House Committee Limits Lpfm - House Commerce Committee; low power FM radio stations

Television Digest with Consumer Electronics, April 3, 2000

House Commerce Committee approved severe cuts in FCC's plans for LPFM in markup March 29. Compromise bill was approved on voice vote and sent to full House for final action. It would require FCC to retain 3rd adjacent channel protection for existing FM stations, change that co- sponsor, ranking Democrat Dingell (Mich.), said would cut number of allowed LPFM stations nationwide to about 70 from estimated 400 under FCC rules. Bill almost certainly wouldn't allow new LPFM stations in any major metropolitan area.

New version of bill, approved as substitute amendment offered by Rep. Wilson (R-N.M.) to earlier bill (HR-3439) sponsored by Rep. Oxley (R-O.), won support from Oxley, who said it would solve interference concerns he had raised. Dingell said he hadn't talked with broadcasters about substitute, but was sure they would be pleased.

In fact, NAB Pres. Edward Fritts said in statement that "amended legislation sends a very powerful message from Congress," noting that religious broadcasters, NPR, CEA and reading services for blind all had raised concerns over LPFM.

Bill would "eliminate 75% of the opportunities for schools, churches, transit authorities, local governments" and others to "have access to the public airwaves," FCC Chmn. Kennard said in statement: "Those who want to silence LPFM are ignoring a strong, substantive, methodically developed, 2-year public record replete with solid engineering analysis."

Pres. Kevin Klose said NPR is "moving forward" with its field tests studying potential interference with local public radio stations, their translator networks and subcarrier channels offering radio reading services. In March 30 speech at National Press Club, Klose stressed that public radio stations are "much more susceptible to interference" than others. Klose said Wilson bill "does embrace our concerns, but added NPR is concentrating on its "dialog with the FCC" because "the legislative process is extremely sensitive and changing."

Unlike Oxley version, substitute would allow FCC to go ahead with LPFM immediately as long as interference standards weren't changed. It also would require 9-market field study of LPFM, including urban, suburban and rural markets, and at least one market with translators, which has been NPR concern. Study also would review impact on digital audio broadcasting and reading services for blind, which use secondary audio channels.

Bill would require that study not be done by FCC -- Dingell said independent party must be used because "frankly, they [FCC] don't want to be bothered with the facts." Bill would require that no one known to be pirate be allowed to have LPFM license, unlike FCC plan. Even if study indicates LPFM causes less interference than expected, Commission could ease interference standards only with congressional approval. Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) called Wilson amendment "very well balanced" and said original bill by Oxley "needs to be modified to reach the President's desk. This amendment may have done that."

Main opposition to substitute came from Rep. Waxman (D-Cal.). He said it would place too many limits on LPFM and study period was too long, because it wouldn't be completed until Feb. 1, 2001, after new Administration takes office. He also said there's no guarantee that even if LPFM causes little interference that FCC would be able to expand it. Rep. Markey (D-Mass.) said "I reluctantly rise in opposition." He contended FCC had right to conduct LPFM rollout as it was "part of continuing the Telecom Act."

Markup followed beginning of FCC process 2 days for earlier distributing low-power licenses. Kennard, in news conference at event, called "fraudulent" a Compact Disc (CD) about interference that NAB has widely distributed on Hill.

FCC is asking Congress to "rely on the expert agency" on technical issues, rather than word of industry with personal interest, Kennard said. He said agency doesn't believe more testing is needed. He also noted that LPFM would be launched in only 1/5 of states in first year: "As they come on the air, if there are any problems with interference I am sure we will hear about it, and we can take quick action." (Some members at markup objected to this statement, suggesting even if interference is discovered it would be very difficult for FCC to revoke LPFM licenses.)

NAB said FCC is writing off "hundreds of millions of less expensive radios" that would suffer from LPFM interference: "And while Chmn. Kennard says he's sure that there won't be 'harmful interference,' the FCC never defined what level of interference listeners would find objectionable."

FCC Office of Engineering & Technology Deputy Chief Bruce Franca conducted demonstration March 27 that he said proved cross- talk is very unlikely, and any interference would be nearly inaudible hiss or static. Franca also said NAB demonstration was based on 3% distortion, rather than 1% FCC rules would allow. NAB defended its claim that cross-talk was likely, but said: "Whether it's cross-talk or noise and hiss, the real question that the FCC is trying to avoid is why it is introducing new interference to FM radio." NAB engineering chief Lynn Claudy said agency's percentage measurement was "technically inappropriate," but even 1% figure wouldn't be acceptable.