Proponents for and against changes to the LPFM interference complaint process continue to debate the merits of the proposed changes — with one technical consulting firm pointing out that use of one particular measurement radio could usher in a series of “dire unintended consequences.”
In May the Federal Communications Commission adopted new proposals to streamline the rules relating to interference caused by FM translators and adopted specific proposals to expedite the translator complaint resolution.
[Read: FCC Finalizes FM Translator Interference Rules]
Among those changes were the decision to allow FM translators to resolve interference issues by changing channels, to standardize information that must be submitted, to establish new interference complaint resolution procedures, and to establish a new outer contour limit (outside of which within which interference complaints will not be considered).
But in the weeks since then, organizations have called on the FCC to reconsider its stance. The LPFM Coalition said that the FCC rulemaking fails to meet certain statutory requirements within the Communications Act and the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.
Among other concerns, the coalition said that the rulemaking fails to provide improvements for LPFM stations, that it ignores multiple listener interference complaints if they come from a single building, and that the new rules require that interference complaints contain data points that measure underlying interference using a calculation rubric that excludes any measure of interference, a move that the coalition said “is essentially a rule that negates itself.”
That calculation, known as an undesired-to-desired ratio (U/D ratio) for determining interference, was also brought up in a separate filing by the technical consulting firm Skywaves Consulting LLC.
That consulting firm said the imposition of standard U/D ratios using standard FCC contour methodology could usher in a series of “dire unintended consequences.”
Skywaves said the use of a contour-based U/D study for each complaint is certainly useful for complaints outside the protected contour. But using it within a protected contour is a mistake.
“The U/D ratio decreases within the protected contour as you approach the protected transmitter. Therefore, it appears that the new rule would eliminate from consideration all complaints of co-channel and first-adjacent channel translator interference within a protected station’s protected contour,” the Skywaves filing said.
“This is clearly not an intended result, and this portion of the rule should be reworded to make it clear that the U/D ratio criterion applies only outside the protected contour,” the firm said.
According to counsel for the LPFM Coalition, the commission should stay the specific rulemaking aspects that it specified and either rescind those provisions or issue a notice of further rulemaking to fix them.
The low-power station KGIG(LP) in Salida, Calif., agreed with the coalition’s stance, saying that conclusions in the rulemaking conflict with precedent and fact and could contravene the Administrative Procedure Act.
The LPFM Coalition’s stance also has support from REC Networks, which expressed specific concern with the use of a –20 dBu U/D ratio for determining interference. “This standard, coupled with the 45 dBu outer limit, would mean that a station could formulate an interference complaint in areas where the new FM translator only places a 26 dBu contour,” REC Networks said. “This can open the door to more fraudulent and frivolous claims against very distant translators.”
But other organizations disagree of several of those issues.
The National Association of Broadcasters said the LPFM Coalition “simply rehashes previously rejected arguments” that the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 requires equivalent regulation of LPFM and FM translator services.
The NAB pressed the FCC to reject the coalition’s concern over the rule change that now says that translator interference complaints must be based on multiple listener complaints using separate receivers at separate locations (multiple listeners complaints from a single building are now to be counted as a single complaint).
The NAB also said the coalition’s argument fails to meet a necessary list of four standards for a stay. The coalition responded soon after to say the “NAB is wrong on the law” as no mandatory stringent four-prong test applies.
The NAB did not address the U/D issue in its first filing. In a subsequent filing, the NAB said that it agrees with the Skywaves assessment that the order’s requirement of a contour-based U/D study for every interference complaint could unintentionally impede consideration of bona fide translator complaints.
Another view came from a joint group of broadcasters who praised the commission’s order as a balanced approach but they also expressed concern about the U/D threshold.
The order will undoubtedly bring more consistency, predictability and speed to the process for resolving FM translator interference complaints, said a group that includes Beasley Media Group, Cox Media Group, Entercom Communications, iHeart Communications, Neuhoff Corp. and Radio One Licenses, which are licensees of both primary FM stations and FM translator stations.
But the commenters expressed concern that there is a real (though they said rare) possibility that the U/D threshold for actionable complaints could negatively impact legitimate interference complaints based on listeners within a desired station’s protected contour.
According to the joint group of broadcasters, the commission should consider exempting listening locations from the U/D showing if they are within the desired station’s protected contour.
Comments on the issue are being field as part of Media Bureau Docket 18-119.
[Subscribe to our newsletter and get it delivered right to your inbox.]
The post Battle Lines are Drawn in LPFM Interference Rules Order appeared first on Radio World.
