June first is the deadline for the public to file comments on the FCC’s proposed LPFM rulemaking. Comments must be received in Washington, D.C. by August 2. So, for all intents and purposes, you’ve got less than a month and a half to make yourself heard.
You can talk all you want about how wonderful legal LPFM is to your friends, family and co-workers, but unless you file formal, public comments with the Commission, the people that need to hear your opinions won’t – and all you’ll have done is spout hot air.
The following is a primer into how to file comments – what you write is up to you, and if you need help figuring out what to say feel free to browse through previous features; there’s more than enough food for thought there. Continue reading “Time's Running Out”
Category: Media Policy
Beware the Propaganda
Always give credit where credit is due. What you’re about to read began as the sample “editorial” the NAB included in its recently released “Low-Power FM Lobbying Kit.” Keep a close eye on your local newspaper’s Opinions section – it seems like the radio industry trying to spin public opinion much like they program the airwaves.
Fight fire with fire. We have tweaked the NAB’s copy below. Feel free to print it out and submit it en masse. Maybe get your copy in first; that way when Mr. Radio Executive in your town gets theirs printed, it’ll look like he copied you! Continue reading “Beware the Propaganda”
Less is More
The FCC’s initial proposal for LPFM radio stations calls for 1000 watts of power as the highest level available. A second class of stations, called the LP-100, would broadcast with a maximum of 100 watts. Meanwhile, there’s a third class of proposed stations called the LP-10.
LP-10 stations are currently proposed as a secondary-type service, which means they could be forced to shut down at the near-whim of a higher-powered station. The plus side is that LP-10 licenses will be the least restrictive, which will allow for much more flexibility in programming, scheduling and economic needs of operation.
The scary thing is not the importance placed on such a type of service, but the silence to its proposal itself. Most comments filed so far have only dealt with the higher-wattage station classes, almost completely neglecting the LP-10. Continue reading “Less is More”
First Skirmish
Things may seem like they’re moving at a quick pace, but this is just a flurry of activity before great lull before the next Big Phase in the legalization of low-power FM.
While supporters of a low-power radio service continue to work on their comments and enlightening more people to what may lie on their radio dial, the National Association of Broadcasters is finally grinding into motion. The first meeting of its LPFM “war council,” otherwise known as the Spectrum Integrity Task Force, met last week, undoubtedly laying out the long-term strategy in the fight against legalization.
On the NAB’s own website duscission boards, LPFM doesn’t appear to be drawing much interest. A whopping two posts have been made about the subject, touting all the economic harm that LPRS will supposedly do to “small” stations. Not even a clap from the audience. Either most commercial broadcasters today are woefully Internet-illiterate or don’t really much care about LPFM becoming a reality.
The NAB has a request to extend the deadline for comments and replies on the LPFM proposal until October, which would effectively keep all possible movement forward on the idea bottled up for at least another six months. It claims it wants to use the time to do “studies” on what “interference” LPFM may cause its members’ over-valued “broadcast properties.”
Translated, this means two things: the first is manufacture a “spin” on the technical data – painting as terrible a picture of signal interference as it can. The second is to lobby as much support in Congress as possible for a potential end run around the FCC completely.
LPFM proponents haven’t been napping, either. The Amherst Alliance, frustrated with all of the delays in action, fired off written correspondence to the FCC in tones that were not completely diplomatic on the issue:
5 months passed from the initial RM-9208 Notice in February of 1998 to the closing of the comment period in July of 1998. After that, another 6 months passed from the close of comments to the issuance of a Proposed Rule in late January of 1999. Continue reading “First Skirmish”
Gaining Speed
1999’s gotten off to quite an active start for low-power broadcasting in the United States. While a real rule finally legalizing small FM stations remains months (if not years) away, it seems both sides in the battle are taking no chances in getting off to a slow start.
The bad guys are wasting no time attacking the proposed rulemaking and enlisting congressional support as much as possible. The National Association of Broadcasters has named the members of its “Spectrum Integrity Task Force,” who, as a means of public service, I’m providing the names of for your perusal and consideration: Continue reading “Gaining Speed”
The Brewing Congressional Conflict
On the heels of Louisiana Congressweasel Billy Tauzin’s move to squash the LPFM service currently under development at the FCC, those in favor of low-power broadcasting on Capitol Hill aren’t sitting by and watching Tauzin’s tantrum without action. Representative David Bonior, Democrat of Michigan, is now circulating a draft letter to other Representatives in support of the FCC’s work, and plans to send it to the FCC on Wednesday, March 10.
This is a perfect opportunity to pre-empt Tauzin’s moves to kill low-power radio stations, provided Bonior can show enough signatures at the bottom of the letter. The strength is in numbers here – if the FCC has some sort of token nod from a large segment (or, perish the thought, a majority) of the House of Representatives, Chairman Kennard and the rest of the Commissioners would be sent a message that the “will of the people” is behind their actions. It could also send a nice, subtle message to Rep. Tauzin to back off. Continue reading “The Brewing Congressional Conflict”
An Enemy End Run
In submarine battle tactics there is a maneuver called an “end run,” where a submarine basically either speeds up or slows down to maneuvers into a prime shooting position out of the detection range of its quarry.
It’s an attempt by someone to end the game by throwing out the rules; to get the drop on the enemy before they even have a chance to do anything about it.
An end run is happening right now in the form of Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin. He’s a Republican who the NAB has in its pocket – his daughter even works for them. Continue reading “An Enemy End Run”
It's Only Just Begun
Last week, the FCC officially proposed making low-power FM stations a legal part of the radio dial. The statement in itself doesn’t give too many details as to what this broadcast service will look like, except in the most general of forms. When the official text becomes available, expect notice here.
In a nutshell, these are the basics of legal LPFM as currently envisioned: Continue reading “It's Only Just Begun”
Greasing the Wheel
The following is a report from scouts at the National Lawyer’s Guild’s Committee on Democratic Communications; they went to Washington recently to gauge support for a low power radio legalization effort.
Call To Action
We now have an historic opportunity (ok, its a cheap political phrase) to influence communications policy in the U.S. The window of opportunity is NOW! Believe me– I have talked with a number of people in D.C.– we need to BOMBARD the FCC RIGHT NOW with a massive show of support. We need to show them that the unlicensed micros are serious about wanting a legalized system and we need to show that it has Congressional support. Continue reading “Greasing the Wheel”
Controversy in Michigan
Support for low-power broadcasting is growing and gaining some political ground.
The following is a move in the right direction – Michigan’s legislature is considering resolutions in both houses advocating the legalization of a low-power broadcast service. Not surprisingly, the state’s broadcasting association jumped on the defensive. Here’s the texts from everyone involved.
Michigan State House Resolution No. 379
Reps. Freeman, Baade, Ciaramitaro, Kelly, Tesanovich, Profit, Dobronski, Prusi, Gubow, Kukuk, Bodem, Godchaux, Leland, Olshove, Harder, Hale, Brater, Parks, Anthony, Scranton, Schermesser, Martinez, Kilpatrick, Bogardus, Jelinek, Scott, DeHart, Basham, Willard, Baird, Murphy, Birkholz, Richner, LaForge, Quarles, Hanley, Cherry and Varga Continue reading “Controversy in Michigan”