In response the public’s limited access to local radio stations and First Amendment rights on the public airwaves, the FCC created what is called LPFM radio service.

The LPFM class of service was designated in 2000 as a non-commercial service for non-profits.  These are 100-watt (LP-100) and 10-watt (LP-10) licenses allotted primarily on the commercial FM band (92.1-107.9FM).  LPFM was originally designated as a secondary service, meaning, all licensed LPFM stations must prevent interference on all current and future full power radio stations.   Certain elements of this status are now up for comment.

Understanding LPFM

Radio frequencies are generally applied for on first-come first-served basis in designated filing windows or auctions.  Non-commercial services follow filing windows—specific dates for filing applications.  Shortly after the first LPFM filing windows, commercial broadcasters (organized under an industry group National Association of Broadcasters [NAB]) lobbied Congress to limit LPFM under the false premise that the service would cause interference to full power commercial stations.  In all likelihood, the NAB simply didn’t welcome new competition from new LPFM broadcasters.  This “interference” problem was eventually proven untrue, but the rule is still on the books to this day.  This has meant the LPFM service was never fully implemented, because as the rules stand, the “spacing requirements” for licensing an LPFM require them to have three blank channels  between them and a full power station.  This unnecessary requirement has made LPFM impossible in most major urban areas.  Below is a pictorial example of the current stringent requirements:

The channels next to a broadcast station are referred to adjacents. In order to license an LPFM, you need to find Scenario A, a blank space of seven channels between existing stations.  Engineering data shows this type of interference protection for stations is overkill.  The above is referred to as “third adjacent” protections, because the potential LPFM is protecting up to three channels over. The fourth adjacent, marked “established commercial station” does not need interference protection in that case.  Most agree that third adjacent protections should be lifted.  However, even if they are, you would still need to find a space of five blank channels (See Scenario C) to propose an LPFM for any given location.  This type of spacing is still hard to find in most major cities.

The Plot Thickens

While the rules to license the LPFM service have been in limbo at the FCC, the frequencies that could have carried future LPFM channels have been given away to translator service (see page 1 for definition).  In 2003 the FCC had a translator filing window in which applicants could file as many applications as they wanted for this service.  The translator service was originally meant for broadcasters to be able to rebroadcast a full power FM station in an area of weak or impaired reception, like when you drive behind a mountain and a regional station goes away.  Because of a licensing loophole, religious entities started filing for translators to extend the reach of their primary stations up to thousands of miles from their studio location.   For example, the Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Idaho rebroadcasts their primary radio station in Twin Falls via satellite to about 440 translators across the nation.  During the translator filing window in 2003 several entities got in on the action, filing for a combined total of thousands of frequencies.  One entity named Radio Assist Ministry, Inc applied for about 2400 translators without even owning a primary service radio station.

Shortly after the 2003 translator filing window the FCC began blindly granting translators to organizations like Radio Assist; Radio Assist began to sell the frequencies to other religious broadcasters for a profit.  The bottom line is that the FCC was giving away the public’s airwaves to select groups of individuals—certain individuals were then either selling the frequencies as a profit, or starting remote broadcast networks that provide no local-specific programming.

To add insult to injury, as sanctioned by the NAB, translators can cover larger broadcast areas than LPFM stations and can be placed on the FM band where LPFM stations are not allowed.

The below is a crude depiction:

Figure 2:

Translators are allowed to be placed where LPFM’s cannot be placed.  The FCC is allowing entities such as radio networks to own dozens to hundreds of translators licensed with stipulation “B”, but makes locally based broadcasters using LPFM licenses follow stipulation “A”.  LPFM and translators use the same type of transmitters at almost the same wattages; they are physically the same. Regulation-wise, however, they are treated completely different. 

The FCC allows placement of LPFM stations solely based upon a non-technical physical spacing requirement.  This means, the Commission originally wanted to simplify the method of placing new LPFMs by basing it upon transmitter spacing, regardless of antenna pattern or signal strength.  The problem with this licensing scheme is that it doesn’t use the FM band efficiently .

Translators use a contour/signal strength-based methodology , which more precisely uses real-world engineering models for placement.  The discontinuity between the two methodologies prevents LPFM and translator services from being technically compared to each other, allowing a “fog” for NAB to use to argue against LPFM—yet be pro-translator.  If interference concerns were really an issue, all NAB would have to say is “LPFM should use translator licensing requirements” and be done with it.  But NAB dislikes LPFM because it is, in fact, competition.

The Current Problem

LPFM is still in limbo.  Not only that, but stations lucky enough to already be on the air are being encroached upon due to their secondary status, and relaxed FCC rules for moving full power stations.

Here are the main hurdles we are dealing with:

1.    NAB went over the FCC’s head and made Congress enact the fourth adjacent spacing rule (Figure 1B).  This prohibits the FCC from using the less stringent, but engineering approved third adjacent rule (Figure 1C).  However, even a second adjacent rule would not allow LPFM’s to be licensed in many cities.  The FCC should allow LPFM stations to be placed using translator rules (Figure 2B).

2.    Thousands of translator applications are still pending approval from the 2003 translator application window by a handful of applicants who want to use these frequencies for primarily automated, out-of-town repeater networks or for selling to others.  Is a select few owning dozens to hundreds of these frequencies fair use of the public airwaves?  Does this improve local radio?  The FCC should dismiss most of these speculator applications.

3.    With most of the approved translator applications in the hands of religious broadcast networks, and the pending ones tied up with mainly speculators and future-planned broadcast networks, there is no room for new LPFM channels in many cities.  In these cases, the FCC should deem certain translator frequencies already in use  newly available for local LPFM applicants.

4.    It is important that LPFM stations already on the air be given a higher service status in order to maintain their public service license.  Currently, when a large commercial station wants to move their facilities to a more profitable location, they are allowed to legally bump an LPFM off the air.  For those LPFM broadcasters who spent a lot of time and money developing a radio station to serve the local community, this “encroachment” contradicts the purpose of regulating the public airwaves in the first place.  The FCC should develop a solution that appeals to both services.

The above is merely a non-technical overview of the situation at hand.  More detailed concerns regarding the LPFM rulemaking can be viewed here:

http://recnet.com/fcc/99-25_2nprm_questions.pdf

You can read the Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking here.