by Harold Hallikainen
San Luis Obispo, CA
Last month we started our short detour in the discussion of broadcast regulation by looking at the possibility of "spectrum leasing". This month we'll continue our trip down the detour by looking at "microBroadcasting."
There are several cases pending where the FCC has attempted to shut down unlicensed broadcast stations. Among the pending cases are: Black Liberation Radio (phone 217 527 1298), KAPW (phone 602 548 1054) and Free Radio Berkeley (phone 510 464 3041). I am awaiting copies of court filings and other documentation on these stations. In speaking with representatives of some of the stations, I found that they generally felt a public resource (the electromagnetic spectrum) had been turned over to big corporations resulting in a "wealth based exclusion" to freedom of speech. Some of those I spoke with did not think the "spectrum leasing" I proposed in my last article was such a great idea! In each case it appears that the stations have indeed violated the FCC Rules by operating an unlicensed station in excess of the power restrictions of part 15 of those rules. The stations argue, however, that the rules may be unconstitutional. If we interpret the first amendment's restriction on congress establishing laws restricting the freedoms of religion, speech and the press as an expanding sphere of freedoms, could not the freedom to broadcast (with reasonable restrictions) be included in freedom of speech or press? It appears the government can restrict speech or the press ONLY when there is a very strong overriding governmental interest. Further, that restriction must be the least intrusive means of satisfying that governmental interest. So, would it be possible to set up a microBroadcasting service?
One possibility for microBroadcasting would be to set up a low power licensed service similar to low power TV (LPTV). The LPTV rules grew out of the TV translator rules. LPTVs are considered to be TV translators that originate programming. The existing FM translator rules permit origination of programming for 30 seconds an hour to acknowledge or seek financial support for the translator (see 74.1231(g)). Commercial messages may be included in the 30 second per hour local origination period. In addition, FM translators may originate emergency programming.
74.1231(a) indicates that FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of FM broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct reception of such FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. For translators retransmitting commercial stations, there are two "classes" of translators. Within the protected contour (as defined in 74.1232(d)), the primary station is allowed to own the translator to provide "fill in" service. Outside the protected contour a party not affiliated with the primary station may own the translator. I call this second class of translators "community" translators. They are sometimes owned by community associations or local governments to bring radio service into an area with little FM service.
FM translators operate on a "secondary basis". Although I cannot find a specific rule designating them as "secondary", the discussion implies they operate similarly to class D NCE stations which must change channel or shut down to prevent interference to a new full-service station.
In the Notice Of Inquiry on FM translator policies (FCC Docket 88-140, 3 FCC Rcd No. 12, page 3664), the FCC notes that they determined in 1978 (Docket 20735) that "full-service stations make more efficient use of the spectrum than translators in that the ratio of coverage to interference area is much larger for full-service stations than for low-power translators". While this is probably true, there are gaps in the coverage areas of full-service stations where a low power station would fit and meet the current interference protection requirements. If these low power stations operated on a secondary basis (possibly being bumped by high power stations), it appears that the use of low power stations would in fact INCREASE spectrum efficiency by filling in the gaps.
The fact that translators are authorized at all seems to indicate that it IS possible for low power stations to operate in the gaps between high power stations and still meet interference requirements. If such stations are allowed to exist, is there a good reason for the federal government to tightly regulate their program content by prohibiting local programming? Is there some governmental interest in this restriction of speech that could perhaps be met in some less restrictive manner? In Docket 88- 140, the Tucson Broadcasters Association argues against less restrictions on translators by saying translators do not have local service obligations (as full-service stations do). It asserts that the intent of Section 307(b) of the Communications Act is to provide as many outlets as possible "for local self- expression" and, thus, the Act does not contemplate service within a community from stations located hundreds of miles away. This, in fact, appears to be an argument in favor of allowing local program origination.
Some of those arguing in favor of microBroadcasting have suggested that there be some "local content" requirement on such stations. Again, I'd tend to argue for freedom of speech. If the station owner feels some imported programming would serve the needs of the community, that is her/his call. In fact, Black Liberation Radio distributes tapes to other microBroadcasters around the country. Should this be disallowed as not being "local content"?
In the NPRM on FM translators (5 FCC Rcd No. 7, page 2106), the Federal Trade Commission suggests that allowing program origination on FM translators has the potential to benefit consumers by increasing the number of listening options. NAB submitted a study showing that the smallest counties (12+ populations of less than 1,000) had an average of 10.5 stations reported by survey diary-keepers. The largest counties reported an average of over 80 stations. NAB also submitted a list of translator applications showing they tend to propose service to "well served" areas. Is it the federal government's decision as to when a community is served "well enough" by radio? They certainly have an interference prevention responsibility, but it appears that local origination on low power stations would not violate the interference protection requirements. Comparing to print media, could the government stop you from starting a publication because the market would not support another publication?
The discussion so far has looked into having the FM translator rules parallel the TV translator rules by allowing local origination. The resulting LPFM stations would be licensed stations, receiving interference protection from other LPFM stations (though operating on a secondary basis to full-power stations). Another approach to authorizing microBroadcasting would be to increase the radiated field limits in part 15 of the rules. We'll look at this possibility next month. Meanwhile, I'll look forward to your comments!
Harold Hallikainen is president of Hallikainen and Friends, a manufacturer of transmitter control and telemetry systems. He also teaches electronics at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo and just returned from the Alta Sierra Dance Camp. He can be reached at 805 541 0200. He can also be reached on internet at harold@hallikainen.com.