First of all, let me say greetings to the Amherst Alliance's Don and Nick. I am glad to see you all still out there. The nice thing about the LPFM service is that there are many diverse voices not just in the licensees but also in those who are fighting for the service. In reading the Amherst comments, it gets me thinking that they were not invited to the party. In many ways, neither was REC. We knew about the EMF/Prometheus agreement but only because we remained visible through LPFM's low tide. Sure, we kept a low profile on the broadcast services side (too busy growing J1), but we were out there.
I think that virtually anyone can tell you that Prometheus Radio Project does not speak for the entire LPFM community just like in a way that the ARRL does not speak for all of amateur radio. But like the ARRL, Prometheus is a significant non-profit with many allies within the non-profit arena. This gives them access to attorneys and not to mention representatives from Prometheus and other organizations who frequently visit DC to meet with FCC staff. Just look a the ex-parte filings in ECFS. Back in 2008, I was in DC in a meeting with Media Bureau staff. While REC collaborates with Prometheus, we do not meet 100% on issues and approaches to spectrum regulation.
The Amherst proposed "superwindow" while well intentioned would not work out. Amherst makes an argument around the use of the term "new" in the Local Community Radio Act. Amherst does not feel that applications for stations filed during the 2003 Auction #83 (Great Translator Invasion) window are not "new" stations but "pending" stations. I disagree. All that is pending is an application. No station has been approved to be built. Once it is approved, then it is a "new" station. As much as I would love to see these translators go away and have a clear dial for LPFMs everywhere, the reality is that the FCC has given a filing opportunity in 2003 and those applications that are from bona-fide applicants and are proposing reasonable facilities should be honored. We must also take into consideration the amount of time and money that some (not all) Auction 83 applicants spent on engineering studies for these facilities. I am not defending the participants in the Great Translator Invasion, I am only defending a policy that is not just fair to LPFM proponents but is also fair to the broadcasters who have been waiting for almost 8 years to get these translators on the air. As proven in the Prometheus/EMF agreement, if both sides of an issue come to the table, you can work things out. This happened again when LPFM proponents went to the table with the NAB to settle on compromises on both sides of the issue and resulted in a Local Community Radio Act passing both chambers on a voice vote.
This is why I support the REC concept for dealing with the translator mess. First, we need to clean the pool of pending applications. Remove remaining speculator applications (they have done enough damage already), remove the junk applications (250 watt stations on 600m mountaintops) and limit applicants with more than one channel at the same location to only one channel. We also need to fix the problems with the LPFM rules. This includes the increase of "sub-classes" for translator stations, elimination of IF channel protections similar to translator rules and fixing the Channel 6 LPTV/Class A extreme overprotection problem.
Once that is done, then we should allow translators in areas where there is significant LPFM availability for a minimum of two fully spaced channels giving priority to AM fill-in translators then FM fill-in and then non-commercial stations from outside the service contour (priority given to nearby stations over distant stations).
In rural areas where there's plenty of space, I feel that LPFM and translators can thrive. In more metro areas, we need to clear the way for LPFM, then we can worry about translators.
Once the singletons and MX groups have been determined and remaining applicants have been dismissed, there needs to be an application freeze for minor and major changes on all secondary users on FM. At this time, an LPFM window can open. Yes, the LPFM window can take place while the auctions and comparative reviews are in progress.
Once this is all done, the FCC needs to take a serious look at the translator rules and the true meaning of the service. Even before Auction #83, there are way too many translators in metro areas. FM translators are supposed to bring services into areas with minimal service. The FCC needs to take a look at what entities should be eligible to hold a translator authorization. With the exception of a local government entity, I don't see any reason why a group that does not have any broadcast holdings should hold a translator license. With the 2 groups in Twin Falls, you saw what happens when you allow new entrants to apply for translators before they had any full power broadcast holdings.
(personal opinion of Michi Eyre, founder of REC Networks)
