|
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Proposal for a Low-Power (LPFM) RM No. ________
Broadcast Service
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
Submitted by:
Americans for Radio Diversity (ARD)
2355 Fairview Av. #156
Roseville, MN 55113
(612) 874-6521
1.0 Introduction
Americans for Radio Diversity (ARD) is a nonprofit organization, composed of
concerned radio listeners and consumers, dedicated to promoting community orientated
public and commercial broadcasting. In this petition for rulemaking, ARD intends
to present the need for a Low Power FM (LPFM) service and our recommendations on
how to implement such a service.
2.0 Background
Authors Robert McChesney and Ben Bagdikian are among many who have accurately
described our nation's radio broadcasting service as a cartel. This was only intensified
by the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which did away with the consumer
and diversity protections of the original 1934 act. Under the current structure,
local communities and businesses have been effectively excluded from the airwaves
by national radio conglomerates and advertisers . Only a year after the passage of
the 1996 act, a reported 4,000 of the nation's 11,000 stations had changed hands
and 1,000 radio company mergers had occurred.1 As a result, most decisions about radio programming have
ended up being supervised by out-of-state executives who have no interest in diverse
community voices or quality. Instead, they seek to reduce competition and attract
advertising dollars by servicing only the most profitable demographics. The media
moguls could not make their motives any clearer with public statements such as: "We're
not in the business of being preoccupied with an agenda to advance a certain type
of music or a political bent; that's just folly. We're here to return profits to
our shareholders." (Gabe Hobbs, Jacor Broadcasting)2
and "I am committed to working with Chancellor's Board of Directors during the
next several weeks to recruit a world-class CEO. That individual will work with the
Company's excellent management team...to execute our strategy in order to achieve
the next plateau of growth in the rapidly consolidating media industry." (Thomas
O. Hicks, Chancellor Media)3 .
Then FCC Chairman, Newton Minow summed up the situation best in a 1961 speech to
the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) when he made the statement that NAB
operated a "vast wasteland" and were "squandering the public airwaves,"
and warned, "there is nothing permanent or sacred about a broadcast license."4 This quote takes on even more meaning
considering it was made thirty five years prior to the devastating effects of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
ARD is of the belief that a system of community based LPFM would be a major step
in having the FCC serve under their original charter of protecting the broadcast
spectrum as a public trust, thus returning the airwaves back to the people. Under
ARD's proposed LPFM system, choices would be made on a local basis and would reflect
the diverse interests, tastes, backgrounds, and creative talents of the target community.
3.0 Proposed LPFM Broadcast Service
3.1 Licensing
ARD proposes a provision to limit ownership to one station per applicant. By limiting
ownership, diverse voices would be given the opportunity to be heard and community
focus better achieved. Allowing multiple licenses per owner would only serve to limit
the number of people that could enter radio broadcasting.
Licensing fees should be kept at a minimum, covering only administrative costs. This
would reduce possible economic barriers and provide opportunities for more people
to enter LPFM broadcasting.
The allocation of licenses should be first come, first served. Applicants would file
within a specified time period each year. Having the filing window would serve to
reduce administrative cost for the FCC thus help in keeping licensing fees low. Applications
must be complete and meet minimum requirements as specified in section 3.2 of this
proposal. If applicants file on the same day for the same frequency, one will be
moved to another open frequency. If there are no other open frequencies, a lottery
will be used to determine who will be issued the license.
In the event that a low power service is established ARD believes that granting only
one or two stations in each area would be an inadequate implementation. As many low
power licenses should be issued in a given area as the spectrum can accommodate without
interfering with other stations.
3.2 Restrictions and Requirements
ARD proposes a license holder live within twenty five miles of the transmitter. In
rural areas, where the pool of potential broadcasters may be smaller, the residential
requirement may be expanded up to fifty miles. A residential requirement would prevent
people with little or no knowledge of the community from operating a station without
that communities' interest in mind.
LPFM stations should be limited to 100 watts (ERP) and a five mile coverage radius
in metropolitan areas. The LPFM station would be allowed to use a power level (ERP)
and antenna height (HAAT) combination of their choice to achieve the coverage area
limit. An applicant for a LPFM license would specify the proposed combination in
their application. In rural areas, where the spectrum is less dense and the pool
of potential listeners is lower, the radius would be increased to 10 miles.
ARD proposes type-certified equipment be employed in the operation of the LPFM stations.
This would reduce concerns of possible interference and/or bleed over. During the
application process, the applicant would provide a list of equipment they plan to
use. LPFM stations would be allowed to operate as a for-profit business but license
holders would be required to meet the small business requirements as defined by the
Small Business Administration. Allowing for profit stations would allow small "mom
and pop" businesses to afford radio advertising which they currently can not
with today's inflated advertising costs5
. This, in turn, would help strengthen communities. Also, this would provide a source
of revenue for LPFM broadcasters so that they can maintain a high level of signal
and broadcast content quality. This, in actuality, would not be any different than
the small number of non-profit community stations that currently exist, where funds
acquired from underwriting are used to maintain equipment and to employ a small paid
staff. In this case the license holder / owner would be considered a member of the
paid staff.
All LPFM stations licenses shall be non-transferable. This would eliminate the situation
which we have now where prices for broadcast properties become artificially inflated.
It would also promote the notion that the airwaves are public and not something that
one can purchase. An owner no longer able or willing to broadcast would simply notify
the FCC, vacate the frequency and sell their equipment. Anyone would then be eligible
to go through the application process to fill the open frequency.
No LPFM station shall devote more than 15% of its daily programing to non-locally
produced (i.e. "canned", syndicated, or satellite fed) material. This would
help insure that the programming of these LPFM stations was locally produced.
3.3 Oversight
ARD supports Stephen Dunifer's idea of a body of micro-broadcasters being used
to oversee the LPFM stations.6
This would help reduce administrative costs for the FCC and allow decision to made
on a local basis. To avoid conflicts of interest and remove possible barriers to
entry, ARD proposes that the FCC would still be responsible for licensing the LPFM
stations. The micro-broadcast body would be responsible for overseeing other technical
details such as signal quality, interference, and broadcast content. The FCC would
be seen as a "court of last resort" if these issues could not be resolved
on the community level.
4.0 Summary
ARD strongly believes that if the FCC implements the proposed LPFM broadcast
service detailed in section 3.0 of this document, they will be taking the first step
in returning the airwaves to the American public.
ARD welcomes any comments or questions regarding this proposal.
Finally, ARD makes the suggestion that the FCC pick communities for LPFM pilot programs.
Communities already involved in the micro-broadcast movement such as the San Francisco
Bay Area, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Southern Florida would be ideal initial
locations.
Respectfully Submitted,
Americans for Radio Diversity
2355 Fairview Ave. #156
Roseville, MN 55113
(612) 874-6521
http://www.radiodiversity.com
Prepared by: Glenn Austin
1David Johnston,"U.S. Acts to
Bar Chancellor Media's L.I. Radio Deal," The New York Times, Nov. 7,1997, p.
C10
2Doug Reece, "KREV Fans Rally for
Radio Diversity," Billboard Magazine, April 4, 1998
3Chancellor Media, "Company Press
Release: Thomas O. Hicks, Chairman of Chancellor Media, Named Interim President and
CEO ...", April 14, 1998, http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/980414/chancellor_1.html
4Ben H. Bagdikian,"The Media Monopoly,
5th edition", Boston: Beacon Press,1997, p. xxxiii
5The price of radio is accelerating
about triple the rate of inflation now."Matthew Schriffin, Forbes, June 1, 1998.
6Stephen Dunifer Legal Defense Team,
"Broadcasting the Constitution and Democracy", position paper: April 6
1998
Appendix A
ARD Comments Regarding
RM9208 and RM9242
Appendix B
ARD Reply Comments
Regarding RM9208, RM9242, and RM9246
|