educational groups, nonprofits, unions, schools and local governments to launch new local radio stations across the country. Get additional details from the Prometheus Radio Project, and express your support for local radio by signing the online petition at ExpandLPFM.org.

Bipartisan legislation was introduced today in both the House and Senate that would bring hundreds of local, Low Power FM (LPFM) radio stations to cities and suburbs across the country.

On a national press call this morning, the Indigo Girls joined religious groups, community radio broadcasters and public interest advocates in support of the "Local Community Radio Act of 2007" sponsored by Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) in the House, and Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the Senate.

"Radio should reflect the vibrant diversity of music, points of view and news in our communities, not just the narrow content a few large radio conglomerates deem profitable," said Emily Saliers of the Indigo Girls. "The Local Community Radio Act can make this idea a reality and deserves the support of Congress and community groups across the country."

On the call, the House co-sponsors of the Local Community Radio Act explained the importance of the legislation.

"Diverse, informative, thought-provoking, locally oriented programming has been dramatically restricted across the country by the current federal laws governing the separation between broadcast frequencies," Congressman Mike Doyle said. "Enactment of this legislation would improve the quality of life in communities across the country by providing new and different programming -- and especially programming addressing local interests and events -- to these communities."

"I really believe Low Power Radio has the potential to make communities stronger," Congressman Lee Terry said. "Congress should be expanding the forums for our local communities to communicate. There are several groups in the Omaha area that want to apply for an LPFM station, and that s why I am working to push this legislation forward. I encourage my colleagues to jump on board and get more local stations on the air."

In response to the introduction of the Local Community Radio Act, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said: "Localism and diversity have always been at the heart of radio. Many Low Power FM stations across America reflect the best of these traditions and have flourished despite existing interference standards. As I've traveled throughout this country, I've seen local churches, schools and other community-based organizations use low power stations to broadcast locally relevant news, information and music. That's the essence of radio, and we should do all we can to promote it."

LPFM stations are community-based, noncommercial radio stations that broadcast to neighborhoods and small towns. LPFM licenses make owning a radio station possible for churches, schools, labor unions and other community groups that best understand the needs of their local communities.

"The founders of WRYR built our station to help educate our community, promote its uniqueness, and assist in fighting sprawl along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay," said WRYR-LP founder Mike Shay. "The station has focused people in our area to care even more about local businesses and environmental issues. Because of Low Power FM radio, we are more politically active, caring, and engaged, which has enabled us to make a difference in our community."

LPFM stations have also been essential in times of crisis. During Hurricane Katrina, LPFM stations in the Gulf Coast region stayed on the air and provided their neighbors with lifesaving information.

"Our low power station helped many people find shelter and restart their lives after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita," said John Freeman, director of the Southern Development Foundation and founder of Louisiana's KOCZ-LP, Opelousas Community Zydeco Radio. "Folks knew to listen to us during the storm, and to work with us and our community to rebuild, because our station was the strongest source of Zydeco music in the town where it was founded. Opelousas is relying on KOCZ for church services on Sunday, youth hip-hop programming, Gospel, health information, and more. Low Power FM is helping our community to grow."

In 2000, Congress authorized the FCC to issue LPFM licenses. But legislators attached an unnecessary rule that limited LPFM stations to rural areas. Since then, thousands who submitted applications with the FCC to operate their own stations have been blocked.

"Effective and meaningful communication vehicles are a must for cities like Omaha," said Tim Clark, president of the 100 Black Men of Omaha Chapter, an organization that has been unable to obtain an LPFM license. "The need for Low Power FM radio stations for inner cities is so important when it comes to creating a sense of community and purpose, and uplifting a people to move to action. With so many commercially driven stations mostly driven by the bottom line, the community does not have a voice -- no way to mobilize the community to action. New community Low Power FM stations will give an opportunity for people to have a greater appreciation for their history, cultural enrichment and community pride."

Since 2000, the FCC has awarded more than 800 LPFM licenses to church groups, schools and civil rights organizations. The bills introduced today would authorize the FCC to license hundreds -- if not thousands -- of new LPFM stations in cities, towns and suburbs across the country.

"We ve been building radio stations that strengthen local music and culture, give families access to their local governments, help diverse communities get on the air, and save lives -- in rural communities," said Hannah Sassaman, organizer with Prometheus Radio Project, a group that helps set up community radio stations. "We applaud Congressman Doyle and Congressman Terry for their great vision in bringing this vital service to America's cities."

"Radio consolidation has shrunk playlists and knocked whole genres of music such as jazz and bluegrass off the commercial dial," said Future of Music Coalition s Policy Director Michael Bracy. "The Local Community Radio Act holds the promise to return radio to what made it great: cutting edge music, diverse genres and voices, and local, community-based programming. This is something Congress should have done a long time ago."

In 2003, the FCC released a $2 million, taxpayer-funded study -- known as the "MITRE Study" -- which unequivocally found that increasing the number of LPFM stations would not cause significant interference. The FCC urged Congress to repeal the restrictions it had placed on licensing LPFM stations. But no action has been taken.

"The number of churches that could have been granted LPFM licenses could have been beyond 500 had the FCC been allowed to accept applications from more communities," said Dr. Ken Bowles, general manager of Midwest Christian Media and founder of KHIS-LP in Cape Girardeau, Mo. "The MITRE study was done at the direction of Congress. Congress now has an opportunity to remove the ill-advised ban and allow Christian low power broadcasting to flourish -- bringing new formats and localization to urban areas."

LPFM stations have been instrumental in allowing religious groups to broadcast their church services, reaching new audiences and people who are unable to leave their homes.

"We believe it is the responsibility of the church to foster public dialogue about matters that affect the quality of life of people in local communities. It is our experience that Low Power FM radio is more responsive to this dialogue and serves the community more effectively than corporations far removed from local concerns," said Rev. Larry Hollon, chief executive of United Methodist Communications.

"The power to speak is the power to persuade, and thus the power to change the world," said Cheryl Leanza, managing director of the United Church of Christ Office of Communication, Inc. "Low Power Radio is about giving many people voice who have been voiceless and powerless. The United Church of Christ is excited that this legislation will enable more community groups and churches to bring their voices to the airwaves."

The 1996 Telecommunications Act dramatically increased media consolidation - and decreased media diversity. LPFM stations provide opportunities for people of color and women to run local radio stations and for local groups to address issues affecting their community.

"Media consolidation has made it extremely difficult for women and people of color to become radio station owners," said Joe Torres, government relations manager of Free Press. "People of color own just 7.7 percent of all full-power radio stations and women own less than 6 percent. This important legislation would provide more people of color and women with opportunities they are denied in the commercial sector."

"Consumers Union strongly supports this legislation to provide more creative opportunities for communities to be heard in what has become a very consolidated radio marketplace," said Gene Kimmelman, vice president of federal and international affairs at Consumers Union.

"We are extremely pleased to see Congress moving forward legislation to bring more LPFM radio stations to communities throughout the country," said Parul Desai, assistant director of Media Access Project. "LPFM stations serve the needs of the local community, which are often neglected by commercial broadcasters. Our hope is that Congress acts quickly on this legislation so that constituents can begin to reap the benefits of a local voice in their community."

"Common Cause urges members of Congress to support the Low Power FM bill, said Lauren Coletta, senior director of media programs at Common Cause. Low Power FM stations are organized by local people to serve their communities in unique ways that commercial broadcasters are unwilling to do."

"In California, we've seen the value of radio stations that are local and community-driven," said Jeff Perlstein, executive director of Media Alliance. "It's high time Congress put these public resources -- these radio frequencies -- to work for the public."

"LPFM is a low-cost, high-democracy form of community media, said Anthony Riddle, executive director of Alliance for Community Media. "There ought to be a way for every community with the will and an idea to have its own voice. Congressmen Doyle and Terry shouldn't just be applauded-- they should be joined by every other member in supporting this eloquent and simple ideal."

"While other forms of media are consolidated and homogenous, Low Power FM remains an innovative outlet for local and diverse voices," said Amina Fazullah, staff attorney for U.S. PIRG. "This legislation is a great step forward towards a responsive media that serves citizens and not the corporate interest."

Low power FM at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival

The Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival is going on all weekend in Indio, California. If you are there and want to tune in 103.3-FM, according to Xeni Jardin in Boing Boing: "Wayne Correia is transmitting a low-power FM pirate radio station for the event: Coachella Radio, at 103.3 FM.... Chris Paynie put the tracks together."