Since the release of the NPRM, REC has been busy analyzing information, interacting with our allies and supporters, listening to those who use our services and overloading our sever with data products (some we have shared with everyone and others that we are still working on)..
Based on this, REC plans to take positions on various aspects of the LPFM rulemaking. Please understand that these are subject to change based on new information (such as comments from allies or data discoveries). We must stress, our playbook is not closed.
Second Adjacent Channel Waivers
We feel that these should be available to all applicants and based on the how the FCC defined the protected channel/points, they are anticipating waivers on original CPs. We also want a reasonable definition of interference especially in light of interference mitigation processes.
Elimination of LP-10
REC supports specifically the elimination of LP-10 but we do not support the elimination of a sub-100 watt service. Instead, we are proposing a LP-50 (50 watts at 30m HAAT) service to replace LP-10 using similar methodology that the FCC used when proposing LP-250. In some markets like Los Angeles, LP-50 may be the only way to bring enough diversity to the area.
New LP-250 Service
REC supports a new LPFM service at 250 watts at 30m HAAT. We feel this service should be available to all applicants and not just existing LP-100 stations. REC is currently evaluating data models to determine if the FCC proposed geographic restrictions on LP-250 are warranted and whether to consider LP-250 as a replacement for LP-100 (meaning all new LPFM stations could be LP-50 and LP-250 only.) We are looking at all options. The playboook is wide open on LP-250.
IF Channels
We are asking that for the purpose of IF channels only that translators operating at exactly 100 watts be considered "class D" and therefore subject to a waiver of IF channel protections on domestic allotments. IF channel protection would also be eliminated for all LP-100 stations (not just those "less than 100 watts") as well as LP-10 or LP-50 stations.
Cross-ownership/Multiple Ownership
REC feels that student-operated LPFM station proposals at universities that have an NPR station where students are shut out should be able to be processed like any other LPFM application and not be the first to be dismissed. We are also examining policy regarding Native Nations. We feel that the student station situation is different than the needs of Native Nations to broadcast within their territory. REC feels that cross-ownership and multiple-ownership by Native Nations should be permitted as long as it does not create a substantial burden on the availability of channels outside of the Native Nation. We support the elimination of the "public safety" definition and multiple ownership allowance of local governments, especially in light of the nationwide availability of AM spectrum for TIS.
Translators Owned by LPFM Stations
We will support LPFM owned translators in order to expand service areas especially in awkward geographical situations. Specifically, translators owned by LPFM licensees should be at similar or inferior field strength to the LPFM and should have an overlap (even if very small) between the LPFM and translator service contours and must carry the LPFM station at all times.
Consortia
We feel that the concept of encouraging consortia in LPFM will promulgate fraud by rewarding points to "ghost organizations" who stack their points. We saw cases of point stacking in the 2000/01 windows and we feel that this behavior should not be encouraged or rewarded. We also see enforcement issues, especially when one consortia member does something illegal on the air. REC would rather see time share agreements with a shared transmitter site (and shared EAS/CAP). Each member of the share site is individually qualified and broadcasts with their own callsign and is responsible for their own compliance.
Selection Points
REC is currently considering our position on selection points. We feel that this will likely be championed by another organization such as Prometheus. We feel that the opportunities for settlements will be far greater in this window than in the previous window due to the wider availability. With that, we are fairly happy with the existing point policies (with the exception of point aggregating for time share/consortia proponents) and we will work with our allies to propose a policy that would work for everyone.
Again, our playbook is still open.
