**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS**

**AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION\
\
WASHINGTON, D.C.**

**Presidential )**

**Spectrum Policy ) NTIA Docket 040127027-4027-01**

**Initiative )**

**WRITTEN COMMENTS\
OF THE AMHERST ALLIANCE**

***[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}***

***[PAGE]{.underline}***

***INTRODUCTION OF THE COMMENTING PARTY 1***

***THE CORE OF OUR COMMENTS 3***

***1. Possible Shift of the FCC's Regulatory Authority 3***

***2. Recommendations On Other Issues In NTIA's NOI 5***

***CONCLUSIONS 11***

**UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**

**DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE**

**NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS**

**AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION**

**WASHINGTON, D.C.**

**Presidential )**

**Spectrum Policy ) NTIA Docket 040127027-4027-01**

**Initiative )**

**WRITTEN COMMENTS**

**OF THE AMHERST ALLIANCE**

**THE AMHERST ALLIANCE is a Net-based, nationwide citizens' advocacy
group which supports Low Power Radio in particular and media reform in
general. Founded in Amherst, Massachusetts, on September 17, 1998, we
include within our ranks licensed Low Power FM broadcasters, aspiring
Low Power FM broadcasters, aspiring Low Power AM broadcasters, Part 15
radio stations, Webcasters, Amateur Radio Service operators and good
old-fashioned concerned citizens.**

**-2-**

**THE AMHERST ALLIANCE has already filed 2 Motions in NTIA's Docket for
implementation of the Presidential Spectrum Policy Initiative (PSPI).
The first Motion, filed with 20 other parties, sought an extension of
the Written Comments period in this Docket. That Motion was denied with
breathtaking speed, in less than 2 days.**

**Amherst's second Motion, which is still under consideration by NTIA,
seeks:**

(A) **Immediate action by NTIA to place in the public record, for review
    by and input from commenting parties, the Missing-In-Action report
    on spectrum management that was submitted to NTIA, as part of a
    formal filing in this Docket, by the Center for Strategic &
    International Studies (CSIS) of Washington, D.C.;**

***And***

(B) **Establishment of a *Reply* Comments period of at least**

> **30 days \-- the norm for Federal regulatory bodies \--**
>
> **to permit public comments on the public comments.**
>
> **-3-**

***THE CORE OF OUR COMMENTS***

***1. Possible Shift of the FCC's Regulatory Authority***

**(A) Amherst was pleased to see the February 27, 2004 Joint Statement
of Assistant Commerce Secretary Michael Gallagher, Administrator of
NTIA, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael
Powell. That Joint Statement appears to accept the continued existence
of 47 U.S.C. Section 922: the Communications Act provision which
*divides* jurisdiction for spectrum regulation between NTIA and the FCC.
While ceding to NTIA authority over uses of spectrum by the Federal
Government, that provision reserves for the FCC jurisdiction over \-- in
the words of the Joint Statement \-- "non-federal spectrum uses, *e.g.,*
broadcasting, commercial, public safety, and state and local government
users."**

**This is how Amherst wants things to stay.**

> **(B) While the February 27 Joint Statement is extremely**

**heartening, we remain deeply concerned by *earlier* documents in the
evolution of the PSPI.**

**The Executive Memorandum which launched the PSPI \-- signed by
President Bush on May 29, 2003 and released to the public on June 5,
2003 \-- *clearly* directs the Commerce Department to review, and submit
to the President recommendations regarding, matters which 47 U.S.C.
Section 922 clearly reserves for the FCC. To wit: President Bush directs
the Commerce Department to report to him its recommendations for
"improving spectrum management**

**-4-**

**procedures and policies for the Federal Government *and to address
State, local and private spectrum use."* \[Emphasis added\] These are
the very areas of concern which the Gallagher/Powell Joint Statement
acknowledges to be \-- and implies should remain \-- within the
jurisdiction of the FCC!**

**We also stress that the Executive Memorandum assigns no official role
to the FCC at all, despite the fact that spectrum uses regulated by the
FCC constitute the bulk of the spectrum activity being studied. The
farthest that the President goes toward including the FCC is a statement
that the Commission is "encouraged to participate" in meetings held by
NTIA.**

**On this extremely crucial point, NTIA's Notice Of Inquiry (NOI) is far
less assertive than the President's Executive Memorandum. Nevertheless,
the "Summary" Section of the NOI appears to assume, implicitly, that 47
U.S.C. Section 922 should be changed. Indeed, it is written as if 47
U.S.C. Section 922 has *already* been changed!**

**To wit: The "Summary" Section of NTIA's NOI states that the Commerce
Department's "comprehensive review" will "develop recommendations for
improving the United States' spectrum management policies regarding
*the* *organizations*, *processes and procedures affecting* Federal
Government, *State, local and private sector spectrum use."* \[Emphasis
added\]**

**For reasons why Amherst believes the regulation of "State, local and
private sector spectrum use" should remain with the FCC, please see the
ATTACHED letter. It was sent to U.S. President George W. Bush, by
AMHERST ALLIANCE President Don Schellhardt, on June 11, 2003. This
letter should be treated as part of the publicly viewable record for the
present NTIA Docket.**

**-5-**

**Our *second* deepest concern in this Docket is that NTIA will
recommend to President Bush a shift of spectrum regulatory authority
from the FCC to the Commerce Department, or to the White House, or to
some other decision-making body which is ultimately accountable to only
*one* person who represents only *one* political party. To wit: The
President, and the President alone.**

**Our *deepest* concern in this Docket is that the President might
attempt to initiate such a policy shift, in whole or in part, by
Executive Order, rather than by seeking new legislation from Congress.
Such a unilateral move of this nature would be illegal, a
"self-inflicted wound" to Executive Branch credibility and a disruption
of Constitutional checks and balances.**

**We strongly urge NTIA to advise the President to retain the current
division of spectrum regulation jurisdiction. If the President does not
agree, he should be advised to pursue a new arrangement *solely* through
the Constitutionally sanctioned practice of proposing new legislation to
Congress.**

2.  ***Recommendations On Other Issues In NTIA's NOI***

**(A) *Question 10:* The definition of "spectrum efficiency"**

**should include the *efficiency* with which publicly owned airwaves are
open to access by all members of American society.**

**(B) *Question 10:* NTIA and the FCC should revive references to the
*full* statutory language of the Communications Act. To wit: The goal is
not *"efficient"* use of spectrum, but *"equitable* and efficient" use
of spectrum \-- with the word "equitable" placed *first.* This fact is
routinely forgotten.**

**-6-**

**(C) *Question 12:* "Incentives" for more efficient use of the spectrum
should *not* include the establishment of new fees for use of the
spectrum by *non-commercial* broadcasters, or even by the struggling
handful of surviving *small commercial* broadcasters.**

**The imposition of auctions for commercial broadcast licenses,
initiated by the FCC and then mandated by Congress in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, has been like a plague of locusts upon
the land. Auctions and fees have literally turned commercial radio and
TV licenses over to the highest bidder, overriding every consideration
except revenues for the Federal Government \-- and devastating the
influence of *local* news and views in the media. Spectrum fees for
*non-commercial* radio stations will have the same effect: consolidating
the already overwhelming dominance of centralized, Washington-based
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO over homegrown public radio.**

**In truth, the mandate for auctions should be repealed \-- *at least*
in the case of the smallest commercial broadcasters, such as Class A and
B radio stations. Spectrum fees for non-commercial broadcasters should
be "avoided like the plague".**

**(D) *Question 24:* Improved receiver performance standards \--
including the development and commercialization of "smart antennas" \--
could do a great deal to "stretch" the available spectrum. *However,*
steps must be taken to ensure that the equipment remains affordable for
everyday Americans: to wit, those whom the Federal Government was
primarily founded to serve.**

**-7-**

**(E) *Question 24:* NTIA, the FCC, the NAB and/or others should
consider the establishment of Research, Development & Demonstration (R,D
& D) "micro-grants" \-- for example, \$5 million for grants "capped" at
\$100,000 per year or less \-- to explore ideas for making routine use
of portions of the spectrum which are currently unused or unusable.
Possibilities include *infrared* *broadcasting*, *millimeter*
*broadcasting* and/or *longwave* *AM* *broadcasting*.**

**So far, at least, these areas have apparently been too speculative to
attract large or even mid-sized investors. However, some individuals and
small corporations, with "shoestring" budgets, have expressed an
interest. Encouraging their work, with *very modest* financial
assistance, could yield enormous benefits for the public over time \--
*and* could also help to "grow" some new entrepreneurs, which is one of
the stated goals of the PSPI.**

**Two starting points for further dialogue on "spectrum expansion R,D&D
projects" can be identified. Neither one has asked Amherst to mention
his name \-- or is even aware that we are doing so.**

**For more information on *infrared broadcasting* and/or *millimeter
broadcasting,* NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT of Virginia, one of the commenting
parties in this Docket and also the holder of 3 patents, should be
contacted. He is reachable at
[*nleggett@earthlink.net*](mailto:nleggett@earthlink.net)**

**For more information on *longwave AM broadcasting,* WILLIAM C. WALKER
of WILW RADIO, a Webcaster in Kansas, should be contacted. William also
operates KWAQ-AM, a Part 15 AM station, and is a self-educated expert on
AM signal ground conductivity. He is reachable at <wilw@wilw.com>**

**-8-**

**(F) *Question 24:* Some spectrum expansion can also be achieved
*indirectly,* by reversing *the* *effective* *contraction of spectrum*
due to In Band On Channel (IBOC) Digital Radio.**

**On October 11, 2002, IBOC Digital Radio was authorized, on an
"interim" basis, in FCC Docket 99-325. Since IBOC Digital Radio requires
50% more bandwidth than Analog Radio, the approval of IBOC Digital Radio
by the FCC will ultimately have the effect of *shrinking the usable
radio spectrum by one third.***

**THE AMHERST ALLIANCE is not convinced that Digital Radio is needed by,
and/or sought by, American radio listeners. Nevertheless, if a shift to
Digital Radio is inevitable, there are other Digital Radio technologies
which do not have the same impact on radio spectrum availability. IBOC
alternatives are EUREKA-147, the newly developed DIGITAL RADIO MONDIALE
and \-- according to some claims \-- the even newer COMPATIBLE AM
DIGITAL (CAM-D) technology, which KAHN COMMUNICATIONS of New York has
developed for the AM Band.**

**Amherst and 41 other parties have signed an October 25, 2002 Petition
For Reconsideration in FCC Docket 99-325. Despite numerous supplemental
filings by these Petitioners \-- as well as other Petitions, filed by
other parties \-- the FCC has yet to grant, deny or otherwise address
any of the anti-IBOC filings. Perhaps NTIA can persuade the FCC to take
a look.**

**(G) *Questions 29 and 30:* THE AMHERST ALLIANCE commends NTIA,
enthusiastically, for initiating a study of \-\-- and expressing its
concerns to the FCC regarding \-\-- the widespread use of Broadband Over
Powerlines (BPL) technology.**

**Interference from BPL \-\-- especially with such vital links as
ground-to-air conversations, military messages and emergency information
for "first responders" \-- is considerable.**

**-9-**

**As NTIA is aware, the FCC is currently accepting Written Comments on a
proposed rule, in FCC Docket 04-37, to establish a regulatory structure
for overseeing BPL use. On 3 occasions in 2004 alone, THE AMHERST
ALLIANCE has joined with the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC) and the
NORTH AMERICAN SHORTWAVE ASSOCIATION (NASWA) to express its concerns to
both the FCC and key Congressional legislators.**

**In one such document \-- a February 29, 2004 letter on the FCC's BPL
proposed rule, sent to key Congressional legislators \-- these 3 groups
were joined by 16 additional parties. The additional parties included CQ
AMATEUR RADIO magazine (with a circulation of 50,000) and its parent
company, CQ COMMUNICATIONS.**

**The text of this letter is being placed in the public record for this
Docket through a separate filing, headed FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE.**

**Amherst urges NTIA to continue to press the FCC for additional study
and consideration of BPL interference, plus extreme caution in
encouraging it \-\-- at even the current Part 15 power levels.**

**(H) *Question 34(c):* Action to prevent BPL interference is also
clearly relevant to the question of protecting the emergency
communications capabilities of "first responders". This is one of
several compelling reasons to "fight the good fight" on BPL.**

**(I) *Question 34(c):* The emergency communications capabilities of
"first responders" can also be protected, and even even *expanded,* by
ending the total bans which Homeowners' Associations (HOAs) impose on
Amateur Radio antennas.**

**-10-**

**Time and time again, in natural and man-made disasters alike, Amateur
Radio Service operators have proven their value in communicating
emergency information to "first responders" \--or even acting as "first
responders" themselves.**

**However, an Amateur Radio operator who cannot erect his or her antenna
is in no position to help anyone. Across America, in *growing* numbers,
neighborhoods have *made themselves more vulnerable to disasters and/or
other emergencies* by "handicapping their hams".**

**For the sake of public safety, *and* national security, these
short-sighted, self-destructive HOA antenna bans must end.**

**With this goal in mind, THE AMHERST ALLIANCE urges NTIA, and indeed
the Bush Administration as a whole, to endorse \-\-- and actively
advocate \-- H.R. 1478, the Amateur Radio Emergency Communications
Consistency Act. Introduced by Representative Steven Israel (D-NY), with
a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors, H.R. 1478 would temper the excesses
of HOAs in the area of antenna regulation.**

**Under H.R. 1478, Amateur Radio Service operators would *not* be given
"a blank check" to erect antennas of any type and/or**

**height, in any location on their property. Still, the FCC would be
authorized and directed to require HOAs to provide "reasonable
accommodation" of Amateur Radio Service antennas \-- permitting them to
be erected, subject to *reasonable* conditions.**

**THE AMHERST ALLIANCE has submitted Written Testimony on this subject
for June 2003 Congressional Hearings on "Emergency Communications Needs
Of First Responders". We strongly endorsed H.R. 1478 \-- but we also
urged its expansion to protect shortwave listeners and the CB- using
Members of REACT, a group of emergency communications volunteers.**

**-11-**

**The text of this Written Testimony is being placed in the public
record of this Docket through a separate filing, headed SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS OF THE AMHERST ALLIANCE.**

***CONCLUSIONS***

**For the reasons set forth herein, THE AMHERST ALLIANCE**

**urges NTIA to:**

1.  **Urge the President to leave alone the current allocation**

**of jurisdiction between NTIA and the FCC**

2.  **If the President insists on pursuing change in the**

**current allocation of jurisdiction between NTIA and the FCC, urge him
pursue such change *solely* by proposing new legislation to Congress \--
and *not* attempt to do it, in whole or in part, by Executive Order**

**3. Revive the original Communications Act concept of *"equitable* and
efficient" allocation of spectrum \-- and define "efficiency" to
include, among other things, access to the public airwaves by all
elements of the American public**

> **4. Advise the President *against* the imposition of new**

**spectrum user fees on *non*-*commercial* and/or *small* *commercial*
broadcasters**

5.  **Recommend new legislation to repeal mandatory**

**auctions for all *small commercial* broadcasters (Class B, Class A,
Low Power Radio)**

**-12-**

6.  **Recommend encouragement of developing and**

**commercializing "smart antennas", *provided* the equipment is made
affordable for everyday Americans**

7.  **Recommend, *and/or* initiate unilaterally within the**

**Commerce Department, "micro-grants" (for example, a maximum of
\$100,000 per year) to small inventors \-- to finance R,D&D projects on
possible "spectrum expansion" technologies (notably including infrared
broadcasting, millimeter broadcasting and/or longwave AM broadcasting)**

**8. Support revocation, or at least suspension, of the FCC's "interim"
authorization of interference-generating In Band On Channel (IBOC)
Digital Radio \-- pending a *competitive comparison,* including
comprehensive testing and evaluation, between IBOC and
lower-interference Digital Radio alternatives (EUREKA-147, DIGITAL RADIO
MONDIALE and CAM-D technology for the AM Band)**

> **9. Complete NTIA's study of BPL interference and**

**continue to advocate extreme caution in the use of BPL technology**

**10. Recommend Presidential endorsement of, and *active advocacy* of,
H.R. 1478, introduced by Representative Steven Israel (D-NY) \-\-- which
would override, in part, Homeowners' Association bans on the use of
Amateur Radio antennas (needed for emergency communications to "first
responders")**

**-13-**

**Respectfully submitted,**

**Melissa S. Lear**

**Special Assistant to the President**

**THE AMHERST ALLIANCE**

**9 Nolan Road**

**South Glens Falls, New York 12803**

[**webweaver@mail15.com**](mailto:webweaver@mail15.com)

**Dated: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**March 18, 2004**

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

*"Voices For Choices"*

<pioneerpath@hotmail.com>

45 Bracewood Road

Waterbury, Connecticut 06706

\(203\) 757-1790 or (203) 756-7310

June 11, 2003

President George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

**RE: "Spectrum Policy Initiative" \-- Per June 5, 2003 Presidential
Memorandum**

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Don Schellhardt. I am the attorney for THE AMHERST ALLIANCE:
a Net-based, nationwide advocacy group which campaigns for greater
diversity in media ownership and programming. Our Membership includes
current and aspiring Low Power FM Radio broadcasters ... aspiring Low
Power AM Radio broadcasters ... Amateur Radio "hams" ... small
Webcasters ... and old-fashioned "concerned citizens", fighting to
preserve and enhance the free flow of information and ideas in America.

Our group, THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, has some serious concerns regarding
your "Spectrum Policy Initiative", as announced in your Presidential
Memorandum of June 5, 2003. The Memorandum, and a related "Fact Sheet On
Spectrum Management", can be found on the Net at:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030605-4.html>

The Spectrum Policy Initiative is the latest, and potentially the
largest, step in a series of actions intended to re-allocate broadcast
spectrum from established, licensed users to new, unlicensed commercial
users. Other recent actions have included opening of the U.S. military's
"L Band" to wireless services, evidently *without* considering the
option of using some of it for Eureka-147 Digital Radio ... introduction
of legislation, such as H.R. 363 and H.R. 1396, which would *require*
the re-allocation of *still more* spectrum to wireless services ... and
current FCC proceedings, in FCC Docket 03-104, on possible approval of
interference-generating Broadband Over Powerlines (BPL).

Beyond this general concern, our specific concerns with your Initiative
include 4 items.

*1. The lack of a role for the Federal Communications Commission.* Your
Initiative is led by the Commerce Department, *not* by the FCC. The FCC
is not even represented on the inter-agency Federal Government Spectrum
Task Force, as discussed in Section 3 of your Memorandum. There is only
a statement, in Section 4, that the FCC "is encouraged to participate"
in Workshops, held by the same Task Force to which it does not belong.

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page TWO

Much more than simply inter-governmental etiquette is affected by your
decision *not* to provide an integral role for the FCC.

(a) *Additional dilution of the "public interest" standard for spectrum
    allocation.*

> For one thing, the FCC, despite some unfortunate statutory "reforms"
> of its

original mandate, *still* has a legally binding obligation, under what
is left of

the Communications Act of 1934, to consider "the public interest" \-- in

certain fairly specific ways \-- when deciding how broadcast frequencies

should be assigned. The Commerce Department, and the other agencies

represented on the Federal Government Spectrum Task Force, have no

comparable mandate. Thus, one presumably intentional effect of your

Initiative is to move frequency allocation decisions *even farther away*
from

a "public interest" justification than the "new" FCC has already
allowed.

(b) *A shift from* independent agency *decision-making to direct
    Presidential*

> *control of the decision-making process.* As you might have noticed,
> the
>
> FCC is not under your direct control. As with the courts, "you get one
> bite
>
> at the apple" \-- by appointing the people you wish to those positions
> which
>
> are open during your term as President. Unlike the Secretary of
> Commerce, those individuals who serve on the Commission, whether they
> are appointed
>
> by you or by another President, *do not* serve at your pleasure. Once
> they are
>
> in place, they are in place for the rest of their terms, whether you
> like what
>
> they do or not. We can understand how this might sometimes be
> frustrating
>
> for you, but Congress made the FCC an *independent* agency for a
> reason \-- so that it could make *independent* judgments. By cutting
> the FCC out of your Spectrum Policy Initiative, you are also
> functionally evading the intent of the United States Congress that
> decisions on communications regulation should
>
> not be placed, directly or indirectly, into the hands of the President
> alone.

(c) *A shift from bi-partisan decision-making to one-party
    decision-making.* There is

> only one President of the United States, who traditionally represents
> only one
>
> political party, and all of the Cabinet Secretaries report to him or
> her. By statute,
>
> there are 5 FCC Commissioners, and only 3 of the 5 are allowed to come
> from the same political party. This requirement assures that all FCC
> decisions will be made by representatives of *at least* two political
> parties, and possibly more.
>
> By bypassing the FCC, your Initiative bypasses bi-partisanship.

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page THREE

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE is aware, of course, that the Spectrum Policy
Initiative has been endorsed by FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Even an FCC
Chairman, however, is not empowered to surrender the obligations borne
by his Commission under the law of the land.

The FCC has been charged by statutory law to apply a "public interest"
standard to regulation of *the public's* airwaves, including the
allocation of frequencies which remain

legally owned by *the public,* and to do so as the *primary* arbiter of
communications regulations rather than a cheerleader for other
governmental entities*.* The FCC has also been charged by statutory law
to perform this duty as an *independent* agency, which is *not* under
the direct control of the President, and has been further charged by
statutory law to shape communications regulation through majority votes
of a *bi-partisan* (or even multi-partisan) Commission. These statutory
directives should not be, and cannot be, given away by an FCC Chairman
\-- or taken away by a President of the United States.

*2. Lack of a clear role for everyday Americans in public Hearings
and/or Workshops of the Federal Government Spectrum Task Force.* Section
4 of your June 5 Presidential Memorandum indicates that a series of
public Workshops will be held by the new Federal Government Spectrum
Task Force. Participants, according to your Memorandum, will include
"spectrum users, wireless equipment vendors, financial and industry
analysts, economists, technologists, and consumer groups". While all of
these groups *should* be included, the absence of members of the general
public is conspicuous. Everyday Americans \-- and also the grassroots,
Outside The Beltway advocacy groups, such as Amherst, which speak for
them \-- should be included in the Workshops as well, not just as
members of the audience but as speakers and witnesses in their own
right. To facilitate this inclusion, Washington Workshops should be
supplemented by Field Hearings out-of-town, "where the people are" ...
grassroots activists, both individuals and groups, should be routinely
included on the Workshop panels ... and time should be set aside, at
each Workshop, to *guarantee* an opportunity for every interested
citizen in the audience to testify, briefly, On The Record. If time
constraints preclude this, then interested citizens should be able to
*reserve* 3 to 5 minutes of *guaranteed* speaking time by signing up to
testify in advance of the Workshop, on a "first come, first served"
basis.

*3. Possible* further *reductions of institutional accountability.*
Section 2(b) of your June 5 Presidential Memorandum states that one of
its goals is "a higher degree of predictability and stability in the
management process as it applies to incumbent users". We hope this
language is not an oblique reference to longer periods between renewals
for FCC-issued licenses. Longer terms would make licensees feel even
*less* accountable to the public for how they use those licenses, at a
time when *more* accountability is needed.

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page FOUR

*4. Possible new "spectrum user fees" for non-commercial broadcasters.*
Although the topic is not mentioned in your Presidential Memorandum
itself, the final paragraph of the related "Fact Sheet On Spectrum
Management" states that your Administration is On The Record in support
of Congressional legislation "providing the FCC with new authority to
set user fees on unauctioned spectrum licenses".

We respectfully urge you to reconsider your support for this concept.

The reference to *"unauctioned* spectrum *licenses"* appears to mean
that:

(1) You are talking about *non-commercial* radio and TV stations (since
    all commercial broadcast licenses are presently awarded by auction);

> And

(2) You are *not* talking about most wireless services (since they are
    typically

> allowed to commence operations without the need for an FCC license).

This, in turn, raises 2 questions:

(1) Why should non-commercial entities, which serve the public, and earn

> no profit, be treated so similarly to the profit-making broadcasters
> who
>
> are required to place a bid for their commercial radio and TV
> licenses?
>
> And

(2) Why should the unlicensed wireless services "get a free ride" for
    *their*

> use of the electromagnetic spectrum to make a profit?

Those of us who belong to THE AMHERST ALLIANCE are philosophically
opposed to *any* mandatory auctions for *any* radio and TV stations. We
favor returning to the earlier policy of awarding *all* radio and TV
licenses on the basis of which applicants can

best serve "the public interest" \-- rather than on the basis of which
applicants can come up with the most money to make the highest bid. As
the "real world" results of mandatory auctions have demonstrated
clearly, over each of the last several years, mandatory auctions
inherently favor Big Business Broadcasting, with its deep pockets, over
Small Business Broadcasting, with its shallower pockets.

Short of supporting total repeal of the statutory directive for
mandatory auctions, we urge your Administration, and Congress, to
support at least a statutory exemption from mandatory auctions for
small, independently operated commercial radio and TV stations.

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page FIVE

We *also* urge your Administration, and Congress, to refrain from making
the current situation even worse \-- by instituting the kind of "user
fees", for non-commercial radio and TV stations, that you have
apparently supported to date. If this is farther than you are willing to
go, then we ask you to support at least an exemption from "user fees"
for small, independently operated non-commercial radio and TV stations
(including college radio stations, Low Power FM stations, future Low
Power AM stations, non-commercial radio and TV stations managed by local
community groups and other relatively modest, independently operated
radio and TV stations).

We also take this opportunity to remind you that, in the world of
*non-commercial* radio and TV, the equivalent of Big Business
Broadcasting is Big Government Broadcasting. If \-- as seems almost
certain \-- spectrum user fees further enhance the competitive
advantages of large non-profit broadcasters over smaller non-profit
broadcasters, the biggest beneficiaries are likely to be National Public
Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Think about it. Does
your Administration *really* want to silence even more homegrown voices
in public radio, and replace them with added outposts for the NPR and
CPB "party line", as it is beamed out of Washington?

In any event ...

For the reasons we have stated, Mr. President, we urge you to modify
your Spectrum Policy Initiative, and the underlying written documents
which will guide it, in order to alleviate the concerns we have
expressed in this letter. We further urge Congressional leaders and
legislators to maintain careful Congressional oversight of your Spectrum
Policy Initiative, with a sustained readiness to step in quickly if the
basic framework of the Communications Act of 1934 is being evaded or
violated.

Sincerely,

Don Schellhardt

Attorney For THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page SIX

CC: Michael Powell

Chairman, FCC

Kathleen Abernathy

Commissioner, FCC

Jonathan Adelstein

Commissioner, FCC

Michael Copps

Commissioner, FCC

Kevin Martin

Commissioner, FCC

Senator Ted Stevens, R-AK

President Pro Tempore of the Senate

*And* Sponsor, S. 10406

Senator John McCain, R-AZ

Chairman, Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee

Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC

Ranking Minority Member, Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee

*And* Ranking Minority Member, Communications Subcommittee

*And* Sponsor, S. 10406

Senator Conrad Burns, R-MT

Chairman, Communications Subcommittee

*And* Co-Sponsor, S. 10406

Senator Byron Dorgan, D-ND

Co-Sponsor, S. 1046

*And* Prospective Sponsor Of More Comprehensive Media Reform Legislation

Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID

Sponsor, S. 537

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page SEVEN

Representative W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, R-LA

Chairman, House Energy & Commerce Committee

Representative John Dingell, D-MI

Ranking Minority Member, House Energy & Commerce Committee

*And* Co-Sponsor, H.R. 2052

Representative Fred Upton, R-MI

Chairman, Internet & Communications Subcommittee

Representative Cliff Stearns, R-FL

Vice-Chairman, Internet & Telecommunications Subcommittee

Representative Edward Markey, D-MA

Ranking Minority Member, Internet & Communications Subcommittee

*And* Co-Sponsor, H.R. 2052

Representative Richard Burr, R-NC

Sponsor, H.R. 2052

Representative Maurice Hinchey, D-NY

Co-Sponsor, H.R. 2052

*And* Prospective Sponsor Of More Comprehensive Media Reform Legislation

Representative Bernard Sanders, I-VT

Co-Sponsor, H.R. 2052

*And* Prospective Sponsor Of More Comprehensive Media Reform Legislation

Representative Michael Bilirakis, R-FL

Sponsor, H.R. 713

Representative Steven Israel, D-NY

Sponsor, H.R. 1478

Representative John Conyers, D-MI

Sponsor, H.R. 2212

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE

Letter On "Spectrum Policy Initiative"

June 11, 2003

Page EIGHT

Professor Robert McChesney, Communications Department, University of
Illinois at Champaign-Urbana

Professor Sut Jhally, Department of Communication, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst

John Anderson, Communications Department, University of Wisconsin at
Madison

Ted M. Coopman, Communications Department, University of Washington

Nina B. Huntemann, Department of Communication, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst

Paul Riismandel, Communications Department, University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana

James Haynie, President, American Radio Relay League (ARRL)

Clark Thompson, President, Radio Emergency Associated Communications
Teams (REACT)

Chris Cox, Executive Director, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION-INSTITUTE FOR
LEGISLATIVE ACTION (NRA-ILA)

June 10, 2003

***For information, contact:* DON SCHELLHARDT, Attorney for Amherst**

<pioneerpath@hotmail.com> ... (203) 756-7310

**THE AMHERST ALLIANCE ...**

***"Voices for Choices"***

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE is a Net-based, nationwide citizens' advocacy
group, founded in Amherst, Massachusetts in1998. We advocate media
ownership diversity.

**Amherst's Role In Establishing LOW POWER FM RADIO**

*Don Schellhardt,* Co-Founder of THE AMHERST ALLIANCE and its first
National Coordinator, was a Co-Petitioner in a 1997 Petition For
Rulemaking which triggered the first FCC deliberations on Low Power
Radio. That Petition, with Nickolaus and Judith Leggett as
Co-Petitioners, led the FCC to solicit public input in Docket RM-9208.

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE was founded to mobilize and channel public support
for Low Power FM and AM Radio. Once the FCC issued its own official
proposal for Low Power FM, in Docket 99-25, Amherst was a key "player"
in the proceedings.

After the FCC established a Low Power Radio Service in 2000, Amherst
helped to defend the new Service against a Congressional counterattack
by large, established broadcasters. Amherst lobbied, and testified,
against proposed restrictive legislation. Although an anti-LPFM law was
enacted, without Hearings or a floor vote in the Senate, during a "lame
duck" Session of Congress, Amherst won a partial victory when the House
voted to allow LPFM stations in most rural areas and small to mid-sized
cities.

**Other AMHERST ALLIANCE Initiatives**

The Amherst agenda has grown over time. Initiatives since 2000 have
included:

-   Petition For Rulemaking on spectrum allocation (FCC PRM02ET & 95-31)

-   Petition for *comparisons* of Digital Radio systems (FCC PRM02MB &
    99-325)

-   Request for Environmental Assessment of IBOC Digital Radio (FCC
    99-325)

-   Petition For Reconsideration of approval of IBOC Digital Radio (FCC
    99-325)

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE has also supported:

-   *Tighter "caps" on media ownership* (FCC Docket 02-277 and related
    Dockets)

-   *Phased replacement of satellite broadcasts* with local stations
    (FCC RM-10609)

-   *Fair Internet royalties* for small Webcasters (Copyright Office &
    Congress)