In the Matter of
 

Petition for a Microstation Radio  Broadcasting Service	RM No.9208
Proposal for Creation of the Low Power FM (LPFM) Broadcast Service	RM No.9242
Amendment of Part 73 of the Rules and Regulations to Establish Event Broadcast Stations	RM No.9246

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

 A. Leggett Petition
 B. Skinner Petition
 C. Deieso Petition

 A. Micro- or Low Power Radio Is An Inefficient Use Of Spectrum.

  1.  FCC rules regarding power limits are reasonable
  2.  FCC has upheld policies that support the efficiencies provided by full-power stations in lieu of the services that could be provided by a low cost translator service
 3.  The Leggett petition's plan is an inefficient and wasteful use of scarce spectrum resources
 4.  Micro- or low power radio authorization would preclude full power stations

 B. A Micropower Broadcasting Service Would Prevent The Radio Broadcasting Industry From Implementing In-Band, On-Channel (IBOC) Digital Audio Broadcasting
 C. There Is No Need For A Micro- or Low Power Radio Service

1. Current radio broadcast services serve virtually every need
2. Adding a new service would likely decrease the overall service to the public
3. Micro- or low power stations would not be able to serve communities as well as a larger station
4. Event broadcasting is not a new phenonenom
5. other outlets are available without resorting to establishing a new service
6. The Commission could not establish a micro- or low power service that would not impede full-service broadcasters and also satisfy the micro- or low power broadcasters
7. The FCC should not establish a new service in the hopes of curbing the flood of pirate radio broadcasters

 D. Administrative Difficulties Would Burden The Commission

1. The FCC would have to find a way to allocate channels to a new service
2. The FCC would have to define what rules apply to a micro- or low power service
3. The FCC would have the extraordinary burden of policing and enforcing the rules for a new service

Any low power radio service would be contrary to existing and well-founded Commission policies. The FCC has firmly established that low power radio is not an efficient use of spectrum. Current minimum power levels were imposed to further the Commission's goal of providing stable, efficient and diverse radio service to the public. A rnicroradio service, such as the proposal in RM-9208, would create small islands of usable coverage in an ocean of interference.

Any change to the current FCC allocation rules would be detrimental to the evolution of in-band, on-channel ("IBOC") digital radio. None of the petitions addressed what effect a low power service would have on an IBOC system. IBOC developers have relied on the current channel allocation criteria as they develop a viable system. New IBOC digital signals will have to be inserted into the already crowded AM and FM bands. Adding a new service that could allocate hundreds - or even thousands - of new low power stations would likely prevent radio broadcasters from ever implementing IBOC digital technology.

The Commission has already licensed over 12,000 commercial and noncommercial radio stations in the U.S. Each full-power station provides a unique service to its community. Although the radio industry has undergone consolidation due to changes made by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this consolidation has not decreased the diversity of formats in the industry. In fact, due to greater efficiencies, it may be possible for existing stations to offer new and distinct niche programming that was otherwise unavailable before consolidation

The Commission must keep in mind that a low power station would not be able to serve communities as well as a larger station. Low power stations would only be heard by a small number of people, and for all practical purposes, would be unavailable to mobile audiences. Low power stations would not be able to provide consistent and reliable service.

Supporters of the petitions may have other outlets for their viewpoints without resorting to establishing a new broadcasting service - such as seeking out available time on full-power commercial and noncommercial stations, applying for a noncommercial frequency or expressing their views over the Internet. Most importantly, the Commission should not establish a new service for low power radio in order to curb the proliferation of pirate broadcasters. A new service would only exasperate the situation by adding newly licensed low power stations to the mix of licensed full-power stations and those pirate broadcasters who do not want FCC involvement in their activities.

Finally, the Commission would face many administrative burdens that would stretch limited FCC resources if it were to consider a new service. The FCC would have to establish new allocation rules and new regulatory rules for low power stations. Currently, the Commission depends on full-power broadcasters to be self-policing. Low power stations would not have the same incentive to abide by any regulations because they have less to lose. The Commission does not have the resources to watch over these small stations, some of which may already be broadcasting illegally, in complete disregard of the law.
 
 

In the Matter of
 

Petition for a Microstation Radio Broadcasting Service	RM No.9208
Proposal for Creation of the Low Power FM (LPFM) Broadcast Service	RM No.9242
Amendment of Part 73 of the Rules and Regulations to Establish Event Broadcast Stations	RM No.9246

 

I. INTRODUCTION

The National Association of Broadcasters ("NAB")¹ submits the following Comments in response to the above-captioned Petition for a Microstation Radio Broadcasting Service ("Leggett petition"),² Proposal for Creation of the Low Power FM (LPFM) Broadcast Service ("Skinner petition")³ and Amendment of Part 73 of the Rules and Regulations to Establish Event Broadcast Stations ("Deieso petition").⁴ The petitions propose the establishment of a "micropower" and/or a "low power" broadcasting service, and a limited "event" broadcasting service. The FCC should not issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to establish any microbroadcasting, low power FM or event broadcasting service.

The petitions should be denied for several reasons. As the Commission already concluded, minimum power limits are necessary to ensure the maximum efficient use of the spectrum. Additionally, interference problems to current radio services, as well as the potential effect of a microradio/low power service on the future of in-band, on-channel (IBOC) digital radio service, warrant denying the petitions seeking the establishment of a microradio/ow power service. Further, current radio broadcast services serve virtually every need in the United States and there is no need for new radio services. Finally, the Commission would be faced with extraordinary burdens if a microradio/low power service were established. The Commission does not have the resources to establish and license, or the ability to control, a new broadcast service that could potentially add hundreds, if not thousands, of new micro- or low power broadcast stations, whether the stations operate during a special event, a few hours a day or 24 hours a day.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Leggett Petition

On June 26, 1997, the Leggett petition was filed with the Commission. It proposes establishment of a service that would provide for very low power radio stations, serving an area of one to several square miles.⁵ It requests that the FCC designate one AM and one FM channel for the microradio service, with one microradio station per geographic "cell."⁶ Petitioners contend the microstations would have "very modest equipment requirements,"⁷ and request that microstation operators be allowed to build and maintain their transmitters without any formal FCC approval process.⁸ Petitioners request that the microstation antennas be limited to fifty (50) feet above the ground or supporting building structure.9 The petition outlines proposed license terms of five (5) years with a license fee of fifty (50) dollars, and requests a low annual fee and smaller fines for rule violations. ¹⁰

B. Skinner Petition

On February 20, 1998, the Skinner petition was filed with the FCC. It proposes a more complex low power FM service comprised of three separate levels, each with varying degrees of allowable power and obligations. The first level would license "special event" stations for a limited time period (LPFM-3 Special Event).¹¹ The second level of licensing would encompass those stations that operate at a minimum of one watt and a maximum of 50 watts (LPFM-2).¹² LPFM-2 stations would offer a "loosely structured form of broadcasting, often without set hours of operation, sometimes depending on who shows up to broadcast when scheduled."¹³ The third level closely mirrors a full-power station (LPFM-1). An LPFM-l station would have a local owner and be subject to many of the same regulations as a full-power station. ¹⁴ The LPFM-l power limits would be from 50 watts up to 3 kilowatts.¹⁵ The petition also proposes to eliminate the second and third adjacent channel spacing restrictions.¹⁶

C. Deieso Petition

The Deieso petition was filed with the Commission on June 24, 1996. It requests that the FCC modify the rules to establish an event broadcast service similar to the request in the Skinner petition. The petition requests temporary authorization for a discrete defining event. ¹⁷ The petition suggests that the FCC allocate channel 200 for use by event broadcast stations. ¹⁸ The petition does not suggest specific power limits, it only suggests that "one to ten watts of effective radiated power might seem adequate to do just about any job."¹⁹ However; the petition notes that the particular power level would depend on the event.²⁰

III. ESTABLISHMENT OF A MICRO- OR LOW POWER RADIO SERVICE IS UNWARRANTED.

A.   Micro- or Low Power Radio Is An Inefficient Use Of Spectrum.

1.   FCC rules regarding power limits are reasonable.

The Commission's rules and policies license broadcast stations only if they operate above specified minimum power levels. Currently, FCC rules require that a Class A FM station must operate with a minimum effective radiated power of 100 watts.²¹ The Commission has determined that operation below the minimum power level is an inefficient use of spectrum.²² The FCC chose to set the power level minimum to ensure that stations can serve a substantial number of listeners. A full-power radio station can provide music, news or inforniation of value to an entire community, not just those listeners in a confined area. The FCC's policy is supported by the fact that many people listen to radio in cars or other places outside the home and most likely outside the listening area of a micro- or low power service. On weekdays, 61.7 percent of all radio listening by persons 12 years of age or older takes place outside the home.²³

The Leggett petition proposes that a microradlo service should be established that limits microstations to a power level of one watt.²⁴ The Skinner petition asks that a multi-layer low power FM service be established with the maximum power ofthe highest level at 3 kW.²⁵ The petitions, and the event broadcasting petition currently on public notice, propose power limits that are well below the minimum power levels required by current FCC rules. ²⁶

The Commission has addressed the issue of minimum operating power in a series of Report and Orders changing its rules in relation to 10-watt, noncommercial educational FM broadcast stations.²⁷ It concluded that the low power operations could not be perrnitted to "function in a manner which defeats the opportunity for other more efficient operations which could serve larger areas, and bring effective noncommercial educational radio service to many who now lack it."²⁸

The Commission's decision was based on "its goal of providing, on a nation-wide basis, a stable, efficient, and diverse radio communications service."²⁹ It recognized that the 10-watt stations had some value; however, it had to weigh the value and service provided by a low power station against efficient channel usage.³⁰ Thus, the FCC decided not to accept any additional 10 watt applications, and allowed the existing 10-watt stations time to increase their power to 100 watts or seek to move the station before it was displaced by a larger station and forced to move to a different channel in the commercial portion of the band.³¹ Additionally, the 10-watt stations were given less protection if they remained in the educational band.³² They also were considered secondary operations once they moved to the commercial band.³³ The Commission made a reasonable decision to establish minimum power levels in order to provide the most efficient use of the spectrum to the public.
 
 In addition to the minimum power limits, the FCC refuseses to allow stations to operate with unlimited power because it would reduce the number of stations, and consequently the number of voices.³⁴ Thus, the FCC has licensed a very large number of stations that have the capability of reaching large amounts of people. The potential listener reach of any micro- or low power station would be inconsistent with the FCC's reasonable policy regarding the efficient use of the spectrum.

2. FCC has uphdd policies that support the efficiencies provided by full-power stations in lieu of the services that could be provided by a low cost translator service.

In 1990, the Commission was faced with the issue of allowing local program origination authority for FM translators. The Commission denied program origination authority for FM translators because it stated that it was committed "to provide FM radio broadcast service in a manner that promotes program diversity while enhancing the incentives for efficient broadcast station development."³⁵ The Commission upheld its commitment on reconsideration of the FM translator decision, stating that it was the Commission's preference to provide service through more efficient radio broadcast stations than the services provided by low cost translators.³⁶

The petitioners in the instant proceeding request the establishment of a service that is not unlike the program origination issue regarding FM translators. FM translators are secondary services that operate on a low power basis.³⁷ If the Commission had allowed program origination for FM translators, the result would have been similar to the requests by the current petitioners. A new service of low power broadcasting would have been established. The FCC was reasonable in its determination that a low power radio service is inefficient - whether the service is provided by FM translators or otherwise - and there is no evidence that would make that determination unreasonable now.

3. The Leggett petition's plafl is an inefficient and wasteful use of scarce spectrum resources.

The Leggett petition proposes to assign one AM and one FM broadcast channel to a new "microstation broadcasting service."³³ It says that, ideally, the same two channels should be allocated to this new service nationwide.³⁹ In order to achieve this objective one AM and one FM channel would have to be cleared of all existing full-service broadcasters throughout the country. This is clearly not feasible because in highly populated areas, particularly along the east and west coasts of the continental United States, there are no available channels to which the displaced full-service broadcasters could relocate.

The inability to find a new channel for each of the displaced full-service broadcasters under the petitioners' plan is reason enough to reject their petition. However, it seems appropriate here to note some of the other reasons that make this, or any other proposal for a microstation broadcasting service, untenable.

In general terms, the facts that make micropower broadcast stations inefficient spectrum users apply similarly to both AM and FM frequencies. An example involving only an FM frequency is used to illustrate the inefficiency of these stations because, to the best of NAB's knowledge, all of the Commission's recent enforcement actions against illegal low power broadcast stations have involved unlicensed operations on FM frequencies.
 
In order to institute a microstation broadcasting service like the one proposed in the Leggett petition, the Commission would have to remove full-service broadcasters from their existing channels and allow microstations to operate in their places. It is therefore appropriate to consider how the area served by the new microstations would compare with the area served by an existing full-service broadcaster. Even if the specific channel is vacant and a full-power station would not have to be relocated, the example reveals the inefficient use of spectrum by a microradio service. The example will compare the protected service area of a Class A FM facility, the lowest powered full-service class of FM operations, with the accumulated protected service area of all of the micropower broadcast stations that could fit in the same area.

This example is illustrated in Figure 1. It shows that a Class A FM station with an effective radiated power (ERP) of 6 kW and an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of 100 meters (328 feet) will provide a signal strength of at least 1 mV/m up to 28.5 km (17.7 miles) from the transmitter.⁴⁰ It also shows that a micropower station with an ERP of one watt and a HAAT of 30 meters⁴¹ would provide a signal strength of 1 mV/m up to 1.8 km (1.1 miles) from the transmitter. The shaded area that surrounds each micropower station's 1 mV/m coverage area is the area where the interference to that station's signal from nearby co-channel micropower stations exceeds the maximum level of acceptable interference specified by the Commission.⁴² In order to comply with the Commission's requirements regarding the maximum amount of interference that may be caused to a nearby co-channel FM station; each micropower station must be separated from the nearest co-channel micropower station by at least 7.5 km (4.6 miles).
 

As is evident from examining Figure 1, when these micropower stations are packed as close together as possible, approximately 50 stations can fit within the 1 mV/rn contour of a single Class A FM station The area served by the 1 mV/rn contour of a Class A FM station is approximately 984 square miles. The area served by the 1 mV/rn contour of a one watt micropower station is only about 3.8 square miles. So, if a Class A FM station were replaced by 50 one watt micropower FM stations, the total geographic area to which interference-free service is provided to the public would be reduced by 81%.

The above discussion illustrates that a micropower broadcasting scheme like the one proposed in the Leggett petition would create small islands of usable coverage in an ocean of interference. And these small islands of usable coverage, when added together would only provide broadcast service to about 19% of the geographic area served by the typical full-service broadcaster that would be displaced. Clearly, a micro- or low power service is contrary to the Commission's long held policy of utilizing the spectrum in the most efficient manner to provide quality service to the public.

4. Micro- or low power radio authorization would preclude full power stations.

Additionally, permitting low power radio stations would run counter to the Commission's policies because a micro- or low power service would result in the preclusion of full-power station authorizations. Distances far greater than the station's service area must separate full-power stations operating on the same channel.⁴³ Stations operating on adjacent channels must also be separated to avoid interference.⁴⁴ These separation requirements were established to ensure the efficient use of the broadcast spectrum with the smallest amount of interference. Low power FM service would prevent authorization of full-power FM stations for many miles outside the area in which the low-power station could be heard. The FCC has explained these constraints on low-power broadcasting as follows:

"A simple example shows how preclusion and service are related. A 10 watt station with a 100 meter antenna has a service radius of 5.9 kilometers and a service area of 109 square kilometers. To protect this hypothetical low power station from interference by a co-channel Class A FM station operating at 6 kilowatts, we would need to preclude the establishment of that Class A station within a distance of 92.6 kilometers from the transmitter for the low power station. In contrast, one Class A station would preclude another co-channel Class A station within a distance of 115 kilometers. A Class A station, however, operating at 6 kilowatts with a 100 meter antenna has a service radius of 28.3 kilometers and a service area of 2,516 square kilometers. Therefore, while the preclusive effect of a Class A station is 24 percent greater than the 10 watt station... the service radius of a Class A station is almost 500% greater than the smaller station.... If we treat preclusion as a cost and service as a benefit, the cost/benefit ratio improves with power; but the ratio is very poor for low powered stations."⁴⁵
 

B. A Micropower Broadcasting Service Would Prevent The Radio Broadcasting lndustry From Implementing In-Band, On-Channel (IBOC) Digital Audio Broadcasting

The radio industry is testing the viability of digital radio systems as the industry advances into the digital age. Authorization of any low power radio service jeopardizes the future of IBOC and the research and development conducted to date.

The petitioners have completely disregarded any impact a new service would have on existing and future radio services. Just as the capacity of the television broadcast band is not large enough to permit the continued operation of all LPTV stations when full service television stations convert to digital, neither is the capacity of the FM band large enough to perrnit the continued operation of potential LPFM stations when full service FM stations convert to digital, even on their existing channels. In fact, the Skinner petition's suggestion that LPTV licensees be granted LPFM licenses, and given primary status in the FM band, would not only cause unacceptable interference to existing analog operations, but it would also prevent in-band, on-channel (IBOC) digital radio from being implemented in the FM band.

Spectrum congestion in the FM band is much worse than the congestion in the television band. In the television band there are 1,576 full service stations ⁴⁷ and 67 different channels. The average number of stations on each channel is 25. In the FM band there are 7,552 full service stations⁴⁸ and 100 different channels, so the average number of stations per channel is 76. Even if the Commission's actions in MM Docket 87-268 are taken into account and only television channels 2-51 (the DTV "core spectrum") are considered available for television broadcasting,⁴⁹ there are still only 32 full service television stations per channel, less than half the ratio of the FM band.

Because the FM band is vastly more congested than the television band, FM broadcasters are unable to transition to digital transmission technology in the same manner as television broadcasters. There are simply far too few vacant channels to permit FM broadcasters to turn on new digital transmitters on newly allocated channels as is now happening with digital television.

The same is true for AM broadcasters. Although the AM band has somewhat fewer licensees per channel⁵⁰ (4,724 ÷ 117 = 40) than the FM band, it actually suffers more adjacent channel interference because first adjacent AM band channels overlap one another to a much greater degree than first adjacent FM band channels. Figure 2 illustrates this point.
 

 

For illustrative purposes, the horizontal scale in Figure 2 has been adjusted so that the AM and FM channel bandwidths appear equal. In reality, of course, the AM channel is approximately one tenth the width of the FM channel. The important point to remember is that the signals from AM stations overlap their neighbors on the dial to a much greater degree than the signals from FM stations. In fact, if the channel spacing of AM stations were adjusted so that the 25 dB bandwidth defined by the Commission's AM emissions mask resulted in the same amount of adjacent channel overlap as occurs in the FM band, each AM station would have to be 17 kHz apart, and there would only be room for 68 AM channels. ⁵¹ If there were only 68 AM channels (i.e. if the amount of adjacent channel overlap in the AM band were reduced to a level more comparable to the FM band) then the average number of stations per channel in the AM band would be 4,724 ÷ 68 =  69, which is very close to the average number of stations per channel in the FM band (76).

The AM and FM bands are very congested, far more so than the television band prior to the commencement of digital television transmissions. Television broadcasters benefited tremendously when the Commission, with great foresight, instituted a freeze on the allocation of new television stations pending a Commission decision concerning migration to a digital television standard. By limiting congestion in the television band the Commission enabled the television broadcast industry to make a smooth and orderly transition to digital broadcasting. This smooth transition is being accomplished by temporarily allocating to each television broadcaster a second channel on which to begin digital broadcasts.

Both the AM and FM bands are so crowded that it is just not possible to allocate a second, temporary channel to every radio broadcaster for the purpose of commencing digital broadcasts. in light of these facts, the radio broadcasting industry has invested millions of dollars toward the development of an in-band, on-channel (IBOC) method of transmitting digital radio signals. An IBOC system would enable radio broadcasters to simulcast digital signals within the FCC-defined emissions mask in the spectrum around their existing analog transmissions.

The Skinner petition contends that it is not necessary to consider IBOC technology when contemplating modifications to the second and third adjacent channel geographic spacing requirements. It says that broadcasters "will naturally oppose this petition claiming everything from unfair competition to interfering with plans for in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital conversion, neither of which is true as shown herein."⁵² However, the Skinner petition does not mention IBOC digital broadcasting anywhere else - nor does it explain why low power radio stations would not increase interference to IBOC digital transmissions. It is very clear that there has not been any serious thought by any of the petitioners as to the adverse impact that the proposals, if implemented, would have on radio broadcasters' transition to digital.

Broadcasters, on the other hand, have been studying IBOC technology in great depth for a number of years. A great deal has been learned about this technology during this time. One of the most important things about IBOC technology, and something that is very pertinent to the Commission's consideration of petitions for low power broadcasting, is that the existing channel allocation criteria used by the Commission have played an integral role in the development of IBOC technology. Tampering with these allocation criteria at this point could severely jeopardize the viability of IBOC digital radio.

An IBOC system would make very efficient use of the radio spectrum by enabling radio broadcasters to offer digital transmissions to the public without the need for new broadcast spectrum. It would also enable most radio broadcasters, many of whom have limited financial resources, to deploy digital transmission equipment without the need to construct completely new transmission facilities. And, it would conserve Commission resources by avoiding the need to create a "digital radio allocation table" similar to the DTV table that was recently finalized.

Once implemented, IBOC technology will have many benefits including the ones listed above. However, all of these benefits do not come without a price. In order to commence digital broadcasting in the AM and FM bands, new digital signals will have to be squeezed into this already crowded spectrum. These new signals will result in new emissions in these bands - this cannot be avoided. The objective of the IBOC system designers is to create a digital transmission system that, while adding new emissions to the AM and FM bands, will not cause interference to existing analog signals. The method by which they aim to achieve this is to insert the digital signal transmitted by a particular station into the spectrum above and below its analog signal. This concept is illustrated in Figure 3. ⁵³

In Figure 3, the analog radio signal is centered where noted, and a solid line outlines the general shape of the signal. The shaded areas to the left and right of the analog signal are the areas where the digital IBOC signal will be inserted. The dashed lines represent the lower first adjacent and upper first adjacent analog signals, respectively.

One of the objectives of the IBOC system designers has been to create digital signals that can be inserted on frequencies above and below a station's analog signal yet still meet the emissions limitations specified in 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.44 (for AM) and 73.317 (for FM) of the Commission's rules. Figure 4 shows how the IBOC signals illustrated in Figure 3 would meet these emissions limitations.

 
A very important point is illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The Commission's emissions masks for the AM and FM bands permit energy from analog radio signals to occupy spectrum as far away as 20 kHz from an AM carrier, and 240 kHz from an FM carrier, provided that this energy is at least 25 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.⁵⁴ However, analog radio transmitters do not produce much energy at this high a level this far away from the carrier. A typical analog AM radio signal will be 25 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier 10.2 kHz away from the carrier. Its level will diminish continuously the farther in frequency it gets away from the carrier until it is attenuated much more than 35 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier 20 kHz away from the carrier. A typical analog FM radio signal will be 25 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier 120 kHz away from the carrier. Its level will diminish continuously as it gets farther in frequency away from the carrier until it is attenuated much more than 35 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier 240 kHz away from the carrier. This is important because the Commission's existing geographic separation criteria for co-channel and adjacent channel radio stations are based on the assumption that the two signals involved are both analog. These assumptions will no longer be valid when IBOC technology is implemented because the addition of the digital IBOC signal will dramatically increase a station's potential to interfere with adjacent channel stations. Therefore, any claim, such as the one made in the Skinner petition - that it is not necessary to consider IBOC technology when contemplating modifications to the second and third adjacent channel geographic spacing requirements must be dismissed as invalid.

The Skinner petition requests that FM band "second-adjacent and third-adjacent, as well as 10.6 MHz and 10.8 MHz intermediate frequency (IF) restrictions [should be] eliminated due to vast improvements in receiver technology."⁵⁵ This idea is not feasible even in the all-analog radio world that exists today. ⁵⁶ However, the performance of existing analog radios notwithstanding, such a change in the Commission's allocation criteria would wreak havoc on the IBOC digital radio world of the future. In fact, it would likely prevent radio broadcasters from ever implementing IBOC digital technology.
 

Figure 5 illustrates why separation between second adjacent channel stations will be even more critical in the future than it is today. It illustrates the relationship between the signal strength of a hypothetical desired FM IBOC station and an interfering second adjacent channel IBOC station at the edge of the desired station's protected service area. ⁵⁷ The tick marks on the horizontal axis in this drawing mark the center frequencies of analog FM signals. The shaded areas show where the digital IBOC energy could be if it were to occupy the entire "-25 dB wing" of the FM emissions mask - the darker shading represents the desired station's IBOC signal and the lighter shading represents the interfering station's IBOC signal. Note that IBOC energy from the interfering station overlaps IBOC energy from the desired station (i.e., these two signals are essentially co-channel interferers) and the IBOC energy from the interfering station is 40 dB stronger than the IBOC energy from the desired station. This is consistent with the Commission's separation criteria for second adjacent channel FM stations which specily that the second adjacent channel station's signal cannot be any more than 40 dB stronger than the desired station's signal at the edge of the desired station's protected service area. A "co-channel" digital signal that is 40 dB stronger than the desired digital signal makes it impossible to receive the desired signal. The Commission's current standard for analog co-channel FM band interference stipulates that the desired signal must be 20 dB stronger than the undesired signal.

Second adjacent channel interference is the primary challenge facing IBOC desigers. Addressing this challenge will take considerable effort but IBOC system developers believe they can accomplish this goal. They have proposed narrowing the bandwidth of their digital IBOC signals to prevent the lower frequency portion of an undesired second adjacent channel IBOC signal from overlapping the upper frequency portion of a desired IBOC signal. This concept is illustrated in Figure 6.

In the current IBOC system designs, the guard band between the upper frequency portion of the desired IBOC signal and the lower frequency portion of the undesired second adjacent channel IBOC signal are very narrow. This narrow guard band should be sufficient to permit receivers to decode a desired IBOC signal in the presence of a 40 dB interfering signal immediately adjacent to them. However, because this guard band is so narrow it will not provide much leeway for increasing the strength of the second adjacent channel interferer (i.e., moving second adjacent stations closer together) because such an action would likely cause the interfering IBOC signal to overlap the desired IBOC signal.

Interference between the digital IBOC signals of third adjacent channel stations will not be as significant a problem as second adjacent channel interference because there will be ample frequency separation between the digital IBOC signals of third adjacent channel stations, as illustrated in Figure 7. However, because an IBOC digital system will add new energy around
the host analog signal, effectively widening this signal to some degree, it will increase the potential for an IBOC station to interfere with the reception of the analog signal from a third adjacent channel station. Allowing third adjacent channel stations to move closer together would increase the signal strength of third adjacent channel interfering stations with respect to the signal strength of a desired station and would thus increase the potential for this interference to occur. For this reason, third adjacent channel spacing requirements cannot be modified.

While it is much too late for a freeze on the allocation of new full service radio stations to provide the same opportunities for transitioning to digital broadcasting that were afforded to television broadcasters, it is not too late for the Commission to institute a "freeze" on its AM and FM allocation standards so that the developers of IBOC technology will have an opportunity to bring radio broadcasting into the digital age. The developers of IBOC technology need to know that low power radio stations will not be adding interference to the AM and FM bands, and thereby jeopardizing the viability of IBOC technology. Absent such an assurance it will be very difficult for them to justify further development of IBOC technology - and all of the work done to date will have been for naught.

C. There Is No Need For A Micro- or Low Power Radio Service.

1.    Current radio broadcast services serve virtually every need.

Currently, there are 12,276 licensed commercial and noncommercial radio stations in the U.S.⁵⁸ Every full-power station serves as a voice for its community of license, as well as the surrounding areas in which its signal is heard. Each full-power station already provides a unique service to its community by providing a format that can include a variety of music, news, talk shows, weather and traffic reports and many other informational services. Each full-power station is actively competing with many other stations in its market to provide a service that meets the needs and wants of its listening public in order to survive.

Petitioners contend that "wealthy corporations" dominate the mainstream media, making it difficult for citizen involvement or new viewpoints in broadcasting.⁵⁹  In reality, the top five corporate radio groups own only around eight percent (8%) of the radio stations in the nation.⁶⁰ According to the FCC Review of the Radio Industry for 1997, the number of owners of commercial radio stations has only declined by 11.7%⁶¹ However, this decline is due mainly to mergers between existing owners resulting in a change in the ranking and composition of the top radio station owners.⁶²

Regardless of ownership, all stations strive to provide a service that is responsive to the needs of the community because it is the community that ultimately supports and keeps the station on the air. In fact, the FCC review noted that there is "no general trend towards more format concentration."⁶³ The staff review also suggests that owners are choosing to operate stations with a variety of formats, and not reducing all commonly owned stations to one format.⁶⁴ Although consolidation may have decreased the number of owners in the radio industry, there is evidence that the diversity of formats has not decreased. Further, the increase in efficiencies that results from common ownership could allow stations to offer new and distinct niche programming that was otherwise unavailable prior to consolidation. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that there are still 12,276 commercial and noncommercial radio stations in the nation that can - and do - provide distinct and diverse programming to rnany people within their communities of license. The Commission must keep in mind the fundamental nature of broadcasting -- it is a service that provides programming to the public. The petitioners, on the other hand, propose a "narrowcasting" service that only a handful of people could hear, or want to hear.

2. Adding a new service would likely decrease the overall service to the public.

Establishing a new broadcasting service would lead the entire broadcasting industry down a path that the Commission has inadvisably trod before. In 1983, the FCC modified the FM broadcast station rules in order to increase the availability of FM stations to communities that may have been underserved.⁶⁵ Docket 80-90 added three new classes of stations to provide the 4,000 additional radio stations the Commission saw as necessary.⁶⁶ The Commission sought to provide underserved communities with new FM allotments based on its belief that a substantial demand existed that could not be served under the then-existing rules.⁶⁷ In 1983, the FCC noted that there were 3,800 commercial FM stations.⁶⁸ Less than a decade later, by 1991, there were 6,077 FM stations in the nation.⁶⁹ This dramatic increase in the number of stations and increased competition from other entities caused severe economic and financial stress on the fragmented radio marketplace.⁷⁰ The Commission then modified its local and national radio ownership rules to provide the radio industry with increased efficiencies through common ownership.⁷¹

The moral of this story is that the Commission needs to consider the impact on existing radio stations before authorizing a new service that could drop in hundreds, or thousands, of new radio stations. Although the petitioners may claim that micro- or low power stations will not have a significant impact on existing stations, past history suggests that the potential economic impact of many new entrants could hurt the radio industry's overall ability to serve the public interest.

3. Micro- or low power stations would not be able to serve comniunities as well as a larger station.

A full-power station has the ability to best serve the public. The Commission has noted that it does not authorize low power FM radio broadcast stations because "they cannot adequately serve communities and mobile audiences.."⁷² The petitions propose to license micro- or low power stations that would only serve very small communities or neighborhoods within communities. The number of people served by such a facility is very limited. Additionally, as noted above, the majority of radio listening is done in a car, and not in one place. A micro- or low power radio service would essentially be unavailable to mobile listeners. By the time the static clears to receive a microradio signal, a car will be moving out of the service area. Even the smallest full power stations generally serve a large enough area to encompass their entire community of license and some of the outreaching areas.

Additionally, full-power stations have many resources available to provide reliable service to the public. Many full-power stations have the ability to provide up to the minute news, weather and traffic reports to the listeners. Higher quality equipment also provides clearer signals. The Leggett petition suggests that microradio transmitters should not be subject to FCC technical standards.⁷³ Essentially, a microradio station could merely consist of a homemade transmitter, an antenna and a microphone under this scheme.

Additionally. the Leggett petitioners request that the Commission require microstations to broadcast a minimum number of hours a year.⁷⁴ Likewise, the Skinner petition proposes that LPFM-2 class stations should have "some very minimal schedule of minimum hours of operation per week."⁷⁵ Full-power stations have the ability to provide a more reliable service more consistently than a low power station that signs on a few hours a month or year. Thus, low power stations would not provide any additional benefit in terms of consistent programming than what is currently available to the public by licensed full-power stations. Moreover, the proposals are a recipe for chaos because the Commission would not have the ability to gauge interference to existing stations or properly allocate new full-power stations if low power stations are able to turn on and off at whim.

4. Event broadcasting is not a new phenonenom.

The Deieso petition requests that the FCC establish an Event Broadcasting Service to provide individuals with temporary authorization to operate a broadcast service for distinct "events." As the petition acknowledged, the Commission has authorized "Special Temporary Authority" ("STA") in the past for specific events.⁷⁶ The Commission has allowed the authorizations only to FCC licensees,⁷⁷ but it has granted permission to broadcast licensees on behalf of other individuals who would not otherwise qualify for a STA.⁷⁸ Thus, this petition should be denied by the Commission because any individual who wishes to provide a service for an event that is not already being broadcast by a station has the option to seek a partnership With a current FCC broadcast licensee to gain authorization for the broadcast of the service. As discussed below, the administrative burden on the Commission would greatly outweigh the benefits of establishing an entirely new service that already can be accommodated by using STAs.

As the petition notes, each individual event would entail specific, unique details that apply to that event alone. ⁷⁹ The Commission would be hard pressed to establish any sort of formal standard rules that event broadcasters would have to follow. It would be unreasonable to grant blanket event broadcasting authority to an individual if the Commission would not have any idea of when the events take place, how long the events will last or the proper power level that would be required to adequately cover the event. Implementing such a service and monitoring compliance would be too burdensome for the Commission.

5. Other outlets are available without resorting to establishiug a new service.

In many cases, it may be possible for individuals to have an outlet on established full-power stations. In fact, long-time "pirate" broadcaster Alan Fried found a traditional outlet for his programming. Fried is leasing time on Children's Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) stations.  Additionally, Fried has also found time for his show on a non-commercial station in Minneapolis.⁸¹ There are other outlets for individuals in the few situations where local broadcasting might not provide the outlet they desire to express their viewpoint. The Internet is a perfect example of a resource that is available for diverse viewpoints to be heard. Additionally, there are non-commercial frequencies that are available through the current licensing procedures at the Commission that may be more affordable for new entrants to the broadcasting industry.

6. The Commission could not establish a micro- or low power service that would not impede full-service broadcasters and also satisfy the micro- or low power broadcasters.

The petitioners all contend that their plans will not impede existing full-power broadcasters.⁸² However, even if a very low power service could be established that would not cause substantial interference to full-power stations, the newly licensed micro- or low power broadcasters would always seek more. It is clear from the comments already filed in the Leggett petition proceeding that proponents of a microradio service are not satisfied with a one watt limit. Many seek increased power - some supporters want 50 to 100 watts.⁸³ Increased power only increases the likelihood of interference and further congestion within the broadcast bands. If the Commission gives an inch, the micro-or low power broadcasters will want to take a mile.

7. The FCC should not establish a ilew serwice in the hopes of curbing the flood of pirate radio broadcasters.

The Skinner petition believes that establishing a low power radio service would be a "win-win situation"⁸⁴ for the industry, low power broadcasters and the Commission. The petition claims that the "bulk of the 'pirate radio' problem will disappear since they will be happily broadcasting (legally).."⁸⁵ NAB believes that the Commission should not establish an entirely new service to placate people who are flagrantly violating the law as it exists today. Establishing a new service would only increase the problems that already exist - both the congestion on the broadcasting bands for licensed operators and the interference caused by the unlicensed operators. Not only would the Commission have to be concerned with possible interference from the "legitimate" low power broadcasters, but also it still would have the problem with the pirate broadcasters who do not want to be regulated or licensed by the federal government.⁸⁶

The Commission has been very active in shutting down unlicensed operations across the nation, and NAB supports these efforts to get illegal, unlicensed broadcasters off the air because they continue to cause interference to our nation's airline safety, public safety and licensed broadcasters.⁸⁷ The Commission should not authorize a low power service because it could reduce the number of pirate broadcasters. If a new service is established, it would have an adverse effect. There would be thousands of newly licensed low power stations and potentially thousands of unlicensed pirate stations that do not want to abide by the law and get a license to broadcast.

D. Administrative Difficulties Would Burden The Commission.

The Commission would face many burdens by establishing a micro- or low power radio broadcasting service. The petitioners attempt to address some of these issues; however, the expense and strain on the FCC's resources would outweigh any benefit a micro- or low power radio service could potentially provide.

1. The FCC would have to find a way to allocate channels to a new service.

The Leggett petition requests that the Commission allocate one FM and one AM channel to the microradio service.⁸⁸ These two channels would be reserved and shared by all licensed microstations across the nation. Each microstation would be licensed to operate in a specific geographic location or cell, and only one microstation per cell would be allowed.⁸⁹

As the petitioners recognize, the simplistic view that only one FM and one AM channel would be used for the entire service is impossible. Different channels in different regions would have to be allocated because a single channel in either the AM or FM band is not available nationwide, as the petitioners had hoped. Existing stations would need to be reassigned to make room for the microradio stations on whatever channel the Commission would allocate to that particular geographic "cell."

Further, the chore of defining what constitutes a "geographic cell" would fall on the Commission. The petitioners expect a coverage area (or cell) of a few square miles for each microstation.⁹⁰ Potentially, this would open the door for thousands of microradio stations across the nation. For example, a metropolitan area such as Washington D.C. would potentially have numerous "microradio" cells because there are definable communities within the metro area, and numerous neighborhoods within those communities. The Commission would have the task of developing a plan that would define what "cells" are available for microradio use and what channel is assigned to that particular cell. Allocating channels for a service as outlined in the Skinner petition would require the Commission to determine where available frequencies exist in specific markets that are already defined. Nonetheless, for either proposal, the FCC would be burdened with developing a new allotment scheme to provide frequencies to the new service.

Once an allotment scheme is established, the next burden on the Commission is assigning those channels. The Leggett petition requests that the Commission assign channels based on a first come, first serve basis with a low application fee.⁹¹ Additionally, the Leggett petitioners request that the Commission not auction the frequencies in order to keep the expenses down.⁹² However, the Commission does not have the discretion to decide how to allocate broadcast frequencies. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the FCC to auction the spectrum when there are mutually exclusive applications.⁹³ This requirement would also apply to any micro- or low power service that might be established.

2. The FCC would have to define what rules apply to a micro- or low power service.

The FCC would also have the burden of establishing what regulations apply to micro- or low power broadcasters. Every broadcast station is subject to the applicable Commission rules. ⁹⁴ Although the FCC has substantially reduced the number of regulations governing the broadcasting industry, full-power stations still must follow a variety of different rules. Full-power stations must follow specific rules regarding main studio location and staffing, maintain proper records within a public file, abide by political broadcasting rules, refrain from indecent broadcasting outside of the safe harbor period, implement and maintain a model EEO program, maintain a station log, abide by ownership restrictions and antenna restrictions - and the list goes on. Individuals cannot simply turn on the mike and start to broadcast on a licensed radio station without knowing and following all of the rules.

Petitioners attempt to address this issue. The Leggett petition gives general restrictions on antennas, ownership and minimum operating hours as some of the rules it proposes microradio stations should follow.⁹⁵ The Skinner petition only proposes regulations on the LPFM- I class stations because those stations will closely resemble a full-power station, but the other classes of stations should have minimal regulations imposed on them.⁹⁶ Clearly, this is not enough. Micro- or low power stations would have to be required to follow many of the same rules as full-power broadcasters. Low power TV licensees are required to abide by many of the same rules as full-power TV and radio stations,⁹⁷ and low power radio could not be any different.

3. The FCC would have the extraordinary burden of policing and enforcing the rules for a new service.

The amount of effort required to police a micro- or low power radio service would be substantial, and beyond the resources of the FCC. The Commission and its Mass Media Bureau have the responsibility of enforcing the rules and issuing fines and sanctions against stations that violate the rules. This burden applies to all of the 12,265 radio stations in the nation and the 1,576 television stations that the Mass Media Bureau oversees.⁹⁸ Adding a new service that could establish hundreds to thousands of stations would stretch the limited resources of the FCC to the breaking point.

In 1995, the Commission went through a reorganization that significantly scaled back the number of FCC field offices operating across the nation. It closed nine offices, bringing the total down to 16 field offices.⁹⁹ The Commission would not have the resources to control or properly regulate both the full-power radio service as well as a micro- or low power radio service.

 The FCC currently can maintain control over the nearly 14,000 radio and television stations in the country because the Commission relies on full-power broadcasters to be self-policing. Broadcasters follow the regulations in part because they know what they have to lose. The investment broadcasters make in their stations depends on the broadcasters maintaining a license, and maintaining a license requires that the licensee follow the rules. Ifa broadcaster does not follow the rules, he or she risks forfeitures in the form of money and/or revocation of license.

The FCC has the authority to fine a licensee up to $27,000 for a violation of FCC rules depending on the violation. ¹⁰⁰ The Commission has discretion in determining how large a fine should be issued or what penalties should be imposed. This is the point of a forfeiture system it acts as a powerfiil deterrent. All of the time and expense invested in a full-power station can disappear with a finding of rule violations upon license renewal. The Leggett petition requests that a low power broadcaster not have any "draconian" fines placed upon them for violations because they would not have the ability to survive. ¹⁰¹ If a new service were established, micro- or low power broadcasters should not be treated any differently just because they operate at a lower power. What is apparent from the petitions is that the micro- or low power proponents would like to benefit from the privilege of licensed broadcasting without having any of the burdens or suffering any of the consequences for rule violations.

Additionally, regardless of the threat of a large fine, micro- or low power broadcasters would not have the incentive to abide by the rules because they do not have as much invested in their station. For a mere $1,000 or less, a micro- or low power broadcaster could get on the air. The Leggett petition also suggests allowing a "three strikes and you're out" method that would provide microbroadcasters with several chances to "get it right" before the FCC would take away their license. There is no incentive for a micro- or low power broadcaster to abide by the rules if it has the luxury of having its license revoked up to three times without penalty.¹⁰² Furthermore, the total capital investment that could be lost due to revocation of a micro- or low power station license pales in comparison to what a full-power station has to lose. The FCC does not have the resources to watch over these small stations to ensure that they operate within the rules.
 
 IV. CONCLUSION

 The Commission must consider all practical and technical issues very seriously when faced with the issue of establishing a micro- or low power radio service. When the proposals are weighed against current FCC policies, the impact on the implementation of IBOC digital radio, the services already provided by existing full-power stations and the limited Commission resources, it is clear that a micro- or low power service would not advance the public interest. Thus, the petitions must be denied.
 
 
 

	Respectfully submitted,  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS  1771 N Street, N.W.  Washington, D.C. 20036  (202) 429-5430      Henry L. Baumann   Jack N. Goodman  Lori J. Holly
David E. Wilson  Manager, Technical Regulatory Affairs  NAB Science and Technology    April 27, 1998

 
 

¹ NAB is a non-profit, incorporated association of radio and television stations and broadcast networks which serves and represents the American broadcasting industry.

² Petition for a Microstation Radio Broadcasting Service, RM No.9208 (June 26, 1997), placed on Public Notice on February 5, 1998 [hereinafter Leggett petition].

³ Proposal for Creation of the Low Power FM (LPFM) Broadcast Service, RM No.9242 (February 20, 1998), placed on Public Notice on March 10, 1998 [hereinafter Skinner petition].

⁴ Amendment of Part 73 of the Rules and Regulations to Establish Event Broadcast Stations, RM No.9246 (June 24, 1996), placed on Public Notice on March 18, 1998 [hereinafter Deieso petition].

⁵ Leggett petition at 1.

⁶  Id at 6-8.

⁷  Leggett petition at 2.

⁸ Id. at 8.

⁹ Id. at 9.

¹⁰ Id.
 
¹¹ Skinner petition at 12.

¹² Id

¹³ Id. at 10.

¹⁴ Skinner petition at 11.

¹⁵ Id.

¹⁶ Id. at 15.

¹⁷ Deieso petition at 6.

¹⁸ Id. at 8.

¹⁹  Id.

²⁰ Id.
 
²¹ 47C.F.R. §211(1996).

²² See Changes in the Rules Relating to Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations, 69 FCC 2d 240 (1987).

²³ Radio Advertising Bureau, Radio Marketing Guide and Fact Book for Advertisers (1995).

²⁴ Leggett petition at 8.

²⁵ Skinner petition at 11.

²⁶ The Skinner petition does propose a Low Power FM service (LPFM-1 status stations) that would exceed the FCC's 100 watt minimum power for some of the low power stations. NAB believes that any proposal to operate above the FCC's power minimum is no longer a low power station, thus an individual should be required to apply for a full-power license under existing FCC procedures.
 
²⁷ See First Report and Order, 70 FCC 2d 972 (1978); Second Report and Order, 69 FCC 2d 240 (1978); Third Report and Order, 57 RR 2d 107(1984).

²⁸ Second Report and Order, 69 FCC 2d para. 24.

²⁹ Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 722 (1995).

³⁰ Second Report and Order, 69 FCC 2d 240 at para. 23.

³¹ Id. at para. 30-31.

³² Id.  at para. 26. Ten-watt stations were only afforded protection from interference caused by other 10-watt stations. The Commission reasoned that any gains in the efficient use of the
spectrum would be lessened if 10-watt stations were given full protection.

³³ Id. at para. 27.
 
³⁴ Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd at 724.

³⁵ Amendment of part 74 of the Commission 's Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212, 7219(1990).

³⁶ Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission 's Rules Conceming FM Translator Stations, 8 FCC Rcd 5093, 5097, para. 28 (1993).

³⁷ 5 FCC Rcd at 7212, para. 2.
 
³⁸ Leggett petition at 6.

³⁹ Id. at 7
 
⁴⁰ These are the baseline ERP and HAAT values upon which Class A FM channel allocations are based, 47 C.F.R. § 73.211(1996).

⁴¹ A HAAT of 30 meters was selected for this example because the Leggett petition asks that each antenna "be limited in height to 50 feet above the ground or supporting building structure." Leggett petition at 9. NAB arbitrarily estimated the average total HAAT (building height plus maximum 50-foot tower) of each micropower station under this scheme to be 100 feet (approximately 30 meters). As proposed in the Leggett petition there is, in theory, no limit to the HAAT of a micropower station.
 
⁴² The maximum level of interference specified by the Commission for co-channel FM stations is a desired-to-undesired signal (D/U) ratio of 20 dB, where the distance to the desired station's contour is determined using the F(50,50) curves in 47 C.F.R. § 73.333, and the distance to the undesired station's contour is determined using the F(50,10) curves in § 73.333.
 
⁴³ For example, FCC rules require that Class A FM stations be separated from other class A stations on the same frequency by at least 71 miles. 47 C.F.R. § 73.207 (1996).

⁴⁴ FCC rules require that first adjacent channel class A FM stations be separated by at least 45 miles. 47 C.F.R. §73.207 (1996).

⁴⁵ Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd at 725 (footnotes omitted).

⁴⁶ In 1992, NAB petitioned the FCC to suspend new station allotments pending Commission completion of an overall review of its radio licensing policies. See NAB Petition for Rule Making (filed February 10, 1992), and NAB Request for Temporary Suspension of New Commercial FM Station Allotment and Application Processing (filed February 10, 1992). The FCC did not act on NAB's requests and continues to allocate new stations. NAB believes that if the Commission continues to allocate new FM frequencies, it should do so for full-power stations only in order to ensure the efficient use of the spectrum.

⁴⁷ Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 1998, FCC News Release (April 22, 1998).

⁴⁸ Id.

⁴⁹ See Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order, MM Docket No.87-268, FCC 98-24, ___ FCC Rcd___  at 42(1998). Note that television channel 37 is reserved for radio astronomy and is therefore not available for television
broadcasting.

⁵⁰ Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 1998, FCC News Release (April 22, 1998).

⁵¹ A 17 kHz channel spacing is derived by taking the distance in frequency from an FM carrier to its -25 dB point and then dividing this by the frequency separation between FM stations (120 KHz ÷ 200 kHz =0.6), and then using this ratio to solve for the frequency separation between AM stations given the AM -25 dB point of 10.2 kHz defined in 47 C.F.R. § 73.44 (l0.2 kHz ÷ 0.6= 17 kHz)

⁵² Skinner petition at 5-6.

⁵³ The following figures and discussion illustrate the general concept of IBOC technology. IBOC testing is ongoing and a "final" system has yet to be tested and approved by the FCC. The system ultimately submitted to the Commission for approval may have digital bandwidths and emission levels that differ slightly from those described in these comments. There is no way to know exactly what the final parameters will be until testing and development is completed. Regardless of whether the specific IBOC proposals ultimately presented to the FCC vary from the technical specifications we discuss, the nub of our argument remains - the introduction of hundreds, or thousands, of new low power stations would effectively preclude the adoption of IBOC technology.

⁵⁴ See 47 C.F.R §§ 73.44 and 73.317 (1996).

⁵⁵ Skinner petition at 14.

⁵⁶ In his petition, Skinner asserts that "NAB would have us believe that interference will not occur on second and third adjacent channels, but only for a certain class of stations covered in [MM Docket 96-120], namely grandfathered short-spaced FM stations." Skinner petition at 17. This is a misrepresentation of NAB's comments in MM Docket 96-120 which, in reality, argued in favor of allowing grandfathered short-spaced second and third adjacent channel stations which are already causing unacceptable interference in the FM band to modify their facilities in a manner that would not increase the amount of interference - and in some cases would actually decrease interference. In fact, we argued that several showings should be made by grandfathered short-spaced stations desiring to move their transmitters, including showings demonstrating that the proposed move would result in a net decrease in the number of listeners experiencing interference caused by the station, and that the proposed move would result in a net decrease in the land area of interference caused by the station. See, NAB Reply Comments in MM Docket 96-120 (filed October 4, 1996) at 11.

⁵⁷ This is a "worst case" example where the IBOC energy is shown to occupy the entire "-25 dB wing" of the FCC's FM emissions mask. It is used here to illustrate how the second adjacent channel "wings" overlap. In reality, the IBOC system developers do not intend to use the entire
-25 dB wing, as will be discussed later in these comments.
 
⁵⁸ Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 1998, FCC News Release (April 22, 1998). The total 12,276 licensed stations break down as follows: AM radio - 4724; FM radio - 5591; FM educational - 1961.

⁵⁹ Leggett petition at 1; Skinner petition at 3.

⁶⁰ According to Who Owns What, Inside Radio Fax newsletter (April 27, 1998), the top five radio groups own 1019 radio stations. This figure may be overstated because it reflects all stations that are owned and all announced deals to purchase stations. Announced deals are subject to change and divestiture of some stations may occur.

⁶¹ Review of the Radio Industry, 1997, Federal Communications Commission, Mass Media Bureau Policy and Rules Division, MM Docket No.98-35, released March 13, 1998, at 2.

⁶² Id. at 3.

63 Id.  at 14.

64 Id.  The average number of formats per station for the top owner across the Arbitron Metro markets is about 0.8, implying that an owner with five stations would generally have stations with four different formats.

⁶⁵ Modification of FMBroadcast Station Rules to Increase the Availability of Commercial FM Broadcast Assignments, 94 FCC 2d 152 (June 14, 1983) [hereinafter Docket 80-90].

⁶⁶ Docket 80-90 at para. 19.

⁶⁷ Id at para. 23.

68 Id at para. 30.

69 Revision of Radio Rules and Policies, 7 FCC Rcd 2755, 2757(1992).

70 Id. at 2756.

71 Id. at 2756-2757.

⁷² Stephen Paul Dunifer, 11 FCC Rcd at 724.

⁷³  Petitioners would like the FCC to allow microradio licensees to establish, build and maintain their own transmitters without an approval process that would increase the price. Leggett Petition at 8.

⁷⁴ Leggett petition at 10.

⁷⁵ Skinner petition at 23.

⁷⁶ Deieso petition at 3.

⁷⁷ 47 C.F.R. §73.1635(1996).

⁷⁸ Deieso petition at Attachment 1.

⁷⁹ Id. at 6-7.

⁸⁰  See M Street Daily, February 20, 199S. Fried's show is now heard on AM stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Detroit, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Denver and Dallas.

⁸¹ Id.

⁸² E.g. Leggeti petition at 7.

⁸³ In fact, in comments filed by original petitioner Nickolaus Leggett on March 4, 1998, he
recognized that a one watt limit in his original petition is "probably too low." See Written
Comments by the RM-9208 Petitioners, filed March 4, 1998 at 7. The comments urge the
Commission to view 50 to 100 watts as "the absolute upper limit to the ceilings it will consider."
Id. at 8.

⁸⁴ Skinner petition at 8.

⁸⁵ Id. at 8.

⁸⁶ Supporters of the micro- and low power petitions have been active in discussing their views over the Internet. In their discussions regarding the pending petitions for rulemaking, some proponents have suggested that microbroadcasters not be licensed at all, but granted "permission" to operate with little or no FCC regulation. See Re: MRN: Regulatory Fervor, Stephanie & Ted Coopman (February 17, 1998) at http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0223.html. Additionally, Pete triDish of Radio Mutiny said: "[F]ree radio is interesting right now because there are no regulations that govern it. Free radio is actually a dicey operation as a result of that we are, after all, defying the federal government and the corporate media establishment." See MRN: fervorous regulation, Pete triDish (February 19, 1998) at http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0259.html. See also RE: MRN: fervorous regulation, Lorenzo Ervin, Black Liberation Radio-Tennessee (March 17, 1998) at http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0433.html ("I don't favor giving the FCC any regulatory authority over me or free radio stations that does not already exist. That's the way I feel.") and Re: MRN: fervorous regulation, Lyn Gerry (February 22, 1998) at http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0277.html, ("I do not expect help  to come from the FCC, which after all represents the whole constellation of interests which many of us are in broadcasting to combat. And once legalized, our stations will come under the delightful purview of the US
congress and executive branches, whose main interest is maintaining their version of law and order, otherwise known as wage slavery at home and militarism abroad."). Copies of these electronic comments are attached as Appendix A.

⁸⁷ See FCC Closes Down Unlicensed Radio Operators That Were Threatening Air Safety At Two Floridai Airports, CIB Action, Report No. CI-97-12 (October24, 1997); FCC Closes Down Unlicensed Radio Operation In Cleveland Causing Interference To Public Radio Station, CIB Action, Report No. CI-98-5 (April 15, 1998); FCC Issues Hearing Notices to Five Unlicensed FM Radio Operators, CIB Action, Report No. Cl 98A (April 6, 1998); FCC Closes Down Unlicensed Radio Operation That Threatened Air Safety At Sacramento Airport; Fourth Airport Interference Incident In Five Months, CIB Action, Report No. CI 98-3 March 20, 1998).

⁸⁸ Leggett petition at 6.

⁸⁹ Id.

⁹⁰ Leggett petition at 1.

91 Id. at 7 and 9.

⁹²  Id at 7. The Skinner petition recognizes the limitations on the Commission in regard to the method of allocating any new broadcast spectrum. Skinner notes that Congress would have to specifically allow the FCC to use lotteries to distribute any LPFM frequencies. See Skinner petition at 8.

⁹³ Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No.105-33. § 3002, 111 Stat. 25 at 258 (1997).

⁹⁴ See 47 C.F.R. Pt. 73 (1996).

⁹⁵ Leggett petition at 9.

⁹⁶ Skinner petition at 23-24.

⁹⁷ See 47 C.F.R. § 74.780(1996).

98 Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31,1998, FCC News Release (April 22, 1998).
 
 ⁹⁹ Statement of Chairman Reed Hundt, 1995 FCC Lexis 5594 (August 17, 1995). Field offices in Buffalo, Miami, St. Paul, Norfolk, Portland, Houston, San Juan, Anchorage and Honolulu were closed. These locations would remain staffed by two technical staff as resident agents.

¹⁰⁰  The maximum statutory fine for a single violation by a broadcaster is $27,000. The FCC can institute fines totaling $275,000 for continued violation of a single incident. The base fine varies with the degree of violation and can be adjusted upward or downward based on specific adjustment criteria. See The Commission's Foifriture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Red 17087 (1997).

¹⁰¹ Leggett petition at 9
 
¹⁰² Additionally, if a micro- or low power service were to be established, NAB believes that any person that has illegally broadcast in the past should be precluded from obtaining a license due to their prior disregard of the laws and rules regarding broadcasting.
 

[Instead of reprinting the documents NAB reprinted here, I'm providing links to the original documents, since they are web sites. hh]
 
 

http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0223.html	RE: MRN: Regulatory Fervor
http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0259.html	MRN: fervorous regulation
http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0443.html	Re: MRN: fervorous regulation
http://tao.ca/ainfos/microradio/0277.html	Re: MRN: fervorous regulation

I, Angela Barber; Legal Secretary for the National Association of Broadcasters, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters was sent this 27^th day of April, 1998, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
 
 

Mr.. Nickolaus E. Leggett Ms. Judith F. Leggett 1432 Northgate Square, #2A Reston, VA 2019~3748 Donald J Schellhardt, Esq. 45 Bracewood Road Waterbury, CT 06706 J. Rodger Skinner, Jr. / President TRA Communications Consultants, Inc. 6431 NW 65th Terrace Pompano Beach, FL 33067-1546 Howard K. McCombs, Jr. Duncan, Weinberg, Miller & Pembroke, P.C. 1615 M Street, N.W. - Suite 800  Washington, D.C. 20036           *Counsel for Gregory D. Dejeso       Angela Barber