From: hhallika@nike.calpoly.edu (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Low Power Broadcaster vs. FCC
Originator: wdp@gagme
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.065112.6551@gagme.chi.il.us> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>Actually, I'd kind of like to see the man win.  There is definitely a need
>for more low power community broadcasters in this country; since the 10W
>Class D license has not been issued there has definitely been a decline in
>the amount of local programming available.  The class D license was quite
>inexpensive to obtain (and the proof of performance measurements were
>pretty easy since the coverage was minimal).
>

     I discussed the concept of low power community FM stations in the Insight
On Rules column in the 1 May 1988 issue of Radio World.  This issue came up as
the FCC was considering revising the rules on FM translators.  Some of my 
comments from then...
        
Introduction to Localism
        
     The Communications Act of 1934 requires the FCC to distribute the 
broadcasting frequencies among the communities on an equitable basis.  Had
this not been the case, we may have ended up with several very powerful
stations in the middle of the country, serving the whole country, and no local
broadcast stations.  What's the harm in this?  There is, of course, much
programming (including news and public affairs) that is of national interest. 
There is also programming that is only of local interest.  Originally, all
broadcast  programming was local and live (broadcasting of phonograph
recordings violated copyright licenses).  Eventually, the copyright problems
were worked out (they're still being worked out!), and national programming
made it to  broadcast stations through phonograph recordings.  Other national
programming  (generally news and sports) arrived at stations by telegraph. 
Finally, audio networks brought live national programming to the stations. 
The audio quality if the network lines generally limited the programming to
talk (news and public affairs).  Much of the "locally originated" programming
still consisted of nationally distributed recordings, so the amount of actual
"local" programming in radio has generally been quite low (at least for music
formats).  

Even though much of the programming was national, there were still "local
inserts"  to satisfy the local requirements of the audience.  In many cases,
these local inserts consisted of jokes about the main street of the town
spoken over a record intro, a few minutes an hour of news, and many minutes an
hour of local  advertising.  This is typical localism in radio.  In the larger
markets, some stations generate much more local programming.  These are
typically the "all news" or "news/talk" stations.  On these stations, some of
the programming comes from networks or wire services, making some of the
programming non-local.   

     How much local programming should a station run?  We might compare radio 
to other media, such as the local newspaper.  How much of the local newspaper 
is locally written, and how much comes in on wire services?  It is the
editor's job to determine the proper mix of local and non-local space in the
newspaper.  It is the program director's job to determine the proper mix of
local and non-local programming on a radio station.  Both base their decisions
on audience.  Both are interested in maximum circulation or ratings to make
their advertising sales more valuable.   
                
FM Translators
        
     FM translators serve two purposes.  The first purpose is to fill in an 
area that a station is predicted to cover but doesn't cover, due to terrain.  
These translators may be owned by the originating station licensee, and are
not very controversial.  The controversial translators are those that bring in
the signals of distant stations.  These stations were originally like the
original CATV systems.  In remote areas, the air was so clean that there were
no FM signals.  Community groups got together to bring in FM service (or TV
service, in the case of CATV systems).  If the area already had an FM station,
a  commercial primary station could not provide any support of the translator 
prior to it going on the air [74.1232(d)(2)].  This limitation does not apply 
to non-commercial primary stations.  This limitation prevents distant 
commercial stations from competing for audience (and perhaps advertisers). 
The  lack of enforcement of this limitation is the current "Translator Abuse" 
problem, which caused the FCC to issue the NOI and to place a freeze on FM 
translator applications.
        
Protecting The Local Station
        
     Why is the 74.1232(d)(2) limitation there?  Why can translators be a form 
of "unfair competition".  I believe the arguments in support of limitations on
translators (other than perhaps allocation limitations to prevent
"AM-ization")  exist to protect local radio from low cost competition.  
A local station is required to have an operator on duty at all times (although
there are methods of "sharing operators" among stations).  The local station
generally has to support a programming staff to generate local programming. 
Both of these are major expenses a translator station does not have.  Of
course, the cost of building and running a full power FM broadcast station is
much higher than that of running a low power translator, but apparently this
is worth the extra expense, since stations are generally trying to figure a
way of getting more power to get more coverage, instead of getting lower power
to cut costs.     
                
Operator Costs
        
     Full power stations are required to have operators while translators and 
boosters are not [74.1234].  The lack of operators on translators and booster
may appear to be due to their low power (with so little power, how can they 
cause substantial interference?), however, the Communications Act of 1934 (on 
which our current Rules are based) requires an operator at each broadcast 
transmitter unless that transmitter is merely rebroadcasting another
broadcaststation (which presumably has an operator).  The Act places no limits
on power of the unattended broadcast transmitter, which make it appear that
Congress may have been more concerned that a licensed operator be in control
of the programming than in control of the transmitter (interference
protection).  This argument may be further supported by the recent FCC action
increasing the power of FM Booster stations to 20% of the primary station
power without modifying the authorization for unattended operation contained
in 74.1234.  Are operators there for interference protection or for program
control?         
        
Local Programming Costs
        
     Local stations have substantial costs involved in the production of
localprogramming.  This local programming meets some of the needs of the local
community.  The determination as to how much locally generated news and public
affairs programming is broadcast is based upon audience response (as measured
by ratings).  In an effort to reduce overall programming costs, many stations
have started using satellite distributed programming networks.  In response to
cues from the network, local inserts (both programming and advertising) are 
inserted into the local transmitter.  This is quite similar to the techniques 
for handling local inserts on translators [74.1231(f)].  
        
        
Transmitter Interconnect Limitations
        
     FM broadcast stations are authorized to use almost any method to get the 
programming to the transmitter.  FM translators are limited to directly
picking up the primary FM station (or another FM translator) over the air. 
Use of microwave (whether terrestrial or satellite) to link programming to FM
"translators" is not permitted, although Moody Bible Institute has petitioned
the Commission to consider this for NCE stations.  It is interesting to note
that television translators are allowed to use microwave links.  The
television translator rules used to parallel the FM translator rules, but the
Commission allowed television translators to use microwave feeds, then allowed
for local origination, and finally Low Power Television was authorized.  The
Commission is looking into authorizing microwave linking of FM translators in
this Notice Of Inquiry.  NAB is concerned that this is the first step towards
Low Power FM.    
                
Low Power FM
        
     NAB President Eddie Fritts is quoted as saying "Local radio markets will 
be seriously damaged by facilities that will not contribute one iota to the 
level of issue-responsive community programming available to local listeners" 
[Broadcasting Magazine, 28 March 1988].  The Commission Chairman responded
that the FCC is not looking at establishing an LPFM service.  It would appear,
however, that a low power FM station could originate local issue responsive 
community programming, and would do so, if it were economically justified (ie,
got the ratings).  The LPFM station could handle local programming the same
way current full power stations utilizing program networks do.  On a cue from 
network, local programming would be inserted.  The amount of power a station 
runs appears to have little to do with how well it could respond to local 
programming needs.
        
Conclusions
        
     There are only a few differences between an FM translator and a standard 
FM broadcast station.  1.  The FM broadcast station is required to have an 
operator (although, if it rebroadcasting another station, the Communications 
Act does not appear to require an operator for each transmitter).  2.  The FM 
broadcast station is authorized to use the best means available to get the 
programming to the transmitter while translators must use "off air pickup", 
which results in lower quality broadcast audio..  3. FM broadcast stations
arepermitted (even encouraged) to generate local programming while translators
are only allowed to locally acknowledge or solicit support.  Maintenance of these differences may or may not benefit the public.

     Although the printed arguments against expansion of the FM translator 
service into an LPFM service tend to concentrate on public service (will the 
LPFM provide local issue responsive programming), another argument against 
establishing such a service is that it would increase the number of stations 
over what the market can support, and that the LPFM stations would have an 
unfair competitive advantage.  As the electronic media strive toward the
"print  model" of first amendment freedom, the government is less inclined to
protect existing media from competition.  The arguments in favor of giving
full first amendment rights to broadcast stations often compare the number of
broadcast stations in a community to the number of daily newspapers, showing a
lack of the scarcity that has been used to justify broadcast regulation.  Yet
some in the electronic media are asking the government to artificially limit
the competition, which would be obviously unconstitutional for print.  If the 
electronic media are interested in the print model as an ideal (not just when 
it is beneficial to the pocketbook), the FCC regulation would be merely 
interference protection.  Even this traditional government responsibility is 
now in question as the possibility of "interference negotiation" is being 
introduced.  Under a pure "interference protection" licensing system, if 
someone feels s/he can make a living by broadcasting with 2 watts, and that 2 
watts does not cause interference (using calculations for allowable field 
overlap on co-channel and adjacent channels), then perhaps that person should 
be licensed to broadcast with two watts.  The limitation on the total number
of stations in a market would be economics, just as it is for newspapers (I
canstart a newspaper today by going down the local quick printer, thus freedom
of the press need not belong only to those that own a press).  Further
evidence of the government's lack of desire to protect one technology from
another is the recent court rulings regarding CATV must carry.  The government
is not going to protect broadcast television from CATV, and is not going to
protect CATV from video tape rental stores.  An argument might be made,
however, for the government limiting the number of stations one licensee has
in one community in order to preserve competition (antitrust laws), perhaps
not allowing a licensee to add another station in an area until its entire
coverage area has at least ten signals audible.  A similar national limit
could be imposed, allowing one licensee to own ten percent of the stations as
a maximum, but allowing these ten percent of the stations to potentially reach
100% of the population (as opposed to the current television rule limiting the
total reach to 25% of the population). 

I'll look forward to your comments.


--
Harold Hallikainen              ap621@Cleveland.Freenet.edu
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     hhallika@pan.calpoly.edu
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone 805 541 0200 fax 544 6715
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI



Newsgroups: rec.radio.broadcasting