U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

62–973CC WASHINGTON : 2000

FCC’S LOW POWER FM: A REVIEW OF THE

FCC’S SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 3439

FEBRUARY 17, 2000

Serial No. 106–118

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

(

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio,

Vice Chairman

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Franca, Bruce A., Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology,

Federal Communications Commission ........................................................ 14

Fritts, Edward O., CEO, National Association of Broadcasting ................... 22

Furchtgott-Roth, Hon. Harold W., Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .......................................................................................... 52

Jackson, Charles L., CEO, Jackson Telecom Consulting .............................. 8

Klose, Kevin, President and CEO, National Public Radio ............................ 56

Koning, Dirk, Executive Director, Grand Rapids Community Media Center ................................................................................................................... 48

Maxon, David, Founder, Broadcast Signal Lab ............................................. 31

Rappaport, Theodore S., Professor, Virginia Tech ......................................... 35

Reese, Bruce T., President and CEO, Bonneville International Corporation ................................................................................................................. 34

Schellhardt, Don, National Coordinator, The Amherst Alliance .................. 41

Material submitted for the record by:

Dymoke, Wesle AnneMarie, additional material for the record ................... 108

Federal Communications Commission, response to questions of Hon. John

D. Dingell ....................................................................................................... 82

Klose, Kevin, President and CEO, National Public Radio, letter dated

March 6, 2000, to Hon. W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, enclosing material for

the record ....................................................................................................... 135

Maxwell, Christopher, Secretary/Treasurer, The Virginia Center for the

Public Press:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 90

Counter-reply testimony ........................................................................... 139

Michigan Music Is World Class Campaign, prepared statement of ............. 85

Noble, David, President, International Association of Audio Information

Services on Low Power FM Radio, prepared statement of ........................ 87

PenguinRadio, Inc., prepared statement of .................................................... 88

Salida Radio Club, prepared statement of ..................................................... 89

Schellhardt, Don, National Coordinator, The Amherst Alliance:

Letter dated February 25, 2000, enclosing material for the record ...... 94

Letter dated March 16, 2000, enclosing material for the record ........... 102

(III)

(1)

FCC’S LOW POWER FM: A REVIEW OF THE

FCC’S SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES IN ADDITION TO H.R. 3439, THE

RADIO BROADCASTING PRESERVATION ACT

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. W.J. Tauzin (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Tauzin, Oxley, Stearns,

Gillmor, Markey, Gordon, Rush, and Wynn.

Staff present: Linda Bloss-Baum, majority counsel; Cliff Riccio,

legislative clerk; and Andy Levin, minority counsel.

Mr. TAUZIN. The committee will please come to order.

Let me first apologize for the absence of my colleagues. I hope

some of them show up today. I think some will. We unexpectedly

canceled votes for today and when that happens members tend to

go home. So will have a few but not as many members as I hope.

That, of course, does not mean we aren’t going to have a good

record made today and we are going to get a chance to do some

good dialoging on this important issue.

I want to particularly thank those of you who traveled long distances to be on this panel and I deeply appreciate your attendance

to this issue.

There is no doubt that diverse voices in mass media are an essential part of communications in a free democracy such as ours.

Diversity of viewpoint is the principal champion by the First

Amendment of the Constitution and it surely enriches the cultural

life and the cultural values of our American society.

As a result, I can appreciate, at least in principle, the notion that

the FCC wishes to afford to churches, schools, civic organizations

and other similarly situated groups a greater radio presence than

they currently enjoy.

However, I and other members have questioned the Commission’s creation of the new low power FM license at this juncture as

to whether it is best and the most efficient way to achieve the

greatest level of diversity on our airwaves. Since the FCC announced its intention to create the new class of licenses for low

2

power radio stations over a year ago, we have been concerned that

the Commission is moving a bit prematurely.

Essentially, there are two reasons for these sentiments. First and

foremost, the FCC appears to have made a substantial public policy

decision without seeking the advice and consultation of the Congress. The FCC is a quasi-independent agency of the U.S. Government, by law subject to Congress. Congress makes the policy that

the FCC enforces. But with little regard for the opinion of the

members of this committee, the Commission has now passed the

final order creating these new low power radio licenses, even did

so while we were out of session.

It need only at this point begin reviewing and considering applications because there are no further procedures subject to comment

that are left to be taken. That, I think, was an improper decision

by the Commission and one that has now indeed prompted legislation filed in this session of Congress to exercise congressional authority in the area.

Second, it is clear to me—and I believe this hearing will only

make it clearer—that the FCC’s record on this matter does not support the conclusion that the newly created licenses will not interfere with other frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum.

Many have studied the policy and technical effects that the new

services would create. During the official comment period, the FCC

received dozens of comments from a variety of individuals and

groups about the merits of the new service and its potential impact

on radio broadcasting as we know it today.

As we all know, in classic FCC proceedings, it is not unusual for

the public comments to represent very different views as they do

in this case, regarding LPFM. However, what is interesting with

this issue is that the technical and engineering studies result in

contrary findings as to the level of interference that the new service would create on the FM band.

In our minds, it is not at all prudent to create new low power

licenses when we cannot be at least reasonably sure that their creation will not result in unacceptable levels of interference. As a result, I do not believe the Commission, as the manager of our Nation’s electromagnetic spectrum, has adequately served the public

interest when it proceeded to create these new licenses.

Furthermore, I fear that the Commission has disregarded the

substantial risk that interference produced by these low power licenses once operational could instantly devalue all the licenses

issued for spectrum allocation in use. Obviously, the interference

issue is one that we absolutely need to get to the bottom of.

I am happy we have with us today several of the engineers who

conducted the interference studies in question. I hope they can explain to us in layman’s terms why they have reached their ultimate

conclusions regarding the technical aspects of low power FM.

I want to remind you all that I studied engineering for a total

of 1 whole year. Keep it in layman’s terms, please.

While I am discussing witnesses, let me also conclude by saying

that the champion of this new service, Chairman Kinard, was invited to join us this morning to discuss the merits. Because he has

said many times that this issue is one of his top priorities at the

Commission, I had hoped that he would accept the invitation. I

3

even offered to postpone the hearing until noon that he might complete his public hearing today. Nonetheless, he has declined because of commitments in Florida and that concerns me.

I understand that Mr. Bruce Franca, Deputy Chief of the FCC’s

Office of Engineering and Technology, is here to speak on behalf

of the Commission to the technical issues involved and we certainly

welcome his testimony. However, I remain interested in hearing

Chairman Kinard’s explanation of why policy considerations led to

the creation of this new service before the final report on the digital transformation of radio was complete and why there is substantial disagreement on the technical aspects of interference.

He needs to address our concerns that the policies behind this

service were not promulgated based on an objective assessment of

the administrative record and that further congressional consideration is or is not needed.

Let me say a couple of final thoughts in addition. Interference is

not the only concern I have heard expressed by members of our

committee. We have had some pretty tough hearings on public

radio in hearings last year. There have been some pretty big disputes about the way public radio has conducted its business. Taxpayer dollars fund public radio.

One of the questions that is going to be before us today is does

this decision severely impact public radio. If we are going to have

hundreds of thousands new community voices in every community

in America addressing the special community needs of different aspects of our society, do we need to continue to put Federal dollars,

public money into a radio system to do the same thing. That is a

serious question. How does this decision on low power affect the

audience of public broadcasting? Will it make it less supportable

than the private sector as its audience is fractured away?

We have raised questions about minority broadcasters. I have applauded Chairman Kinard in his efforts to alert advertisers in

America about old prejudices and old stereotypes that have led

them not to invest in minority broadcasting stations where audiences indeed would like to buy their products, and the light he has

shown on that practice and the fact that minority broadcasters very

often in our country feel like they are being discriminated in the

advertising market. I have congratulated him for that good work.

My concern now is that this FM license proposal may in fact

again fracture that audience to the point where advertisers are less

likely to invest in helping to sustain minority broadcasters in our

country. I have heard similar complaints from small and independent radio broadcasters who literally are operating at margins

that are difficult to sustain.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of questions we needed

answered today. As you know, Mr. Oxley, the vice chairman of this

committee, has filed legislation on this issue that we may well take

up. What we learn today will teach us a great deal about whether

the Commission has acted precipitously, has acted without regard

to the public interest and whether the Congress needs to step in.

I look forward to hearing your testimony and the Chair now

yields to the vice chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Oxley, for an

opening statement.

4

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of our

witnesses. I especially look forward to testimony from one of our

favorites at the Commission, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, a former

staffer here who I understand will be joining us later this morning.

First, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for calling today’s

hearing. It is timely. I believe the FCC decision to establish a new

low power FM radio service raised more questions than it answered. I am pleased that we will be hearing from experts on both

sides of this issue.

Certainly the foremost question in my mind is the interference

question. The record of public comment and technical analysis suggests to me that low power FM will cause significant interference

with existing services, to the detriment of broadcasters and listeners alike. I expect that we will hear conflicting testimony on

that point this morning, so I suggest that members pay close attention to the standards used in determining what constitutes unacceptable interference.

As members know, I introduced legislation on November 17 to

prevent the FCC from implementing rules authorizing new low

power FM stations. Joining me in introducing the bill, H.R. 3439,

The Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act, were Representatives

Stearns, Cubin, Pallone and Ehrlich and since then, a total of 113

members of the House have co-sponsored H.R. 3439, including 20

members of this committee. I thank each of them for their support.

When I introduced H.R. 3439, I did so in response to grave concerns expressed to me by radio station managers in my congressional district. I had previously written to the Commission twice

with my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, to express our apprehension about low power radio and the interference

it would cause. By introducing the bill, I wanted to send the additional message that there were members who were prepared to act

legislatively if the Commission’s final rule did not adequately address the interference question.

While I will closely review this morning’s testimony, after scrutinizing the Commission’s action, my initial conclusion is that the

new rules do not offer adequate protection against harmful interference. I am disappointed the Commission chose to weaken its interference safeguards to make room for low-power FM. This decision will undoubtedly lead to increased interference with existing

stations, thereby harming loyal listeners and undercutting the

value and the investment of current licenseholders. To the Commission’s assertion that there will not be a meaningful increase in

interference, I ask, then, why did you have to weaken your standards in the first place?

I am concerned as well that the rules jeopardize the conversion

to digital radio. Unlike television broadcasters who are being given

additional free spectrum to broadcast in digital format, radio broadcasters must use their current spectrum allocations to transmit

both digital and analog signals, making adjacent channel safeguards all the more important.

I most object to the provisions making former unlicensed, pirate

radio operators eligible for low power licenses, thus reinforcing

their unlawful behavior and encouraging new unauthorized broadcasts in the future.

5

My hope, and frankly, my expectation, is that the subcommittee

will soon be marking up H.R. 3439. I have yet to hear an adequate

reason why we should not.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the ranking minority

member of the committee from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend you for holding this hearing today on low

power radio issues.

Mr. Chairman, if we were having this hearing decades and decades ago in 1915, we would have only one witness at the table. We

would have said, Mr. Marconi, could you outline how we could efficiently utilize this new service?

A few years after that, with the advent of television, we would

have had a panel where we would have said, Mr. Farnsworth, Mr.

Sarnoff, could you get together with the Marconi engineers and figure out this thing so we can launch television service?

Over time, as things got more complicated and more commercial,

it became a larger group of people in these conversations and it

took longer for them to agree for various reasons. Interference developed. The government stepped in and decided to create a neutral

agency to arbitrate disputes and efficiently allocate spectrum resources. The Federal Communications Commission has been doing

this job and doing it quite well for decades.

They have done their job so well, in fact, that the American telecommunications industry, including the vibrant broadcast, television, radio, cellular, PCS, microwave, satellite service and other

spectrum-based services are the envy of the world.

We are not content with the progress we have made thus far,

however. We want more choices. That is the American way. Low

power radio could meet an important need for low broadcasting, especially in light of the rapid, and in my view, unhealthy, consolidation of radio stations in individual markets after the passage of the

Telecommunications Act.

Clearly issues of interference need to be fully explored and

worked out as was done in creating low power TV. I want to applaud the Commission for exploring this worthwhile proposal and

moving forward on it. The Commission is always at its best when

it takes the public’s airways resources and works to make more efficient use of that spectrum for the public.

There are certainly legitimate concerns about interference. At

one level, that will evolve into a shouting match between engineers.

Non-engineers cannot assist in resolving that debate. Yet, we can

create a climate for reconciliation because in the final analysis, the

effort underway is to supplement what already exists, not supplant

or interfere in any harmful way with existing services.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to a discussion on relative DBU levels this morning and whatever illumination our subcommittee can gain in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman from Chicago is recognized for an

opening statement, Mr. Rush.

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

6

I would first like to applaud the FCC, principally Chairman

Kinard, for his creation of thousands of new stations that will ensure a diversity of voices on the airwaves. Such diversity is very

much needed in our communities. These new low power FM stations will allow churches, universities, local schools, community

health organizations access to a medium that has been inaccessible

because of the tremendous cost.

I understand that many existing FM broadcast stations are concerned that these new low power FM radio stations will cause interference with their signals and am sympathetic to these concerns,

but I remain firmly committed to providing those without significant financial resources access to the airwaves.

I look forward to his hearing today and to the testimony on this

particular issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend.

The Chair is now pleased to welcome our panel.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to

submit for the record a statement by Mr. Bonior in support of low

power radio and ask that the record remain open for the customary

period for members to submit statements and other material relevant to this issue.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, the gentleman’s consent is granted.

[The prepared statement of Hon. David E. Bonior follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID E. BONIOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I applaud the Federal Communications Commission for creating a new class of licenses for low power FM radio stations. These non-commercial licenses will provide

tremendous opportunities for educational institutions, local governments, churches,

community groups and emerging artists—without interfering with existing commercial stations.

I think it’s important for the Subcommittee to know just how wide-spread and

broad the support is for low power community radio. It is people like Kevin

McGaughey in Brookland, Arkansas who would like to give children in Brookland’s

local public schools the opportunity to learn the ins and outs of broadcasting. It is

people like Lynn Breidenbach in Lakeland, Florida whose community has no voice

on either Tampa/St. Petersburg or Orlando radio. It is people like Amanda Huron

in Washington, D.C. whose community group is trying to empower African-American

and Latino-American youth by teaching them how to be radio disc jockeys rather

than just hanging out in the streets. These are the advocates for community radio— and they are mobilized throughout our country.

The FCC’s decision to grant low power community radio licenses also has the support of organizations ranging from the AFL-CIO, to the U.S. Catholic Conference,

to the NAACP, to the National Council on La Raza to the U.S.P.I.R.G. In my home

state, the Michigan Music is World Class Campaign has secured resolutions of support from at least 45 communities. Further, musicians like Bonnie Raitt and the Indigo Girls, as well as the Louisiana Music Commission have thrown their support

behind low power community radio. For those whose voices are not heard on today’s

cookie-cutter format radio, low power community stations are deeply wanted and

much needed. The activism surrounding this issue is inspiring, and the Subcommittee would be well advised to take this groundswell of support into account.

One of the fundamental tenets of our democracy is to ensure that diverse interests

have opportunities to express themselves at different levels, and that they are not

locked out in a monopolistic fashion by large media conglomerates. It is as fundamental as free speech.

The FCC, and its Chairman William Kennard, should be commended for doing

their job—protecting the public interest while at the same time giving serious consideration to the interference concerns of existing broadcasters. Providing non-profit,

educational or community-based radio stations to broadcast information about local

7

events, provide open forums for issues of the day and improve access to our airwaves—without interfering with current FM radio stations—is the legitimate role

of the FCC as stewards of our airwaves. I support their efforts to make the vision

of community radio a reality.

Mr. TAUZIN. All members’ written statements, without objection,

are permitted into the record as well as all written statements of

our witnesses. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for holding this hearing on ‘‘Low Power FM: A Review

of the FCC’s Spectrum Management Responsibilities.’’ I would also like to thank our

witnesses for appearing before this committee and I look forward to their testimony.

Mr. Chairman, for a brief moment, I thought I had deja vu. It seemed so real,

you, I, and other members of this committee criticizing a government agency for exercising poor judgment and for rushing to pursue its own agenda. But then I realized this hearing is focusing on the Federal Communications Commission and lower

power FM, and rather than being a dream, it’s an all-too-real routine of what this

committee is forced to do on a regular basis. And then I remembered I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act, for this very reason.

May I suggest to the Chairman that the Commerce Committee form a new subcommittee named ‘‘What the FCC Shouldn’t Be Doing.’’ And then that committee

could hold hearings on low power FM, merger review, and attacking religious broadcasters. Of course, we would be hard pressed to get anyone who would want to chair

that subcommittee.

When the FCC began it’s journey into bastardizing spectrum integrity by adopting

a Notice of Proposed Rule Making designed to establish low power FM service,

many voiced concerns about the potential interference larger commercial and public

stations would face from this service. Surely, the FCC would not undertake and implement a service when such an important point as interference was not conclusively resolved. Well, if you still believe that once you’ve read the January 20, 2000

FCC order authorizing low power FM’s, then I have a low power FM station and

the bridge its on to sell you in Brooklyn.

Five technical studies analyzing the interference issue caused by low power FM

stations have produced conflicting conclusions regarding interference on the 3rd adjacent channel. And the FCC believes that 3rd adjacent channel restrictions on low

power FM stations are not needed because ‘‘interference would be very small and

would be outweighed by the benefits of the new service.’’ So the additional security

and protection of a 3rd adjacent channel restriction is not necessary. Sure it would

be nice, but it’s not necessary. Now I don’t know how many of you have gone skydiving without a spare or back-up parachute... sure a back-up chute is not necessary to jump out of a plane, but it sure would be a nice thing to have when you

are in need of one. And the 3rd channel protection is akin to a back-up chute for

full power broadcasters. Sure it’s not necessary, but it sure would be a nice thing

to have when you are in need of one. Instead broadcasters who have invested millions of dollars into stations with the assumption the FCC would ensure the integrity of their spectrum, now have to worry about interference from a project the FCC

has no idea whether will work properly or not.

Why the rush to fully implement this service when many questions still remain

unanswered? I am curious as to why the FCC did not select a handful of low power

FM stations to experiment with this service, rather paving a road for stations to

begin broadcasting in the real world when the interference question has not yet

been answered. Had they done so, many of the questions we are asking today would

have already been answered.

Mr. Chairman I thank you for holding this hearing and will conclude by stressing

that the need for substantive reform of the FCC becomes clearer by the day. Thank

you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BLILEY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

I want to commend the Subcommittee Chairman for convening this hearing today

to explore the FCC’s new Low Power FM Radio Service. I must admit, that I was

disappointed at the Commission’s decision to release its Order on the new class of

8

broadcast licenses while most of us were back home with our constituents over the

January recess.

It is obvious by reading the testimony of today’s witnesses that this issue is a controversial one that warrants Congressional consideration. I am pleased that this

Committee can at least have the opportunity today, that we did not have last

month, to delve into both the policy and technical issues surrounding this newly

proposed service.

I think that we can all agree that, thanks to new technologies and opportunities,

some radio stations have begun to consolidate into commercial groups. The question

is—whether these new arrangements help or hinder highly localized broadcasting

in small communities and neighborhoods.

In theory, I am open to new opportunities for small, local broadcasters. That said,

I do strongly believe that we must preserve the signals of existing licensees who

have justly earned the right to broadcast at a particular signal strength on a particular dial position.

I have traditionally been concerned about signal congestion on our airwaves, particularly in large metropolitan areas. The addition of hundreds of new low power

FM stations could potentially disrupt and cause interference to existing broadcasters.

Several engineering studies have been conducted to test the level of interference

caused by these potential new stations. However, those studies have produced vastly

different results. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the technical experts

before the Committee today, to get to the bottom of what these different conclusions

mean.

Finally, I am interested in learning more about today’s alternatives, and even

ideas that are on the horizon that achieve the same end as the proposed low power

service. New technologies, such as Internet radio, reach targeted audiences. I hope

that today’s witnesses will address innovative ideas, not just more regulation.

In conclusion, I hope that this hearing sheds light on the controversies related to

Low Power FM.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me now introduce the panel. The Deputy Chief

of the Office of Engineering, Mr. Bruce Franca, is here. We want

to thank you for coming, sir. Mr. Eddie Fritts, CEO, National Association of Broadcasting, is here. David Maxon, Founder, Broadcast

Signal Lab on behalf of The Lawyers Guild, is here. Mr. Bruce

Reese, President and CEO, Bonneville International Corporation,

Salt Lake City, is here. Mr. Theodore Rappaport, Professor, Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, whom a lot of people didn’t

know existed until this year, is here. My son is a senior at Virginia

Tech. Mr. Charles Jackson, CEO, Jackson Telecom Consulting is

here. Mr. Don Schellhardt, National Coordinator, The Amherst Alliance, is here. Mr Dirk Koning, Executive Director, Grand Rapids

Community Media Center, is here. Mr. Kevin Klose, President and

CEO, National Public Radio, is here. The Honorable Harold

Furchtgott-Rott will be with us later. There is a public hearing, as

you know, going on and he is committed to come to this hearing

as soon as he completes that public hearing at the FCC this morning.

In order to facilitate a demonstration this morning, the Chair

will first recognize Mr. Charles Jackson, CEO, Jackson Telecom

Consulting, who I believe will present to us a demonstration that

will sort of frame this discussion.

Mr. Jackson?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. JACKSON, CEO, JACKSON

TELECOM CONSULTING

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I

am Chuck Jackson. I am testifying today on behalf of the NAB. I

am an engineer with more than 30 years experience in the elecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
9

tronics and communications industry. Today, I will describe a significant flaw in the engineering that the FCC relied upon for the

LPFM proceeding.

Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement you said that engineers should be able to get together and agree on these interference issues. I completely agree. We are not talking about something that was invented recently; FM has been around for 50 years,

the technologies of measuring it are well known, and there should

not be disagreement among the engineering studies on interference.

Together with Professor Raymond Picholtz of George Washington

University, I reviewed four studies of FM receivers that were part

of the LPFM proceeding of the FCC. Our key conclusion was that

the studies differed in how they defined harmful interference.

The NAB defined a harmful interference signal as one that irritates listeners and their definition matched a widely accepted

international standard. The FCC’s studies’ definition of harmful interference went well beyond irritating to what most would consider

unlistenable.

Worse yet, the FCC measured interference but reported the results as if it had measured harmonic distortion, which is an entirely different impairment. The FCC then claimed that consumers

would not find this distortion objectionable. They are correct. Such

distortion is not objectionable. However, interference generates

noise and cross-talk not distortion.

Noise and cross-talk are far more objectionable to listeners than

distortion. There is no support in the record or anywhere else supporting the FCC’s use of distortion as the measure of the effects of

interference. In fact, the FCC’s claims about the harmful effects of

interference approach junk science.

Here are some audio clips that let you hear the types of interference we expect listeners will experience from LPFM stations. We

will see if this works, we already had an equipment failure this

morning.

This is an unimpaired example recorded off the air with a good

quality radio from WAMU, a public station in the Washington, DC

area run by American University.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. JACKSON. Now here is that same example but with crosstalk. Remember, that is a fancy word for interference, at a level the

FCC regards as acceptable if a consumer hears it over a Sony

Walkman.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. JACKSON. Here is a different format station, classical station

WGMS, the No. 1 classical station in the market, and here is an

unimpaired segment that was recorded off the air. This is a quiet

segment, not a real loud one.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. JACKSON. Here is WGMS with cross-talk, the effects of interference at levels acceptable under the FCC testing regime.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. JACKSON. Here is an unimpaired example from WHUR, an

urban format station that is the No. 1 station in the DC market.

[Playing of sample.]

10

1The FCC stated, ‘‘The OET and NLG studies generally conclude that FM receivers provide

for adequate rejection of interference on 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channels.’’, LPFM Order at paragraph 100. The OET test report makes it clear that the criterion for adequacy is performance

with less than 3% added distortion. 2The MS Word version of this document has embedded audio objects that contain the various

demonstrations. Obviously, the printed copy cannot contain these audio objects and the MS

Word file with the objects is too large for some email systems. If you wish a copy of the Word

document with the embedded audio, it should be available at www.jacksons.net/HSC until at

least March 1, 2001. 3The FCC Order and the OET report consistently refer to distortion. The Audio Precision System One manuals refer to THD+N. See, for example, System One Description/Installation/

APWIN Version 22 Guide, p. 2-6.

Mr. JACKSON. Here is WhUR with cross-talk.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. JACKSON. The FCC says that listening to this level of impairment on a Sony Walkman would be acceptable to consumers. I believe they are dead wrong.

Mr. Chairman, the FCC based its LPFM decision on misleading

science. In so doing, they overrode decades of history devoted to

protecting consumers from interference on the FM band.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Charles Jackson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES JACKSON, CEO, JACKSON TELECOM CONSULTING,

ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Charles Jackson. I testify here

today on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). I am an engineer

with an independent consulting practice. I have experience at the FCC and have

worked for more than 30 years in the electronics and communications industry—

including 4 years on the staff of this subcommittee’s predecessor. I earned my PhD

in electrical engineering at MIT.

My message is short. The FCC, as part of its Low-Power FM (LPFM) rulemaking,

tested the ability of consumer receivers to withstand interfering signals on adjacent

radio channels. Those tests were not reported properly. The FCC used an incorrect

criterion for measuring the effects of interference and thereby provided misleading

information in their order regarding the interference potential of LPFM stations.

The fundamental problem is that the FCC measured interference but reported the

results as if it had measured harmonic distortion. Such distortion is much harder

to hear than is noise or cross-talk.

Overview

Below I establish the error in the FCC’s criterion through references to the engineering literature, FM receiver specifications, and materials from the manufacturer

of the test equipment used by the FCC. First, I describe the two measurement criteria at issue: harmonic distortion and cross-talk. Second, I play audio signals that

meet the FCC’s definition of ‘‘adequate’’ quality for consumers.1 After hearing these

you can decide for yourself whether or not the FCC is correct in its judgment of

what is adequate.2

Measuring Audio Impairments-Distortion versus Noise and Cross-talk

One technical complexity intrudes. The FCC measured performance of FM receivers using a criterion called distortion or total harmonic distortion plus noise

(THD+N).3 In contrast, the NAB recommended using a measure called signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) as the measure of FM receiver performance. The process of measuring these two quantities is quite similar, although the units that are used normally differ. However, THD is normally used to measure a quantity called harmonic

distortion or nonlinearity. It is well known that listeners find it hard to notice harmonic distortion at levels as high as 2 or 3%. In contrast, many people can hear

noise or cross-talk when it is at the level that would measure as 1% distortion (if

one were improperly measuring noise or cross-talk as distortion).

I have attached an appendix to this testimony that goes into more detail on the

differences between measuring SNR and THD and how the choice of measurement

units can be misleading.

11

4Deutche Grammophon, 415 254-2, recorded live.

5That is, the harmonic distortion is reduced in volume to 31 dB below the original signal and

added back in. Because the distortion does not decline as the amplitude of the signal falls, this

process results in more distortion than would occur in a typical amplifier with 3% measured

distortion. 6 Here the 3% less a little bit level is set to 31 dB below a full-scale sine wave as would be

the case when measuring FM receivers with a single tone as the desired signal. That is, the

cross-talk is set at the level that would measure just below 3% in the FCC’s test of FM receiv- ers. 7These examples, and more, together with an explanation of the test set-up and parameters

are available at www.nab.org. 8This study was performed on behalf of the NAB. It is available from my website at

www.jacksons.net. 9Taken from http://www.sel.sony.com/SEI,/consumer/ss5/home/homeaudio/receivers/strde835

specs.shtml on February 13, 2000.

Examples

Let me now give you a chance to listen to the difference between cross-talk and

harmonic distortion. I will play an audio selection with no added distortion. I will

then allow you to compare the effects of adding harmonic distortion and the effects

of adding cross-talk.

Here is a brief audio sample—one familiar to many—taken from Bernstein’s West

Side Story.4 This selection is taken from track 11 on the CD. That track has a wide

dynamic range—running up to within 1 dB of full scale but also containing some

quiet passages. This specific selection runs to within 3 dB of full scale.

Here is that same sample, but now transformed to pure harmonic distortion—all

tones have been shifted up one octave using signal processing software.

Here is the original, but with the distorted version added back in at the 3% level.5

As you probably notice, the added distorted element is almost impossible to hear.

In contrast, here is that same sample with cross-talk added just below the 3%

level.6 The cross-talk signal was taken from another recording.

The FCC treats these two quite different forms of impairment as if they are the

same. But, as you can hear they are not. A central flaw in the FCC’s analysis was

the treatment of added interfering signals (cross-talk) as if they were harmonic distortion.

The FCC’s tests judged a signal as acceptable if interference increased the measured distortion by no more than 3%. Consumer receivers have distortion as high as

3.5%. Thus, the FCC’s procedures would accept signals with cross-talk just below

the 6.5% level. Here is the selection from West Side Story with cross-talk added at

a level that would drive the total of cross-talk and distortion of a signal with 3.5%

distortion to just below the 6.5% level.

Examples from Over-the-Air Broadcasts

Here is a cut recorded from WGMS, the number one classical music station in the

Washington, DC, market.

Here it is with cross-talk just below the 6.5% level that the FCC would judge unacceptable if the consumer were using a receiver with 3.5% audio distortion.

Here is a cut from WHUR, the leading station in the DC market, with cross-talk

just below the FCC limit of 6.5% total measured distortion for a radio with 3.5%

audio distortion.7

The Pickholtz/Jackson Study

Professor Ray Pickholtz of George Washington University and I reviewed four

studies of FM receiver performance that were before the FCC in its LPFM proceeding.8 We concluded that the tests performed by the various parties were similar;

the differences in the conclusions of the studies reflected differences in the definition

of harmful interference used in each study. We believe that the FCC made a mistake when they reported results in terms of distortion but they were actually measuring noise and cross-talk-signal impairments that are much more objectionable to

listeners than is harmonic distortion. This is a serious error—roughly as bad as telling someone to suit up for a football game in a basketball uniform.

Evidence from Others that Interference and Distortion Are Different

The FCC’s tests used a criterion, distortion, that is appropriate for measuring how

good amplifiers perform but is not a good measure of the presence of objectionable

cross-talk or of static. FM receiver manufacturers specify both distortion (measured

in percentage just like the FCC did) and S/N ratio (SNR). For example, Sony provides the following specifications for their STR-DE835 (the top-rated digital receiver

in the March 2000 issue of Consumer Reports).9

• FM Frequency Response 30—15 kHz, +0.5/-2 dB

12

10 ‘‘Fundamentals of Modem Audio Measurement,’’ by Richard C. Cabot, Presented at the

103rd Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, New York, USA, 1997 September 26-29, revised 1999 August 8, p. 12. Emphasis added. 11 Audio Precision Tech Note TN-17, available at www.audioprecision.com. Emphasis added. 12FCC LPFM Order, footnote 156. 13Second and Third Adjacent Channel Interference Study of FM Broadcast Receivers, Project

TRB-99-3 Interim Report, July 19, 1999, p. 31. 14 Ibid. 15This statement requires some qualification. It is hard to hear low-order distortion, that is

2nd- or 3rd-harmonic distortion. It is much easier to hear higher order distortion.

• FM THD @ 1 kHz, Mono/Stereo 0.30%/0.50% • FM S/N Ratio, Mono/Stereo 76 dB/70 dB

Sony specifies that the S/N ratio, the measure of how well the receiver pulls the

desired signal out of the natural static, is 70 dB. In contrast, Sony specifies that

the receiver’s THD, a measure of how well the output stage of the receiver reproduces signals, is 0.50%. Distortion signals at the 0.50% level correspond to signals

only 46 dB below the desired signal. If distortion and noise were different names

for the same phenomenon, then the receiver would have a 46 dB SNR. Similarly,

if distortion of 0.50% prevents one from hearing noise at levels much below 46 dB

below the desired signal, Sony is wasting its efforts in delivering a 70 dB SNR.

Similarly, a technical paper available from Audio Precision, the manufacturer of

the test equipment the FCC used in its tests, states, ‘‘Harmonic distortion, illustrated in Fig. 16 is probably the oldest and most universally accepted method of

measuring linearity (Cabot 1992).’’ 10 It is well known that linearity—the degree

to which an amplifier’s outputs are just bigger versions of the input signals—meas- ures accurately an amplifier’s performance and that small deviations from linearity

are hard to hear.

Audio Precision also says,

Most audio Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) measurement systems are in fact

Total Harmonic Distortion plus Noise (THD+N) analyzers. They operate by removing the fundamental from the test signal with a sharply tuned band reject

or ‘‘notch’’ filter and measuring everything that remains. The amplitude of this ‘‘residual’’ is compared to the amplitude of the fundamental and the result is

expressed as a percentage or dB figure. This measurement technique does not

discriminate between test signal related harmonics caused by non-linearity in

the device under test, broadband noise in the device under test, crosstalk or interference from external sources, or any other artifacts present within the measurement bandwidth. The ‘‘single number’’ result may thus be ambig- uous.11

The FCC’s Use of the 3% Standard

The FCC stated in its LPFM order that the OET tests did not use the 3% distortion level as the measure of harmful interference. The FCC specifically stated,

The above conclusions of the OET report that ‘‘nearly all the receivers

in the sample appear to meet or exceed the 40 dB 2nd-adjacent channel criterion

and exceed the 3rd-adjacent channel protection criterion by a substantial margin’’

reflect measurements taken at the 1% distortion level.12

This statement conflicts with the text of the OET study. It reads,

Section 73.215 of the Commission’s rules provides that the predicted field

strength of a potentially interfering station can be no more than 40 dB stronger

than the protected field strength along a station’s protected contour. At the 3%

distortion level all the receivers in the sample, except for two (samples #2 and #6),

appear to meet or exceed the 40 dB second adjacent channel protection criterion and

to exceed the 40 dB third adjacent channel protection criterion by a substantial

margin.13

The text in the order also reflects a basic confusion between distortion and other

forms of signal impairments when the FCC states, ‘‘The 1% level corresponds to a

point at which most listeners would not be able to perceive any degradation in performance. On the other hand, the 3% distortion represents a level at which most

listeners would perceive a difference in the received signal.’’14 This statement is almost a textbook discussion of the effects of harmonic distortion—but does not apply

to noise and cross-talk. The FCC claims that a person would find it impossible or

hard to hear the effects of interference that were measured as 1% or 3 % distortion.

This is incorrect. It is hard to hear 3% distortion; it is easy to hear cross-talk at

the 3% power level as I just showed you.15

The FCC holds the entities it regulates to high standards of truthfulness (called

candor in the Commission’s jargon) in their statements to the Commission. It should

hold to those same standards when it speaks to the public.

13

16 It may seem strange to some that engineers rank a subjective test as the highest performance standard. Despite stereotypes, engineers actually have normal endowments of common

sense and they recognize that the proper measure of a system designed to serve consumers is

the consumer reaction to that system.

Conclusion

To summarize, the FCC used the wrong criterion when assessing the performance

of FM receivers in the presence of interference. In particular, they used a measurement method that indicated no harmful interference where in fact, harmful interference would occur. This use of the wrong criterion has led to justification for the

authorization of LPFM stations that will result in objectionable interference to existing radio stations interference that the FCC does not acknowledge because it has

not used the relevant measurement tool.

APPENDIX: MEASURING AUDIO IMPAIRMENTS

First, subjective testing—the use of a panel of listeners to compare and grade the

performance of alternative systems—is the gold standard of audio system evaluation.16 Second, although they may be the gold standard, subjective listening tests

are, like gold, very expensive—requiring significant time and staff. Consequently,

other objective test methods have been developed. These objective measurements

may or may not be monotonically related to subjective quality, but they are close

enough for many applications. A primary measurement used to assess the performance of analog broadcasting and recording systems is the audio or output signal-tonoise ratio (SNR). This ratio compares the energy in the desired signal with the energy in the obscuring or impairing noise signal. Often the SNR is calculated using

a weighting procedure that attaches more weight to noise at the most easily heard

frequencies and less weight to noise at frequencies that are less irritating. Informally speaking, SNR is a measure of the static that has been added to a signal.

Table 1 below shows SNR for some familiar audio systems. In this table, a higher

number is better and SNR is reported in dB—a logarithmic measure that matches

well with the human hearing process. A difference of about 3 dB in SNR is usually

regarded as the smallest size difference a typical observer will notice. Thus, there

is not much difference in the typical subjective evaluation of the performance of two

audio systems—one operating with 40-dB SNR and the other with 43-dB SNR. However, there is a big difference between a system operating with 40-dB SNR and one

operating with 60-dB SNR.

TABLE 1—Signal-to-Noise Ratio for some Familiar Audio Systems

System Approximate SNR

Compact disc ............................................................................................................................................... 100 dB

Sony Walkman digital audio tape ................................................................................................................ Better than 87 dB

FM broadcasting (best conditions) .............................................................................................................. 60-80 dB

Consumer audio taping equipment 17 .......................................................................................................... 60 dB

Telephone call .............................................................................................................................................. 30-50 dB

17 For example the Sony TC-KE500S.

A second measure of audio system performance is harmonic distortion. Harmonic

distortion is most often used to measure the performance of audio devices such as

amplifiers or recording systems. It is a measure of how accurately an audio system

reproduces the input signal. Harmonic distortion is often used to characterize the

performance of amplifiers. It is caused by nonlinearity in the amplification chain

that creates frequency components that are harmonics of the original frequencies

(integer multiples of the original frequencies, also called overtones). If the output

signal from an amplifier is the same as the input signal, except bigger, then there

is no distortion. With music or pure tones, distortion can be noticed by the presence

of overtones. For example, if a real-world amplifier has as input a 1,000-Hz tone,

the output will consist primarily of a 1,000-Hz tone, but tones at 2,000 and 3,000

Hz (and other frequencies) will also be present in the amplifier output. These unintended overtones produced by the amplifier are called harmonic distortion. It is hard

for the human ear to hear harmonic distortion.

The human ear’s response to a 2,000-Hz tone is reduced when a strong signal is

also present at 1,000 Hz. Similarly, people often think they hear a sound at 2,000

14

18See, for example, A. Gersho, ‘‘Advances in speech and audio compression,’’ Proceedings of

The IEEE, vol. 82, pp. 900-918, June 1994. P. Noll, ‘‘Wideband speech and audio coding,’’ IEEE

Communication Magazine, vol. 26, pp. 34-44, November 1993. J.J.N. Jayant and Y. Shoham, ‘‘Coding of wideband speech,’’ Speech Communication, vol. 11, pp. 127-138, 1992. 19 It is easier to hear someone cough at an orchestra concert than to tell that one of the violinists is playing an octave high. Indeed, everybody in the audience can hear the person coughing,

but only audience members with unusual musical acuity will notice that one violin is an octave

high. 20See H.F. Olson, Elements of Acoustical Engineering, Van Nostrand, New York, 1947 as

quoted in Electronics Engineers’ Handbook, 2nd Edition, Donald G. Fink and Donald

Christiansen, eds., McGraw-Hill, 1982, at p. 19-18. 21While engineers are good, they are not perfect. Engineers often use different units to measure SNR and harmonic distortion. Although SNR is normally measured as a power ratio and

expressed in dB, harmonic distortion is often measured as a voltage ratio and expressed in percent. This notational difference makes it harder for the nonexpert to keep track of what is going

on in the four studies we consider. This confusion adds an unintended shell-game element to

reading the engineering studies in the FCC’s LPFM rulemaking.

Hz when they only hear a sound at 1,000 Hz.18 Most music sources, such as a piano

or violin note, contain overtones that are only slightly modified by the overtones created by distortion.

Hence, given both the reaction of the human hearing system and the content of

most music, harmonic distortion is harder to hear than unrelated noise.19 It is generally accepted that harmonic distortion has to rise to about 1 to 2% before people

find it objectionable.20 Some people would find 1% harmonic distortion hard to notice.21 The nonlinearities in the signal processing chain that cause harmonic distortion also cause intermodulation distortion that produces other, unintended frequency components. The usual test procedures for audio equipment use the measure

of total harmonic distortion plus noise (THD+N) as shorthand for all nonlinear impairments.

Although it may be possible, albeit rare, for interference to drive the signal into

the nonlinear region and cause harmonic distortion, that is not usually the principal

concern when considering the effects of interference. Interference is best treated as

a different, extraneous source of additive noise. Thus, we measure its effects by considering the signal-to-noise plus interference ratio (SNIR). The noise we refer to

here is due to thermal, environmental, or receiver noise that we cannot overcome

and is not the interference from like signals residing in a co- or adjacent channel.

The interference of concern here is external and produced by other emissions in the

radio spectrum by other than the desired transmitter. It is what can be controlled

by regulation. It is therefore our considered opinion that the deleterious effects

caused by this interference must be measured. Other undesirable effects, inherent

in the imperfections in the signal chain may also be present, but they are a red herring when the objective is to determine whether controllable external additional

emissions such as second and third adjacent channel interference should be permitted to degrade expected reception quality.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.

We will now hear from the FCC, the Deputy Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Mr. Bruce Franca.

STATEMENTS OF BRUCE A. FRANCA, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE

OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; EDWARD O. FRITTS, CEO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING; DAVID MAXON,

FOUNDER, BROADCAST SIGNAL LAB; AND BRUCE T. REESE,

PRESIDENT AND CEO, BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Mr. FRANCA. I think Mr. Jackson is right. I think we have just

heard about junk science. Let me go on and talk a little bit.

I do thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the FCC’s

spectrum management responsibilities and the technical aspects of

the Commission’s recent decision to authorize low power FM radio

stations. I will briefly summarize my written testimony.

15

Spectrum is a valuable and finite public resource. Our mission at

the Office of Engineering and Technology is to develop policies that

maximize the use of the spectrum, ensure that stations do not

interfere with one another and promote the introduction of new

services and technologies. In other words, our job is to ensure that

the radio spectrum is used efficiently and effectively. To do this we

have sought to encourage development and deployment of new

spectrum efficient technologies. We have also promoted greater use

and sharing of the spectrum. Our recent decision on low power

radio is an example of this approach.

New LPFM stations will share the FM radio spectrum, thereby

making more efficient use of the FM band. These low power stations will allow local churches, schools, community organizations

and other citizens groups new access to the airways. We are, of

course, aware of the differences of opinion that exist over whether

LPFM stations will cause interference to existing FM service.

Based on the technical studies by our laboratory and our analysis

of the studies by others, we are convinced that LPFM service as

provided for under the new rules will not adversely impact full

service FM stations, nor will it affect their transition to digital

service.

The principal issue here is over whether we should have imposed

third adjacent channel restrictions on low power stations. I believe

the record provides strong support that third adjacent channel restrictions are not needed and that any areas experiencing interference from LPFM would be small and that interference would be

outweighed by the benefits of the new service.

Initially, I would note that we currently permit certain full power

FM stations to modify their facilities without regard to either second, or third adjacent channel spacings. We have not received any

interference complaints with such changes.

All of the technical studies show that the ability of FM radios to

reject interference on third adjacent channels is much better than

on second adjacent channels. This is expected since third adjacent

channels are further removed from the channel to which you are

tuning.

The studies also generally find that automobile radios, and home

stereo receivers do a good job in rejecting third adjacent channel

interference and will not be affected by low power stations. NAB’s

test results, for example, show that car radios, where almost half

of FM listening takes place, do not need third adjacent channel

protection.

Our analysis also shows that the area in which additional interference could occur from an LPFM station would be small and

occur only in the immediate vicinity of the low power station. For

example, even using NAB’s test results for its three worst FM radio

categories—portable, clock and Walkman type personal—the area

where such receivers would potentially experience degradation

from interference is small, generally on the order of one kilometer

or less.

There has been considerable controversy over whether signal to

noise ratios or harmonic distortion is a better test of interference.

We believe both measures are appropriate. However, we believe

that NAB’s and CEA’s standards for judging FM receiver interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
16

ference are too stringent since, in fact, the majority of their radios

did not meet their own standards, even in the cases where no interference was present. We have seen no indication from consumers

that the vast majority of FM receivers do not provide satisfactory

service.

We also recognize that some lower quality receivers, such as personal Walkman-type radios, may experience additional interference

as a result of eliminating third adjacent channel protections for

LPFM stations. However, if, for example, we were to define acceptable FM service using NAB’s test results for Walkman-type radios,

the service area of a Class A radio station would go from a radius

of about 27 kilometers to a radius of less than 10 kilometers. We

therefore believe that a poor performance radio should not be used

to either define acceptable service or unacceptable interference.

That is simply not good spectrum management. We also believe

that consumers are smart enough to understand that there are performance differences among radios.

We also disagree with NAB’s criticism of our decision to use harmonic distortion rather than signal to noise. We do have a demonstration to show you what a 1-percent distortion level would

sound like. These recordings use special professional material intended for critical listening. This is obviously not something you

would hear on a local top forty station.

This first piece is with no impairments present.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. FRANCA. Why don’t we go to the next one? This is the level

we determined was interference.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. FRANCA. This is 3 percent distortion.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. FRANCA. We have heard that test a lot, so it is even worse

for us. There is actually another series with classical music.

The point is that the 1 percent distortion level we believe is an

appropriate level to use to make our judgments on interference. We

clearly believe that the NAB’s 3 percent level is plainly objectionable. I think we have done a good job here.

In concluding, I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you. Please be assured that we have, in

fact, made every effort to consider all the information, and there

certainly was a lot of information in this proceeding.

I believe that the Commission’s low power decision fairly addresses the concerns of all the parties and that these new stations

will not compromise existing FM service.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Bruce A. Franca follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. FRANCA, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF

ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today to discuss the FCC’s spectrum management responsibilities and the Commission’s recent decision to authorize low power FM (LPFM) stations.

17

THE FCC’S SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

I would like to begin with an overview of the Commission’s role in managing the

radio spectrum. Under Section 303 of the Communications Act, which defines the

general powers of the agency, the FCC is tasked with assigning bands of radio frequencies to the various classes of stations, assigning frequencies and power for individual stations, and specifying the locations where classes of stations or individual

stations may operate. In addition, Section 7 of the Communications Act states: ‘‘(I)t

shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.’’ Effective management of the radio spectrum is

therefore a core responsibility of the FCC.

Spectrum is a valuable and finite public resource that must be allocated and assigned in a manner that will provide the greatest possible benefit to the American

public. Consistent with the FCC’s statutory obligations, we view our mission in the

Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) as ensuring that the radio spectrum is

used efficiently and effectively. One of our principle jobs is to help to define policies

that maximize the efficient use of the spectrum and promote the introduction of new

services and technologies. OET, for example, developed the allocation plans for cellular and PCS wireless communications services and for digital television service.

Over time, technological advances, growth in user demand, and the finite nature

of spectrum have made our spectrum management responsibilities increasingly complex. To address the continuing growth of demand for radio services, we have focused our approach to spectrum management on allowing spectrum markets to

make more efficient use of frequency bands through new technologies and on increasing the amount of spectrum available for use. In addition, we have sought to

encourage the development and deployment of new, more spectrum-efficient technologies that will increase the amount of information that can be transmitted in a

given amount of bandwidth and to allow greater use of the spectrum occupied by

existing services wherever possible.

Under this approach, new services have been implemented either through sharing

with existing operations or through reallocation of spectrum from existing services

to new services and technologies. In this regard, we have, for example, developed

plans for sharing between satellite and terrestrial fixed services and for recovery of

spectrum from existing uses to make way for new technologies. The spectrum used

for PCS service at 2—GHz was recovered from fixed microwave services that were

relocated to higher bands. In addition, the efficiency of the digital television transmission standard has made it possible to plan for the reallocation of the 108 MHz

of spectrum now used for television channels 52-69 to new public safety, commercial

wireless, and broadcast services.

LOW POWER FM RADIO

I next will discuss the Commission’s decision to allow the operation of low power

FM stations. In its January 20, 2000, Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25,

the Commission authorized the licensing of two new classes of low power radio stations—one operating at a maximum power of 100 watts and the other at a maximum power of 10 watts. The new LPFM stations will be licensed to operate on a

noncommercial educational basis only, and to parties that do not hold an attributable interest in any other broadcast station or media. The rules also provide for

a significant preference to locally based applicants.

The Commission has taken a conservative approach in protecting existing FM

service. For example, the Commission did not adopt its original proposals to permit

1000 watt, commercial LPFM stations and to allow LPFM operations on 2nd adjacent channels. In addition to specifying low power operation, the rules provide a

number of other safeguards to protect existing FM stations, such as limitations on

antenna height and separation requirements for low power stations with respect to

full power stations operating on the same channel, on 1st and 2nd adjacent channels, and on intermediate frequency channels. We also added a 20 km buffer to the

required separation distances between LPFM and full service stations that are operating on co- and 1st adjacent channels. This buffer will provide an additional margin of protection for full power stations that modify or upgrade their facilities.

We did not, however, impose requirements for separation of LPFM stations from

stations on 3rd adjacent channels. From the considerable technical record in our

proceeding, we found that LPFM operation on 3rd adjacent channels will not result

in significant new interference to the service of existing FM stations. Our discussions with, and comments from, proponents of new digital radio technologies also

indicate that LPFM operations on 3rd adjacent channels will not impact potential

future digital services in the FM band. (See attached illustration of 1st, 2nd and 3rd

adjacent channels on the FM radio dial.)

18

Our decision in this matter followed a nearly one-year long public comment period

extended four times between January and November 1999. We granted these four

extensions at the request of the broadcasting industry, at times over the strong opposition of other parties in the proceeding. We did so to give broadcasters and all

other parties a more than ample opportunity to comment on the proposed LPFM

service. During this lengthy comment period the Commission received significant expressions of interest and public support for LPFM service. The Commission received

comments and letters from thousands of individuals and groups seeking licenses for

new radio stations. These comments—from churches or other religious organizations, schools, colleges, students, community organizations, musicians and other citizens—reflected a broad interest in, and need for, service from highly local radio stations that are strongly grounded in their communities. The plan for LPFM service

adopted by the Commission will address these needs by enhancing listeners’ access

to locally focused, community-oriented radio broadcasting.

In providing for the operation of LPFM radio stations, we have followed the principles of our general approach to spectrum management: the new LPFM stations

will share the FM radio spectrum with existing stations, thereby making more efficient use of the FM band. In establishing this service, the Commission was also following two longstanding foundation principles under Section 307(b) of the Communications Act in providing spectrum for broadcast use. The first is to promote a diversity of media voices. The second is to adopt policies that facilitate and encourage

the operation of broadcast services that meet local needs and specialized interests

wherever possible. Consistent with these principles, the Commission’s first goal in

establishing a new LPFM service was to create a class of radio stations that would

serve very localized communities or underrepresented groups within communities.

This new service will enhance service to the public by providing service opportunities for parties who had previously been denied access to broadcast spectrum. A second, specific, goal was that the LPFM service include the voices of community-based

schools, churches, and civic organizations.

The Commission in planning for the LPFM service also emphasized that it would

not compromise the integrity of the FM radio spectrum. The Commission was particularly cognizant of the concerns of FM broadcasters with regard to both existing

service and possible options for FM stations to provide digital service. Addressing

these concerns, the Commission stated that it was determined ‘‘to preserve the integrity and technical excellence of existing FM radio service, and not to impede its

transition to a digital future.’’ In this regard, the principal technical issues in this

proceeding have been the potential for new low power stations to cause interference

to existing FM radio service and to impact future digital radio technologies, such

19

1See FM Interference Tests, Laboratory Test Report, Thomas B. Keller, Robert W. McCutheon,

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA), conducted under the auspices of National Public Radio (NPR), CEMA and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB); Technical

Studies and Reports filed by the National Association of Broadcasters; and, Receiver Evaluation

Project conducted by Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP for the National Lawyers’ Guild, Committee

on Democratic Communications. CEMA has since become the Consumer Electronics Association

(CEA).

as In-Band On-Channel, or ‘‘IBOC,’’ systems. Based on our own technical studies

and analyses of studies by a number of others, we are convinced that LPFM service,

as provided under the new rules, will not adversely impact reception of full service

FM stations, nor will it affect the transition of these stations to digital service using

IBOC technology that transmits digital signals on adjacent channels.

THIRD ADJACENT CHANNEL PROTECTION IS NOT NECESSARY

Of course, I am aware of the differences of opinion that exist, particularly on the

part of full service FM stations and their representatives, over whether LPFM stations will cause interference to existing FM service. The principle issue here is over

whether we should have imposed 3rd adjacent channel restrictions on LPFM stations. The main determinative factor is the ability of FM receivers to operate satisfactorily when signals from LPFM stations are present on 3rd adjacent channels.

I believe that the record provides strong support that 3rd adjacent channel restrictions are not needed for LPFM and that any areas experiencing interference would

be very small and would be outweighed by the benefits of the new service.

Initially, I would point out that during the period from 1964 to 1987, pre-1964,

‘‘grandfathered,’’ short-spaced full power FM stations were permitted to modify their

facilities without regard to either 2nd or 3rd adjacent channel spacings. No interference complaints were received as a result of such modifications, and this policy

was re-instituted in 1997, again without subsequent interference complaints. Similarly, in 1991, the Commission decided to accept small amounts of potential 2nd and

3rd adjacent channel interference in the noncommercial FM service where such interference is counter-balanced by substantial service gains.

TECHNICAL STUDIES

In addition to these historical precedents, the technical data submitted in the proceeding also supports the conclusion that 3rd adjacent channel restrictions are not

needed to protect full service FM stations from LPFM operations. As you are aware,

three technical studies of FM receivers were filed in response to the Commission’s

Notice of Proposed Rule Making. These studies were submitted by the Consumer

Electronics Association (CEA), the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and

the National Lawyers Guild (NLG).1 In addition, our Office conducted its own study

of a sample of 21 FM receivers. Taken together, the studies examined 75 consumer

FM radios of various types and performance capabilities, including automobile radios, component tuners or receivers, portable radios such as ‘‘boom boxes,’’ personal

radios such as ‘‘Walkman’’ type units, and clock radios. Finally, the NAB and CEA

filed supplementary technical information in their reply comments, and the Media

Access Project submitted in its reply comments a Technical Analysis of the Low

Power FM Service prepared by Professor Theodore Rappaport, James S. Tucker Professor of Electrical Engineering, Virginia Tech, and Chairman, Wireless Valley Communications, Inc., Blacksburg, Va.

These studies provide a substantial body of information on FM receiver performance in the presence of interfering signals. Unfortunately, the studies used different

methodologies that make direct comparisons between them difficult. However, as

the NAB stated in its reply comments, the significant differences among the studies

were not in the measurements or in the performance of the radio receivers tested,

but rather, in the definition of impaired reception. We generally concur with that

assessment and believe that the most significant differences in the conclusions of

these studies are the result of variations in the definitions of desired service and

when the desired service is impaired.

NAB/CEA Criteria Are Inappropriate for Today’s FM Service

Both CEA and NAB, for example, generally find the performance of today’s FM

radios unacceptable because they do not meet their presupposed desired levels of

performance. For example, 17 of the 28 radios tested by the NAB failed to meet its

standard of 50 dB audio signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) performance with no interference

20

2Signal-to-noise (S/N) is one of the ways to characterize audio quality. It is the measure of

the relative volume of the desired sound to the noise that may be present in the system. Noise

manifests itself as ‘‘hissing’’ or static. A higher S/N ratio indicates better audio quality. A lower

S/N ratio means the output will sound noisier. S/N ratio is measured in decibels or dB, a logarithmic expression of ratios. For example, 10 dB means that the signal is ten times stronger

than the noise and 20 dB means that the signal is 100 times greater than the noise. To meet

the NAB 50 dB S/N criterion, the volume of the desired sound would have to be 100,000 times

stronger than the volume of the noise. Since many of the radios tested by NAB did not meet

its 50 dB value, NAB also employed a degradation in S/N of 5 dB as a measure when the desired

service is impaired. 3See NAB study entitled, ‘‘Subjective Evaluation of Audio Degraded by Noise and Undesired

FM Signals’’ by Lawrence C. Middlekamp, November 17, 1982, cited in para. 97, p. 38, of the

FCC’s Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25.

present and with the ‘‘strongest’’ desired signal level tested.2 Similarly, CEA reports

that none of its sample receivers ‘‘came near meeting’’ its 45 dB S/N performance

target at the current FCC protection standards for full power co-channel stations.

While such performance levels may indicate more interference from prospective

LPFM stations, we fail to see how such levels can be appropriate measures when

most radios do not perform to these levels, even in the absence of any interference,

as was the case in NAB’s tests.

Moreover, we have seen no indication from consumers that they find that the vast

majority of FM receivers do not provide satisfactory service. Therefore, as stated in

our Report and Order, we do not find the S/N levels suggested by CEA or NAB to

be appropriate interference criteria for today’s FM radio service. We also note that

a previous study by the NAB indicated that the current FCC co-channel protection

requirement for FM stereo yields an audio S/N of about 30 dB, not the 50 dB suggested by NAB in its technical study. 3

Receivers Are Better at Rejecting 3rd Adjacent Channel Interference

Notwithstanding the differences among the technical studies regarding performance standards, there are important consistencies in the study results that we find

support a conclusion that 3rd-adjacent channel restrictions are not needed for LPFM

stations. All four studies show that the ability of FM radios to reject interference

from signals on a 3rd adjacent channel is generally much better than from interference from signals on a 2nd adjacent channel. This is to be expected since 3rd adjacent channel is further removed from the desired channel to which you are tuning.

(See again the attached illustration.)

The OET and NLG studies generally conclude that FM receivers provide for adequate rejection of interference on 2nd and 3rd adjacent channels. The OET study,

for example, finds that nearly all of our receivers appear to meet the 2nd adjacent

channel protection criteria and exceed the 3rd adjacent protection criteria by about

8-10 dB, a wide margin. While CEA and NAB argue that their studies show that

the adjacent channel protections should be retained, a review of CEA’s results shows

that its median receiver provides about -40 dB of rejection of 3rd adjacent channel

interference, and that this margin of performance is about 3 to 7 dB better than

2nd adjacent performance for its sample. Similarly, the NAB tests also show 3rd adjacent channel performance to be substantially better than 2nd adjacent—on the

order of 8 to 10 dB. This means that radios can generally reject signals on a 3rd

adjacent channel that are about six to ten times stronger than signals on 2nd adjacent channels.

The studies also found that automobile radios and home stereo/component receivers tend to be more effective at rejecting adjacent channel interference than clock,

personal and portable radios. Our examination of the studies indicates that automobile radios and home stereo/component receivers generally are able to provide -40

dB or more rejection of 3rd adjacent channel signals and therefore generally will

provide acceptable service in the absence of 3rd adjacent channel protection. NAB’s

test results, for example, show that FM radios in automobiles, where most FM listening is done, meet the current -40 dB criteria.

We also recognize that poorer quality receivers, such as personal and clock radios,

may experience some additional interference as a result of eliminating the 3rd adjacent channel protection for LPFM stations. We note, however, that these classes of

radio may also experience some degree of interference from co- and 1st adjacent

channel full power FM stations operating within the existing protection requirements. We also believe that consumers generally understand that there are performance differences among the classes of radios and that they accept the fact that lower

cost radios may provide more limited service capabilities. We therefore believe that

our decisions with regard to LPFM service should not be constrained solely by the

performance limitations of lower cost radios any more than we should use those raVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
21

dios to redefine existing FM radio service. For example, if we were to define acceptable FM radio service using NAB’s performance measure and NAB’s median test results for personal radios—the radius of a 6 kilowatt Class A radio station’s protected

service area would go from 27.5 km to less than 10 km. This is because such radios

do not provide acceptable service as defined by NAB beyond about 10 km, even in

the absence of any interference. I do not believe that this is a realistic approach,

as this would ignore service provided to radios that provide more typical performance, and would unfairly reduce the station’s expected audience reach.

Potential Interference from LPFM is Small

We also found that the area in which any additional interference would be likely

to occur from an LPFM station operating on a third adjacent channel at maximum

facilities of 100 watts and antenna height of 30 meters above average terrain would

be very small and occur only in the immediate vicinity of the LPFM station. For

example, even using NAB’s median receiver performance test results for its three

‘‘worst’’ FM radio categories, i.e., clock, personal and portable, we find that the area

where such receivers could potentially experience degradation from interference is

small, generally 1 km or less. This interference analysis is shown in the following

table:

LPFM Potential Interference Radius Based on NAB Tests

Receiver Category

Desired Signal Level

-45 dBm (Close to Station)-55 dBm (∼Principle Community)-65 dBm (∼Protected Service)

Clock ................................................................. 0.3 km (0.2 mi.) 0.7 km (0.4 mi.) 2.1 km (1.3 mi.)

Portable ............................................................. 1.0 km (0.6 mi.) 0.9 km (0.6 mi.) 1.0 km (0.6 mi.)

Personal ............................................................ 0.4 km (0.3 mi.) 0.5 km (0.3 mi.) 0.5 km (0.3 mi.)

The above Table shows the approximate radius around an LPFM station where

interference could potentially occur to a 3rd adjacent channel full service station

with different types of radios, based on the NAB test data. As indicated in the

Table, the area of potential interference depends on the type of radio used and on

whether the LPFM station is located relatively close to the ‘‘desired’’ full power station, i.e., at the -45 dBm contour, or whether the LPFM station is at the edge of

the full power station’s service area, i.e., at the ‘‘65 dBm contour. For example, if

an LPFM station is located about 9 or 10 km from a 3rd adjacent channel Class

A full power station (-45 dBm), a listener using a clock radio located about 0.3 km

(about 1000 feet) from that LPFM station could experience some degradation in

service. If the LPFM station is located at the edge of service of the full power station, the radius of potential interference would increase to about 2.1 km. Alternatively, if the listener were using a personal or ‘‘Walkman’’ type radio at the edge

of coverage of the full power station, the potential interference area would have a

radius of about 0.5 km.

It should be noted, however, that the actual audio S/N value that NAB uses to

‘‘define’’ where interference begins would be different for these two cases. For clock

radios, interference at the edge of coverage would be said to begin to occur at a

value of 41.5 dB S/N. This is a level we believe that most listeners would find more

than acceptable for clock radio use. In the case of the personal radio, the value

would be 20.3 dB, which may indicate, as discussed above, that these radios are not

providing satisfactory service out to the protected contour of a full service station.

Further, we believe that this analysis provides a conservative estimate of the actual interference potential of LPFM, given NAB’s performance criteria and the fact

that NAB’s sample included some of the poorer performing radios among the four

studies. In addition, whether interference, in fact, occurs to FM listening depends

on a number of factors, besides the performance of the FM receiver. These include,

among other things, the actual reception conditions, such as the location and position of the radio, the frequency and location of both the desired and undesired stations, and the type of program material being transmitted and received. CEA noted,

for example, that when the desired signal was modulated with rock music the interference was masked in its 2nd and 3rd adjacent channel subjective tests.

CONCLUSION

Based on the record before us, we therefore found that LPFM stations operating

with 100 watts power or less on 3rd adjacent channels would not result in significant new interference to the service of existing FM stations. The Commission also

22

concluded that any small amount of interference that might occur would be outweighed by the benefits to listeners from the new services to be provided by LPFM

stations. With regard to 2nd adjacent channel protection requirements, we concluded that, since receiver performance appears to be only at about the same level

as that provided in the rules, the risk of interference from LPFM signals on 2nd

adjacent channels may be somewhat higher. We therefore applied 2nd adjacent

channel separation requirements to these stations that are consistent with the -40

dB standard reflected in the current FM rules.

In concluding, I want to express my gratitude to the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today. The Commission understands and shares the industry’s concerns for protecting the integrity of the FM band. Please be assured that

we have made every effort to consider all the available information in this matter.

I believe the Commission’s LPFM decisions fairly address the concerns of all interests and that this new service will not compromise existing FM service. I would be

pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much.

When we do get to Q & A, I will ask each of you to comment

on each other’s demonstrations. I think that would be very constructive for us.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fritts for his statement. Remember, all witnesses, we have your written statements, so please try

to conclude in 5 minutes if you can.

Mr. Fritts?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD O. FRITTS

Mr. FRITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not an engineer and you will not hear about DBUs and 1

and 3 percents.

We appreciate you holding this hearing early in the session to

focus on what we believe will be the impending disaster of the

FCC’s low power FM rule which is about to take place.

Let us put things in perspective. There are 12,000 radio stations

licensed in the United States now. To sort of get a grip on that,

there are only 18,000 Burger King franchises in the world and

there are 12,000 radio stations in the United States now.

I have been President and CEO of NAB for some 18 years and

prior to that, for more than 20 years, I was a licensee and group

owner of a number of radio stations in the south. Never before

have I seen the FCC act with such willful disregard for Congress

or to turn its back on the spectrum integrity they were trusted to

oversee.

I am not an engineer but what I heard Mr. Franca say, and I

have great respect for him, is that yes, we are going to cause interference and we hope that you will accept it.

This is a case where I believe the FCC has abandoned its historic

mission and really and truly forgotten the American consumer.

Congress established the communications regulations back in 1927

to ensure clear, interference-free radio service and to end the technical chaos on the airways which existed through the 1920’s.

Back in the early 1980’s, ignoring this obligation, the FCC at

that time decided that it should reduce the interference protections

for FM radio to add thousands of new stations in the name of diversity. That proceeding, now the infamous Docket 80-90, only created the opportunity for radio stations to fail. I might add that

2,500 new FM stations have been added since that time.

By the early 1990’s, more than 60 percent of all radio stations

were losing money. The FCC’s misguided plan, in part, resulted in

23

the Congress’ decision to deregulate radio ownership back in 1996.

There is no demonstrated need in the record that supports the establishment of LPFM stations, but I am sure if you were to ask

people on the street, would you like to have your own radio station,

most everyone would say yes. By using that logic, pretty soon when

babies are born, we will be handing them their own radio license

along with their social security card.

Think about this for a moment. For decades, the policy at the

FCC has been that low power radio stations are an inefficient use

of the spectrum. In fact, the Commission has developed an extensive and detailed record and consistently rejected proposals to create low power radio services.

Just 5 years ago, the FCC said that low power radio, ‘‘would

lower the quality of FM broadcasting service.’’ LPFM will simply

create islands of service in a sea of interference. Although the laws

of physics have not been repealed, the FCC has clearly turned this

longstanding policy on its head.

The FCC says it is doing this to increase diversity but the evidence of our study and of an FCC study shows that listeners get

more formats now than before consolidation began in 1996. The

trend is increasing. As one example, there were only 400 Hispanic

radio stations in the United States in 1996; now there are 600.

The FCC’s goal of creating more diversity is laudable and we certainly support that, but this low power decision will not solve that

problem. The FCC claimed that the demand for the new service is

greatest in highly populated areas. We all recognize that but they

have also acknowledged that there will be few, if any, LPFM stations located in those major metropolitan areas. It just won’t happen. Instead, most of the stations will be located in small markets

where vacant, full power allocations go begging now.

As Commissioner Michael Powell pointed out, ‘‘It is the current

FM stations in those very small markets, including stations run by

women and minorities, that could suffer most from LPFM.’’ As the

Commissioner stated, ‘‘It would be a perverse result indeed if these

stations were to fail or the quality of locally originated programming suffered because new LPFM stations diluted their already

tenuous base of support.’’

Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth called the FCC’s decision

‘‘a rush to judgment.’’ I call it a rush to create interference before

the Congress finds out about it.

The vice chairman of this committee, as noted this morning, Mr.

Oxley and his colleague, Mr. Pallone, have introduced legislation to

stop this ill-fated proposal. He currently has 113 co-sponsors.

Given the FCC’s unwillingness to follow its core obligation to protect the spectrum, I see no other option than for Congress to say

no to low power FM.

Wrapping up, Mr. Chairman, you and other members of the committee and this Congress will stand up for your constituents and

the listeners to local radio stations who depend on local radio for

entertainment, news, weather and sports. The time to move H.R.

3439 is now. We hope you will do it as soon as possible and send

a powerful message to the FCC. That message is, we will not allow

politics at the FCC to disrupt local radio service.

Thank you.

24

1 Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25, Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, adopted

January 20, 2000; released January 27, 2000. 2See Separate Statement of Chairman William E. Kennard, Re: Creation of a Low Power

Radio Service (MM 99-25) at 2. 3 Currently, there are almost 8,000 full-power FM radio stations operating in the United

States.

[The prepared statement of Edward O. Fritts and Bruce T. Reese

follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD O. FRITTS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND BRUCE T. REESE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before the House Telecommunications Subcommittee today. The National Association of Broadcasters

(NAB) represents the owners and operators of America’s radio and television stations. Our remarks today will address the Low Power FM (LFPM) Radio Service

adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 20, 2000.1

The FCC has a fundamental obligation under Section 1 of the Communications

Act to ‘‘make available—a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide and world wide wire and

radio and communication service.’’ FCC Chairman William E. Kennard noted in his

Separate Statement on the LPFM Report and Order that ‘‘at the heart of this mandate is the notion of opening up new opportunities in a way that protects the integrity of existing services.’’ 2 This mandate should be read in light of the history that

gave rise to communications regulation in the 1920’s—the need to control interference to radio service. NAB believes the FCC has abandoned its mandate and primary function of spectrum manager and has crossed over to social engineering at

the expense of the integrity of the spectrum for existing FM broadcast stations and

their listeners.

NAB fully supports H.R. 3439, a bill that would rescind the FCC’s newly adopted

LPFM rules. Representatives Oxley and Pallone, and the other 70 co-sponsors have

begun an important step to undo the FCC’s action in order to protect free, over-theair FM broadcasting from further interference. Further, NAB applauds the Subcommittee for holding today’s hearing in order to gain more insight into this important issue. The FCC has failed in its mandate to properly weigh the costs and benefits of its new service and rushed to judgment without taking into account the volumes of evidence in its record that point to an opposite conclusion than the one it

reached.

FROM THE BIRTH OF LPFM TO THE DEATH OF SPECTRUM INTEGRITY: THE FCC’S RUSH

TO CREATE A NEW SERVICE

Not even 13 months ago, on January 28, 1999, the FCC voted to adopt a Notice

of Proposed Rule Making designed to establish an LPFM service. The FCC proposed

to authorize two levels of LPFM service—1000-watt stations or 100-watt stations.

It also sought comment on whether it should authorize a service with stations at

10 watts or less. The FCC proposed to drastically alter the technical rules applicable

to FM broadcasting in order to ‘‘make room’’ for enough new LPFM entrants to justify its efforts in pursuing the service.

The FCC asked for substantial technical evidence regarding existing FM receivers

because its proposals would have a direct effect on how these radios would perform

with additional LPFM stations inserted into the crowded FM band.3 The FCC proposed to loosen its interference protection separation distances to introduce more

LPFM stations. It believed that there would be minimal interference to existing

radio service because radios would be able to adequately reject the additional signals produced by the LPFM stations; however, at that time, the FCC had not conducted its own study to test its assumption.

The adjacent channel interference separation distances are in place to help prevent interference from occurring to stations that operate near one another on the

band. These adjacent channel stations need to have a specific amount of mileage between transmitter locations so that their signals do not bleed into each other, resulting in the listening public’s inability to properly receive the signals virtually interference-free.

25

4 In addition to NAB’s receiver study, the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association

(CEMA, now the Consumer Electronics Association), National Public Radio and the Corporation

for Public Broadcasting conducted and submitted a study. Additionally, the National Lawyers

Guild and various LPFM proponents conducted their own receiver study. 5 A copy of the NAB’s comments and reply comments has been attached to this testimony for

incorporation into the record of this hearing. 6 NAB tested eight car radios, five home stereos, five portable/ ‘‘boom boxes’’, five personal/

‘‘Walkman’’ radios and five clock radios. 7 Attached to these written comments as Appendix A is a brief comparison of the four receiver

studies comparing the number of radios tested, the types of radio tested and the test methodology. 8Our study used the ITU Recommendation 641, ‘‘Determination of Radio-Frequency Protection

Ratios For Frequency-Modulated Sound Broadcasting,’’ 1986, Geneva, Switzerland. This ITU

standard sets a -50 dB signal-to-noise ratio as acceptable reception. On a subjective listening

chart, perceived impairment from interference at this level is rated at ‘‘slightly annoying.’’ Any

reception levels produced by a radio above this number indicated the radio could reject the adjacent channel signal, any number below this level indicated the listener would receive an unacceptable amount of interference. It should be noted that some of the tested radios did not perform at this level without injecting additional interference. In those cases, we determined that

unacceptable interference occurred when the radio’s reception dropped 5 dB from its initial level.

NAB supported this alternative interference criteria method in our Comments. Although the

FCC criticized this aspect of our study, if we had not used the alternative criteria, the results

would have shown even greater harm from the introduction of LPFM. 9See NAB Comments, Vol. 2. 10See NAB Comments, Vol. 3, at 20.

At the FCC’s request, three independent parties submitted receiver studies into

the docket.4 The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) also prepared

a report of its receiver testing. NAB provided a detailed technical study to the FCC

regarding FM radio performance in the absence of second- and third-adjacent channel protections.5 NAB tested 28 radios from five different categories.6 This sample

was the largest and most representative of the universe of existing FM receivers of

any of the receiver studies submitted into the record.7

In order to quantify the amount of interference that would result with the introduction of LPFM, a definition of unacceptable interference had to be developed. We

chose an interference standard that is based on subjective audience listening and

one that was also relied on by the FCC in past proceedings, and which is supported

by international standards.8 This was the benchmark NAB used to determine

whether radios would acceptably reject adjacent channel interference. By contrast,

the OET study focused only on distortion, a measure that has not previously been

used to evaluate interference. Our study indicated that a majority of the radios tested did not perform up to the level previously assumed by the FCC, and certainly

did not show that radio performance had improved. Car radios and home stereos

generally were able to reject adequately the interfering signals. However, portable

radios, personal radios and clock radios—those categories that make up 65.3% of the

radios sold in 1998—failed to perform up to a level that could conceivably be considered ‘‘fair’’ reception under accepted testing standards.9

After the receiver testing was completed, NAB took the analysis one step further

and conducted a study to determine how much interference could result in the 60

cities the FCC had initially studied to determine if LPFM was feasible. NAB used

the FCC’s computer program to study the effects of the transmitter locations of

LPFM stations in these 60 cities. Then, we applied the data from our receiver testing to approximate the areas of interference resulting from the LPFM allotments.

Finally, we used population data to estimate the number of listeners who would receive unacceptable interference to at least one full-power FM station due to an

LPFM station being dropped in under the FCC’s proposal. NAB found that, conservatively, millions of people would experience interference in these 60 cities.10

NAB concluded that radio receivers have not improved in their interference rejection capabilities, and thus, the FCC’s key assumption in its Notice was unwarranted. Further, we commented that because the FCC relied on this assumption as

its justification for proposing an LPFM service, the FCC could not adopt its proposed LPFM service because it would cause unacceptable levels of interference to

the listening public.

For Reply Comments, NAB commissioned two independent analyses of all four receiver studies because of the different conclusions reached by the studies. The NAB

and CEMA studies concluded that unacceptable interference would result from the

LPFM proposal, and thus the Commission could not loosen its interference protections for LPFM. The National Lawyers Guild and the OET determined that radios

could reject the additional interference, and thus LPFM stations could be authorized.

26

11See NAB Reply Comments at Appendix A and B. 12See NAB Reply Comments at Appendix B. 13See NAB Reply Comments at Appendix B. 14See Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael Powell at 3. 15See Separate Statement of Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth at 1. 16Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25 at ¶ 98. 17See Format Availability After Consolidation, NAB Comments, Vol. 1, Attachment B.

NAB’s review provided the FCC with a detailed comparison of the type of receivers tested, the interference criteria used and the test methodology.11 Both groups

of experts concluded that NAB’s testing was the most comprehensive and NAB’s test

methodology of using signal-to-noise ratios was the appropriate way to test for signal interference. One group of experts went further to prove that, although the four

studies applied different methodologies and different conclusions were reached, the

main difference between the studies was the definition of when unacceptable interference results.12 Those same experts concluded that NAB provided the strongest

support for our interference criteria and that the listening public would likely demand a higher level of reception quality.

It is important to note that in addition to the volumes of comments provided by

NAB in this proceeding, thousands of other comments were filed, generating a huge

record for the FCC to consider. Yet, a little over two months after the comment period officially closed, the FCC adopted a Report and Order authorizing two levels

of LPFM service—one level for 100 watt stations and another ‘‘microradio’’ level

where stations operate at 10 watts or less.

NAB believes the FCC failed to adequately analyze the interference issue and

mistakenly relied on the OET receiver study—one that experts have concluded does

not properly measure the audible effects of the interference that will result.13 At

least two FCC Commissioners also questioned whether the interference issue was

properly resolved prior to the adoption of the Report and Order. Commissioner Michael Powell, in his separate statement, confessed that he has ‘‘no clear idea as to

whether or not existing broadcasters will suffer intolerable interference’’ and suggested a phase-in approach that would have answered questions before any harms

are realized.14 Further, Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth said, ‘‘There are real costs—

to existing stations, their listeners, and to public perception of the quality of FM

radio as a media service—here that the Commission has not even attempted to

quantify.’’ 15 Finally, the Commission itself noted in its Report and Order that the

limited number of receivers tested makes it difficult to draw statistical inferences

with regard to the general population of FM receivers.16 This fact alone should have

given the FCC pause as to whether it could have—and should have—adopted LPFM

rules.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF AN LPFM SERVICE THAT OUTWEIGH THE COSTS?

In order to justify adopting an LPFM service, in its Report and Order the FCC

relies on a cost/benefit analysis. It recognized that some interference would be

caused by LPFM, but concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs. Such an

analysis, if done properly, identifies and weighs the benefits of an action with the

costs that will be incurred. NAB believes the FCC failed to properly conduct this

analysis.

The FCC’s View of the Benefit of LPFM Service

The FCC believes that the establishment of a LPFM service will permit a greater

number of new stations to be authorized and will foster diversity of voices on the

airwaves. Both Chairman Kennard and Commissioner Gloria Tristani note this new

service is important because they believe that the radio broadcast industry has become too concentrated since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into

law. They believe that this consolidation has led to a decrease in diversity on the

airwaves.

There has been significant consolidation in the radio industry since Congress relaxed the ownership limits on radio stations to bolster the economic efficiencies that

result from common ownership. This Congressional policy decision has not negatively affected the diversity of formats available to listeners. NAB provided substantial evidence to the FCC in the LPFM proceeding that format diversity has increased in the last three years, as stations have been able to diversify to reach particularized audiences.17 Indeed, an earlier FCC study itself reached the same conclusion. Thus, the choices for listeners have increased—not decreased to where ‘‘national play lists and syndicated programming’’ are prevalent, as Commissioner

27

18See Separate Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani, Re: Creation of a Low Power

Radio Service (MM 99-25). Commissioner Tristani believes that LPFM is ‘‘a partial antidote the

negative effects of consolidation.’’ 19See Independent Radio Voices in Radio Markets, NAB Comments, Vol. 1, Attachment A. 20Report and Order at ¶ 2.

Tristani believes.18 Thus, the existence of the ‘‘problem’’ the FCC identified is not

supported by the facts.

Further, NAB provided a study to the FCC of the radio marketplace that concluded that a significant percentage of independent voices exist in the radio market—including larger markets—even after consolidation.19 For example, NAB’s

study shows that nationally, 28.8% of all commercial radio stations in all Arbitron

metros are standalone stations, while another 21.4% are part of a local two-station

operation. Thus, nearly half of the commercial radio stations in the nation are still

either a standalone station or part of a duopoly in their market, and not part of

a large group, as assumed by the FCC.

With this evidence, we proved that the FCC’s assumptions that consolidation permitted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has eliminated independent voices

in the radio industry and reduced format diversity are unfounded. Congress should

not let the FCC determine whether to effectuate the will of Congress. In this instance, the FCC has concluded that consolidation has had a negative effect—despite

the evidence provided by NAB that points to the contrary—and has adopted new

rules designed to counteract the policy set by Congress in 1996.

Any Alleged Benefit Will Not Be Realized

The FCC states that it is modifying its interference protections in order to provide

room for LPFM stations in markets that otherwise would not have space available.

The FCC believes that the greatest demand for LPFM stations will be in highly populated areas where it believes alternative forms of radio service are most needed.20

However, it is these same highly populated areas where virtually no LPFM stations

can be allocated, no matter how the FCC alters its interference protections. In this

particular case, it appears that the FCC’s goal and benefit of new voices can never

be realized in most of the major markets.

Alternatively, the FCC’s LPFM plan will provide numerous opportunities in the

smaller and medium sized markets where the lack of demand for such services has

left hundreds of available full-power allotments open. Thus, the fact that there is

spectrum standing open begs whether there was a need for the new voices in these

markets in the first place. Also, as we note below, the benefit is diminished—if not

extinguished—by interference to LPFM stations from full-power stations and other

LPFM stations. This is another fact the FCC entirely ignored.

In short, the FCC only identified one benefit to its LPFM service—the provision

of new diversity of voices. However, this benefit will not be realized in the areas

where the FCC believes it is needed the most and it is questionable whether the

benefit is needed elsewhere. In making its decision, the FCC claims to have weighed

the costs and the benefits and concluded that the one benefit substantially outweighs the costs associated with its implementation of LPFM service. The truth of

the matter is that the FCC has not properly weighed the costs because it has chosen

to ignore a substantial part of the record in order to justify implementing its new

service.

The Costs Ignored by the FCC

There are three areas where the FCC has ignored—or mistakenly undervalued—

the costs of an LPFM service on the listening public, on existing broadcasters, and

in some cases, on even the LPFM stations. The first area is one of interference.

As noted above, NAB provided in the record a substantial receiver study and a

comprehensive critique of the other receiver studies. The conclusion of those studies

is that there will be significant unacceptable interference due to the introduction of

LPFM service. This interference will affect the American public’s ability to receive

full-power station signals. The FCC claims to have analyzed the record and concluded the risk of interference is minimal. However, in the FCC’s Report and Order,

there is virtually no discussion of NAB’s expert critique of the OET study and no

attempt to quantify the interference potential in order to properly weigh this

against the alleged benefit.

The conclusions reached by the FCC were made by discounting the interference

suffered by less expensive radios. In the Report and Order, the FCC recognized that

poorer quality radios may experience some additional interference. However, it believes that its decisions ‘‘should not be constrained solely by the performance limitations of lower cost radios any more than we should use those radios to redefine exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
28

21Report and Order at ¶ 98. 22See NAB Comments, Vol. 1 at 23. 23See LPFM: The Threat to Consumer Welfare, NAB Comments, Vol. 1, Attachment C. 24Modification of FM Broadcast Station Rules to Increase the Availablility of Commercial FM

Broadcast Assignments, 94 FCC 2d 152 (1983). 25See Separate Statement of Chairman William E. Kennard at 1. 26See Separate Statement of Commissioner Michael Powell at 2.

isting FM radio service.’’ 21 This decision is an abrupt reversal of the FCC’s Notice, where it assumed current radios had improved at rejecting interference. In the face

of evidence that the typical radio instead performs worse, the FCC simply decided

to ignore the evidence.

Additionally, NAB provided evidence that showed the threat of interference to

LPFM stations from full-power stations. We showed that it is possible that if a 100

watt LPFM station were placed on a third-adjacent channel of a Class B FM station

one mile from each other, 72.9% of the LPFM station’s service area would face interference.22 Further, the FCC itself has not provided any protection from LPFM stations in this regard. The LPFM stations will be allowed to accept more interference

from full-power stations (and other LPFM stations) than previously proposed by the

FCC. These facts are significant costs that were not considered in the FCC’s analysis.

The second cost that the FCC ignored is in the area of economics. NAB provided

evidence to the FCC in this area concluding that the economic harms to both existing broadcasters in their efforts to serve their listeners and the economic costs to

LPFM stations should preclude the FCC from moving forward on its proposal.23 The

study concludes that the limited benefit of the ‘‘narrowcast’’ programming that will

be provided by LPFM stations is likely to be low quality and of limited value, making the viability of LPFM stations doubtful. Additionally, the introduction of LPFM

service will cause interference to full-power stations and this interference translates

into audience losses that results in a decrease in local service programming by fullpower stations. This result has strong support because the FCC has been down this

road before.

In the early 1980’s, the FCC adopted a plan to drop in thousands of new fullpower stations to provide service to underserved communities.24 In the eight years

following, nearly 2,500 stations were added. The effect of this was disasterous on

the radio industry. In fact, the FCC was forced to modify its ownership rules to provide increased efficiencies to heal the radio marketplace. Congress, then, provided

further deregulation with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The FCC chose to ignore this evidence claiming it does not need to consider such

arguments because, as Chairman Kennard stated, ‘‘it is not the business of the FCC

to pick winners and losers.’’ 25 However, as Commissioner Michael Powell aptly

points out, ‘‘the Commission itself has recognized that the industry’s ability to function in the public interest, convenience and necessity is fundamentally premised on

the industry’s economic viability.’’ 26

Ironically, it is likely that the most harm from the LPFM service will come to the

independently owned, ‘‘mom-and-pop’’ stations in the smaller markets that have

fought to keep their heads above water and provide quality local programming. In

many of these instances, these stations are minority owned stations. Even in the

absence of the interference potential, the threat of new voices—even if non-commercial—could reduce the ability of these stations to maintain the level of service now

provided. If that service changes, it is the listeners who will suffer due to the inability of LPFM stations to fill in the gap of programming quality and quantity.

Finally, the FCC virtually ignored the issue of enforcement as a factor in its analysis. With its LPFM service, the FCC expects to license over 1,000 new stations.

These stations are subject to many—but not all—of the same regulations as fullpower broadcasters. However, the FCC has not proposed any plans as to how it expects to enforce its rules on this new amateur radio service where the licensees will

either be those who have never operated a broadcast station or did so illegally. The

fact is that the FCC is operating with greatly reduced Field Office staff. For the past

few years, these offices have diligently attempted to shut down illegal pirate broadcasters, in addition to enforcing the rules for all other FCC licensees. The FCC apparently has no plans to devote more resources to enforcement, and thus seems to

be relying only on the good faith of inexperienced LPFM operators to ensure that

the rules are followed.

These amateur operators will not possess the same incentive to abide by the rules

as full-power broadcasters because they do not have the same investment in the license. While the FCC may think that it has no reason to believe that these amateur

operators will not follow the rules, the fact is that the LPFM movement does have

29

roots in pirate broadcasting. The FCC does not have the ability to control thousands

of new LPFM stations and continue to shut down pirates. NAB believes that part

of the FCC’s mandate to provide efficient use of the spectrum also includes the ability to maintain that use through effective enforcement. That element is severely

lacking in this case and must be considered in any analysis.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, NAB is encouraged by the Subcommittee’s interest in the LPFM

issue. The FCC has taken steps that threaten the spectrum integrity of the FM

band without justifiable cause. NAB also supports H.R. 3439, a measure that would

turn back the clock and undo the FCC action before real harm results. The FCC

has rushed to judgment by substituting social engineering for rational, prudent policy making by adopting a service that lacks any benefit that outweighs the substantial costs that will be produced. Once again, we would like to express on behalf of

NAB, its appreciation for the opportunity to testify before the members of the House

Telecommunications Subcommittee today.

30

31

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fritts.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. David Maxon, Founder, Broadcast

Signal Lab on behalf of The Lawyers Guild.

STATEMENT OF DAVID MAXON

Mr. MAXON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank

you for inviting me to speak today.

My name is David Maxon. I am co-founder and have been managing partner of Broadcast Signal Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts since its inception in 1982. I was also Vice President, Director

of Engineering, Charles River Broadcasting Company whose flagship radio station in Boston is the highest rated classical music

station in the Nation. I served that company for 20 years.

Broadcast Signal Lab was contracted by The National Lawyers

Guild to evaluate a sample of consumer radios for their susceptibility to interference under a variety of conditions. We are here

today at the request of the subcommittee to address the interference question in the matter of low power FM broadcasting. My

role is that of an engineer and The National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications has asked me to testify on

its behalf in that capacity.

They are very concerned with the free speech issues involved in

the creation of LPFM and have asked me to introduce the attached

statement of fundamental principles relating to spectrum integrity

that is attached with my testimony into the record.

On behalf of The National Lawyers Guild and the related parties

that funded the work that my company did, we studied 11 consumer radios to develop an understanding of their susceptibility to

interference under a variety of conditions. We varied a number of

things—signals strengths of desired and undesired signals, modulation of the signals—the loudness of the sound put on the signal, the

types of sound put on the signal, and we looked at various measures of susceptibility. You have heard harmonic distortion mentioned, you have heard noise mentioned. We measured both and

looked for patterns in the data.

I would like to note well that the receiver tests alone, as you can

see from the dissention among the different testers of receivers, do

not prove or disprove anyone’s case about interference. There are

so many other factors such as how and where different types of radios are used, such as consumer preferences that should be considered in a thorough analysis.

For the most part, the radios that we did test, and it was just

a sampling of radios as were the other tests, they did have a much

greater ability to withstand interference on second and third adjacent channels than one might anticipate using the rules that were

established for FM broadcasting half a century or so ago.

We felt that the FCC protection standards could be relaxed for

low power services without causing a significant increase in interference. We did some testing of fourth adjacent channel interference, which is not an issue as far as interference is concerned,

and found some comparison between fourth adjacent channel interference and third adjacent channel interference. There were some

similarities. This suggests that if fourth isn’t regulated, perhaps

third doesn’t need to be.

32

We determined that with the low power FM stations, the 110

watt stations, not the 1,000 that were originally also mentioned in

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but those lower power stations,

we felt with the separation distances that were proposed, subsequently modified and adopted by the FCC, they are very conservative separation distances and that if any interference occurs, it

will be no greater than the interference that the FCC and broadcasters accept on a variety of other circumstances throughout the

country in urban and rural areas.

The separation requirements for LP-100 stations are in fact

much more conservative than those which apply to some existing

low power services, specifically Class D stations and translators.

These facilities have been coexisting successfully with full power

stations for many, many years.

Low power FM is, to my way of thinking, the way the separation

distances have been applied, an extension of Class D radio basically. It is a creation of an additional number of low power stations

similar to ones that are already in use by some noncommercial

broadcasters today.

We also felt that while we could take a radio signal and not put

any sound on it and take a noise measurement, that wouldn’t be

a realistic measurement of interference, but just a measure of

noise. So we also did measurements where we put sound on the

interfering signal and sound on a signal that we would like to receive on our test radio. You can’t measure noise because the sound

is in the way, so you have to take out the sound and measure what

is left and that is the noise. This is the harmonic distortion that

is being mentioned by a number of other people.

The harmonic distortion measurement is, in fact, a noise measurement. It is nothing other than that. It is a more practical, real

world way to measure the performance of radios. One battery of

our measurements did use the harmonic distortion technique.

We also note that in the unlikely event there is a conflict between a noncommercial translator’s ability to receive a distant signal, for instance, we understand there may be some issues especially with present noncommercial broadcasters of a translator

somewhere else and picking up their signal and translating it onto

a new frequency in this remove market, that perhaps an LPFM

could come in and prevent them from picking up their own distant

signal to put on their own translator.

There are alternative delivery means that you can use to feed a

translator. In fact, many translators are permitted to do this. We

would suggest that in the case of an LPFM that interferes with the

reception of a primary station for a translator, that the FCC can

simply modify the rules to address any concerns that are raised

about how LPFM may affect reception of signals for existing translators.

As we said, we feel the decision the FCC made to authorize

LPFM service is very conservative from a technical perspective. It

is the least change possible to the technical rules that the FCC

could have made. As the FCC has acknowledged, because of the

conservative approach they took, it does preclude LPFM in places

where it might otherwise have been permitted.

33

As a point of comparison, I would like to just mention the Class

D station in the Boston area at Brandeis University that has been

there for many years. It is on a commercial channel and it is within the protected area of two third adjacent channel stations. The

FCC permitted it because its supposed interference area would fall

within the campus of the school.

I have been to the campus many times, I have serviced the station. I have never seen, never heard any complaints about interference with either of the two third adjacent channel stations that

are also received on campus.

So it is our opinion that the third adjacent channel changes are

de minimis and they do not have an impact on commercial broadcasting. I would suggest that the interference issue, in spite of all

the people we have seated here today, is functionally a red herring,

that we really should be discussing the policy issues with the people here who are the policy experts.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of David Maxon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID MAXSON, FOUNDER, BROADCAST SIGNAL LAB, ON

BEHALF OF THE LAWYERS GUILD

My name is David Maxson, co-founder and managing partner of Broadcast Signal

Lab, LLP, Cambridge, Massachusetts since its inception in 1982. I was Vice President, Director of Engineering of Charles River Broadcasting Company, whose flagship radio station in Boston is the highest-rated classical music station in the nation. I served the company for twenty years.

Broadcast Signal Lab was contracted by the National Lawyers’ Guild to evaluate

a sample of consumer radios for their susceptibility to interference under a variety

of conditions. We are here today at the request of the Subcommittee to address the

interference question in the matter of Low Power FM broadcasting (LPFM).

The FCC decision to authorize an LPFM service is very conservative from a technical perspective. Its changes to the technical rules are the least one could make.

While LPFM stations are being permitted to overlap with signals of third adjacent

channel stations, the protections afforded to existing stations on the first and second

adjacent, or on channels the same channel are extremely conservative. The FCC

chose to employ a simple LPFM distance separation methodology that in the Commission’s words ‘‘will preclude new LPFM stations in some areas.’’ (FCC 00-19, par.

70)

As a point of comparison, consider the other two low power FM services peacefully

coexisting with full power stations—Class D and translator stations. There are plenty of Class D stations and translators that would not meet the LPFM separation

distances. One of our clients, WBRS, at Brandeis University, has a Class D station

operating at 35 watts ERP at about 150 feet above average terrain. It is very similar to an LP-100 facility in its power and antenna height. This station is directly

in the middle of the protected contours of third adjacent stations on 100.7 and 95.5.

This station is also at a location and frequency that would not meet LPFM separation distances. The FCC licensed this station because the area of third adjacent

channel overlap was contained within the college campus. In reality, even on the

campus, there is no interference from the Class D to the third-adjacent stations.

Therefore, based on practical experience, and our evaluation of radio receivers, ten

or 100-watt low power FM radio stations that meet the FCC’s conservative criteria

will have an interference effect that is at worst, de minimus, with respect to the

existing radio environment.

The interference issue, in our opinion, is a red herring in this proceeding. I respectfully encourage the subcommittee to spend its precious time on considering the

policy issues related to the LPFM service, not the interference issues.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Maxon.

The Chair is now pleased to welcome Mr. Bruce Reese, President

and CEO, Bonneville International Corporation, Salt Lake City.

Mr. Reese?

34

STATEMENT OF BRUCE T. REESE

Mr. REESE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Bruce Reese, President and CEO of Bonneville. We operate

15 stations around the country including several here in Washington, DC, WTOP AM and FM and WGMS, whose badly interfered

signal you heard earlier on Mr. Jackson’s evaluation. Our company

has been in the radio business since 1922.

I am also here as Chairman of the NAB Specturm Integrity Task

Force which was formed last year to monitor and evaluate the

FCC’s low power FM proposal.

My job here today is to focus on real operating problems and real

listener problems. As operators of FM stations, there is nothing

more important to us and to our listeners than being able to hear

our station without interference.

This is the Sony Walkman that has been talked about here

today. This one of the types of radios that the NAB tested. Our

study found that the relaxed interference standards proposed and

now adopted by the FCC would make this type and other types of

radios much harder to listen to. In fact, hundreds of millions of radios fit into these threatened categories. Not every radio will experience interference everyplace, not every radio station will experience interference everywhere in its service area, but let us be clear

on one point. The FCC’s new rules will create new interference for

millions of American listeners.

Even Professor Rappaport, the outside expert the FCC cited, conceded that many radios will suffer new interference from LPFM.

The FCC was ultimately forced to agree with that. Nonetheless, the

FCC decided to plunge forward with LPFM. It simply ignored new

interference to radios in millions of American homes. These radios

won’t stand up to more interference from gerrymandered stations.

You have heard Mr. Jackson’s examples of what the FCC now

deems acceptable interference. The FCC says that the benefits outweigh the cost of this so-called acceptable interference. What are

the benefits?

The FCC supposedly wants to get these licenses into the hands

of community-based groups and minorities in large markets. Will

this work? In ignoring the laws of physics to reduce interference

protections for full power stations, the FCC also had to reduce the

protection levels for these new LPFM stations. As a result, the new

LPFM stations themselves will suffer substantial interference.

Thus, the FCC will be licensing new interfering stations that will

be largely unlistenable for the intended audiences. The cost of this

ineffective spectrum allocation is the creation of a swiss cheese coverage pattern for existing full service broadcasters.

The combination of bad science, bad economics and ill conceived

social engineering that is the LPFM decision also creates all kinds

of incentives for LPFM stations to cheat, whether on the technical

standards be it tower high power, hours of operations, or the educational and noncommercial requirements.

The FCC does not have and is unlikely to get the resources to

enforce these rules for hundreds or thousands of new stations. Notwithstanding their good intent, they haven’t even been able to shut

down the hundreds of pirate radio stations now on the air.

35

The irony is that the Internet provides the creative tools and the

distribution mechanism to accomplish all of the FCC’s goals. Why

reek havoc on the FM dial? The only apparent reasons not to use

the Internet are one, that the FCC won’t get to regulate it and two,

that the FCC won’t get credit for it.

Broadcasters spend millions of dollars annually to keep high

quality sound on the air. Our audience demands it. That is why we

support the development of in-band, on-channel digital radio. Another reason why the FCC’s LPFM decision is wrong is that it adds

new low power stations to the dial before any testing to find out

whether new digital radios can deliver the promised CD quality

service in the face of this new LPFM interference. In fact, the Commission issued its final LPFM order before receiving initial comments on the digital rulemaking.

Don’t let misguided social policy and a disregard for scientific

evidence undermine the investment we have made and the expectations your constituents have for the sound of their FM radios. We

urge you to pass the Oxley-Pallone bill. It is the only way we can

provide the spectrum integrity millions of American radio listeners

need and deserve.

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Reese.

The Chair is now pleased to welcome Dr. Theodore Rappaport,

Professor, Virginia Tech Engineering School, Blacksburg, Virginia.

STATEMENTS OF THEODORE S. RAPPAPORT, PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA TECH; DON SCHELLHARDT, NATIONAL COORDINATOR,

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE; DIRK KONING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GRAND RAPIDS COMMUNITY MEDIA CENTER; HON.

HAROLD W. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND KEVIN KLOSE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO

Mr. RAPPAPORT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other esteemed

members of the committee. It is an honor to be here before you.

My name is Ted Rappaport. I am the James S. Tucker Professor

of Electrical Engineering at Virginia Tech.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and commend you and

your son for your choice of a higher education school in Blacksburg.

Mr. MARKEY. May I interrupt for a second? The rest of the world

might not have known a lot about Virginia Tech but since they

beat Boston College every year, I am very familiar with them.

Mr. RAPPAPORT. I also serve as Chairman of Wireless Valley

Communications in Blacksburg. My research expertise is in the

field of radiowave propagation, communications system design and

broadband wireless communications. I am also a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia and received the

NSF Presidential Faculty Fellowship Award from President Bush

back in 1992, the first class of its kind.

In the Rose Garden, President Bush encouraged all of us, the 30

faculty there, to try to make a contribution to the US in our careers. So when I was approached by a number of public interest

groups, the United Church of Christ and their lawyers at the

Media Access Project to try to ring technically and objectively on

this topic, I was eager to participate.

36

In getting involved, I insisted that my work in this area would

have to be preconditioned on the fact that it would have to be technical, objective and without bias. In so doing this work, my staff

and I at Wireless Valley conducted a very extensive study of how

the FCC licenses FM transmitters today and how low power FM

might impact the future of FM services, digital services and also

reading for the blind and the like.

What we did is we made a very comprehensive study, extensive,

using the entire data base of FCC FM licenses with maps and geographical input of power stations, of all the FM stations that exist

in the US today, as well as all stations in Canada and Mexico and

studied how low power FM would impact today’s spectrum and also

how newer, lower power, 10 watt and 1 watt, stations, which were

not on the FCC radar screen, would also impact the service to listeners both present and future.

In fact, we spent several weeks not only analyzing FCC radio

propagation programs but we also developed numbers of the actual

channels and their specific locations in 60 representative US cities.

One of the interesting things about the study is unlike what has

been claimed by low power opponents, is that it is not at all a swiss

cheese type nature but in fact there must be very, very careful

technical analysis and careful FCC licensing procedures to license

these low power FM stations to protect the public. That is exactly

what the FCC has proposed very responsibly in their low power

FM ruling.

My analysis concluded that low power FM will not cause unacceptable levels of interference for existing FM broadcast stations,

their listeners or future services, digital radio. Our simulations

demonstrated that under the conservative proposal adopted by the

FCC, that in the absolute worse case, if all new low power FM stations used 100 watt transmitters, all of them put their antennas

at 30 meters above ground level, the maximum number of new listeners who could receive low power FM, of that new number of

served listeners at most 1.6 percent of those new listeners might,

and that is just might, experience interference.

Furthermore, of that small minority of 1.6 percent, the majority

of the actually would not experience any interference whatsoever

given the fact that the regulations as proposed by the FCC provide

sufficient protection. In fact, if you look at the low power FM

broadcast rules, they are very, very similar to existing FM stations.

The only difference is the elimination of the third adjacent channel

protection.

I think it is very important to note, and I know Mr. Oxley would

be interested in this, that the USADR, which is a digital radio proponent publicly stated in low power FM comments that it was the

third adjacent protection ratio, not the second, that they were concerned about. In fact, this is what the FCC eventually did in the

ruling.

The second part of my study was based on analyzing the public

comments that had been filed to date regarding the technical issues

of low power FM. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I was very dismayed at the hyperbole and the lack of objectivity in those studies

that were submitted from opponents of low power FM.

37

I could name a large list of calculations and misrepresentations

that in any technical journal that I review and my peers review,

would never pass muster. In fact, I would be happy to address

some of those in the comments.

In concluding, I would like to say my hope is that this testimony

has convinced you and the committee that indeed there was very,

very good technical rigor in determining the low power FM standards and that there will not, I repeat not, be tremendous interference. It will be very, very slight and it will be of great benefit

to the public.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Theodore S. Rappaport follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE S. RAPPAPORT, PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA TECH

Thank you for the honor to appear before you today. My name is Dr. Ted

Rappaport. I am the James S. Tucker professor of electrical engineering at Virginia

Tech, Blacksburg, and have been on the faculty for 12 years. In 1990, I founded Virginia Tech’s Mobile and Portable Radio Research Group, one of the world’s first research and education centers to specialize in the field of wireless communications.

I also serve as Chairman of Wireless Valley Communications, Inc. in Blacksburg,

VA. My research expertise is in the areas of radio wave propagation, communication

system design, signal processing, and emerging broadband wireless communications.

I have authored or coauthored more than 10 books in the field of wireless communications, including the popular textbook ‘‘Wireless Communications’’ published by

Prentice-Hall. I received my engineering degrees from Purdue University in the

1980’s, and in 1992 was recipient of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Presidential Faculty Fellowship. I am a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I became acquainted with low power FM radio, also known as LPFM, when I was

approached last summer to perform technical analysis on behalf of a coalition of

churches, non-profit foundations, and other public-interest groups, led by the United

Church of Christ and their lawyers at Media Access Project. Before I agreed to do

any work for them with regard to LPFM, I insisted the public interest groups would

have to accept my results based on technical analysis, without bias or a predetermined outcome. The groups seeking my technical analysis agreed to these conditions, and I carefully studied the Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for

LPFM. It seemed well thought out, and made a compelling case for LPFM stations.

In the NPRM, the FCC asked for technical analyses from the public to help them

in the rulemaking process.

After reading the NPRM for LPFM, I agreed to provide a detailed technical analysis of LPFM through my engineering company, Wireless Valley Communications,

Inc. To determine the technical feasibility of low power radio, my staff and I did

two things. First, we performed extensive analysis and computer simulation using

the FCC’s own interference protection rules and licensing procedures for existing

FM radio stations. This analysis allowed us to determine how the addition of LPFM

stations would impact existing FM stations, as well as emerging digital radio services. Second, we conducted a rigorous review of some of the technical data and public comments that had already been submitted to the FCC in response to the NPRM

for LPFM.

My analysis concluded that LPFM will not cause unacceptable levels of interference to existing FM broadcast stations or their listeners. My computer simulations demonstrate that under the conservative proposal adopted by the FCC, in the

absolute worst case, if all new LPFM stations used 100 Watts, then at most, 1.6 percent of listeners who could hear a new LPFM station might be unable to receive

a currently-existing broadcast station. More importantly, the large majority of the

affected listeners would actually be able to receive all current stations, and other

affected listeners would be able to receive an incumbent station by simply moving

their radios a few feet or by rotating them on their nightstands.

In addition, when I analyzed the technical data filed as public comments, I found

that most of the technical studies would not meet the objective standards necessary

for peer review or publication acceptance in the engineering community. Standards

for peer review include the open disclosure of all formulas, assumptions, data processing methodologies, and in some cases software codes, such that others who are

familiar with the technical issues can evaluate, replicate and corroborate results. To

38

best serve the interests of the FCC and the public, I firmly believe that public comments of a technical nature should be filed such that they can be peer reviewed and

stand up to scrutiny and objectivity. The studies filed by some opponents of LPFM,

unfortunately, lacked technical details or objectivity, and were based on the misguided premise that most FM radios today do not work properly. This is clearly not

true. Most consumers today are very pleased with their FM radios as evidenced by

the lack of public outcry or FCC complaints.

In the end, the FCC adopted a very safe and conservative ruling that is certain

to minimize LPFM interference to incumbent broadcasters and listeners. The FCC

was originally considering whether to create three sizes of radio stations—10 watts,

100 watts, and 1000 watts. In addition, the FCC was considering whether to change

the transmitter spacing protections around those stations by lifting what is called

third adjacent and second adjacent channel protection levels. These transmitter

spacing rules create cushions (interference protection zones) around radio stations

so their transmissions do not interfere or ‘‘bleed’’ with one another. Existing commercial FM stations are required to obey these spacing rules prior to licensure.

I determined that 1000 watt LPFM stations required full protection—both second

and third adjacent protection. Ten watt and 100 watt stations are so small in power,

however, that they cover such a small area and therefore do not require either second or third adjacent channel protection. The proposal the FCC adopted is more conservative than my recommendations. The FCC not only decided not to adopt 1000

watt stations, but they also retained second adjacent channel protection for the

smaller 10 and 100 watt stations. This assures even greater interference protection

to incumbent FM broadcasters and current station listeners than I had recommended, since it greatly reduces the number of possible LPFM stations that will

be allowed. My computer analysis considered a wide range of possible interference

rules, including the case of second adjacent channel protection which the FCC has

adopted [see Appendix D of ‘‘Technical Analysis of the Low Power FM Service’’ by

Wireless Valley Communications, Inc., August 26, 1999, submitted to Media Access

Project for public filing]. My analysis found that, by using worst case interference

assumptions and by relaxing the second and third adjacent channel protections, 626

new LPFM stations could be added in 60 US cities. My recommendations would

have allowed over 81 million new citizen-channels on the FM airways, with a worst

case potential interference of 1.2 million citizen-channels (however, since the analysis was worst case, only a small fraction of the 1.2 million citizen-channels actually

would have experienced interference of some kind). However, the FCC adopted a

more conservative approach, and insisted that all LPFM stations must obey the existing second adjacent channel projection rule, which reduces the number of new

LPFM stations to 247 in the same 60 US markets. This reduces the number of citizens-channels by almost 300%, and decreases the number of potential interference

events by the same factor.

Details Behind My Computer Analysis

Let me now provide further details about the computer analysis that demonstrated low power radio would not harm current broadcasts. My computer analysis included an extensive radio spectrum simulation to demonstrate that hundreds

of LPFM stations may indeed be deployed in the top U.S. markets with minimal

impact to incumbent and future digital FM radio stations. We used the FCC’s FM

radio license database, the FCC radio propagation programs, and Part 73 interference and coverage rules for FM radio stations, to show that properly certified

LPFM transmitters with radiated power levels between 1 and 100 Watts and no 2nd

or 3rd adjacent channel protection requirements can serve tens of millions of neighborhood listeners in the U.S., while having minimal interference impact on a very

small fraction of listeners. My computer program increased the granularity, or precision, of the FCC’s models. In addition, my computer program analyzed the impact

of 10 watt and 1 watt stations, which the FCC did not do in its original NPRM,

and considered other channel protection schemes.

We spent several weeks analyzing the FCC radio propagation programs and improving the FCC’s software that is used for issuing standard FM radio licenses. In

addition to analyzing new LPFM stations having power levels of 1000, 100, 10 and

1 watt, we also developed programs that could draw maps of the possible locations

and the maximum number of LPFM stations that could be supported within a specific market for a given protection ratio ruling. To verify that we were following FCC

FM radio license guidelines and to make certain that our programs were working

properly, we spoke with FCC engineers throughout the process to verify our programs recreated the same data which FCC engineers could obtain with their original program. Since the FM radio license database is constantly changing, we used

the most recent version of the FM station license database. The FCC’s FM radio staVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
39

1People listening inside the interference area would experience interference to an incumbent

station’s signal if and only if all of the following conditions applied concurrently:

If the LPFM station were placed near the coverage fringe of the incumbent station,

If the incumbent station transmits on a channel 2 or 3 channels above or below the LPFM

station’s assigned frequency,

If the listener only wishes to listen to the incumbent station out of the dozens of stations

available, and

If their radio happens to be a poor-performing model like a clock radio.

In many instances, the listener would be able to ‘‘tune’’ out the LPFM interference by moving

the FM receiver. It is quite common for people to adjust the position of their clock radio or boom

box for good reception. Such adjustment could cause the LPFM interferer to fade while maximizing the desired signal.

tion license database includes key technical details that are vital for determining

whether or not any new FM stations might cause interference.

These key details include radio frequency, geographical position, and transmitter

power of each FM station license in the US, as well as similar data for FM stations

licensed near the US borders in Canada and Mexico. Using our modified programs,

and considering a wide variety of transmitter powers, interference protection rules,

and geographic resolutions, we determined the exact number of viable LPFM stations in 60 representative US cities, and presented maps which illustrate possible

LPFM locations in many of these markets. Once written, our computer program

took about 2 days of continuous computer time on a 400 MHz personal computer

to produce the results provided in our public comments submitted to the FCC.

I wish to point out that we have provided both the source code and executable

code of our computer programs with our filing, and believe they could be of significant value to the FCC and to the public. In fact, these programs could be used with

very little modification by the FCC or a private entity to properly license LPFM stations in the US. All of this data is available to the public on the Media Access

Project web site at http://www.mediaaccess.org/.

Our analysis shows that between 64 and 680 times as many citizens are able to

receive LPFM programming over small distances (i.e. within neighborhoods) as compared with those who may rarely experience some level of interference or degraded

service. Even those listeners experiencing some degradation of service will likely be

able to improve their reception by simply relocating their radio or adjusting their

antenna.1

In my presentation to the FCC, I included maps to demonstrate suitable locations

of LPFM stations in several representative cities. These maps demonstrate the careful analysis and limited nature of the new low power radio stations. They show that

not every city will accommodate low power stations. In addition, in certain cities,

it will be possible to add new stations in only certain areas of a city. Thus, concerns

that low power stations might pop up like mushrooms, or like the holes in Swiss

cheese, without regard for current broadcasts is completely false. Careful, stringent

engineering analysis shows where the stations may safely be added and this same

analysis must be used for the proper issuance of low power radio licenses.

Although we made all of our information publicly available, the opponents of low

power radio have been unable to find any flaws in my analysis.

Details Behind My Analysis of Other Studies

The receiver studies submitted to the FCC by low power radio opponents show

that the true ‘‘real world’’ FM interference environment for household radios is benign, due to the FCC’s unnecessarily high interference protection ratios which stem

from the state-of-the-art several decades ago. The receiver studies offer very strong

support for LPFM as a viable service without the need for 2nd and 3rd adjacent

protection ratios, because today’s fixed and portable FM radios operate successfully

with much less interference protection than assumed by the FCC in its present station licensing process. The small additional interference introduced by LPFM is

miniscule in comparison to already existing levels of interference in the FM band.

A simple analogy will explain the basis and conclusions of the NAB’s and CEMA’s

studies. Let’s imagine there is a Federal Building Commission (FBC) that regulates

the occupancy of people on floors in office buildings. Let’s say that the Commission’s

rules require each building owner to assume that each person weighs, on average,

300 pounds, and that each person occupies a particular floor area, say 6 square feet.

The building owners, analogous to FM station license holders, are thus required to

limit the number of people they allow to live on each floor of their building according to FBC rules.

However, the construction companies, analogous to radio manufacturers in this

example, realize that they can safely build buildings at much less cost if they assume that, on average, every person only weighs 200 pounds. Just as the radio manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
40

ufacturers for FM radio are not regulated by the FCC to provide specific technical

specifications of their product, the construction companies are not regulated by the

Federal Building Commission, so a wide range of construction techniques and building materials are used.

Assume this is what is done for years, with great success. Now, assume time

passes and some new building owners wish to build small, low-cost buildings, but

wish to allow more people to live on each floor of their buildings, because they have

fewer resources and wish to provide shelter to more patrons. The Federal Building

Commission decides that it has been too restrictive, and proposes that the safety

standard for occupancy of floors in office buildings should be relaxed a bit to assume

everyone weighs 250 pounds instead of 300 pounds—since this will allow the new

building owners to allow more people within a building floor.

But the construction companies and building owners now claim that the Federal

Building Commission is going too far—they cry ‘‘Wait, the current buildings don’t

even meet the safety standards now, how can we relax them further?’’ But the construction companies and building owners already know that the original rules were

far, far too restrictive. In fact, the construction companies have actually been assuming people weigh less on average all along, and in fact have been building offices

for years which serve the public well using less costly materials. It is clear from

this example that the Federal Building Commission’s relaxation of the rules will

have no impact on the existing buildings or the construction companies. Buildings

will continue to hold occupants. All that has happened is the Federal Building Commission has realized that the old rules were much too restrictive and unrealistic,

and has successfully accommodated the request of a handful of new, smaller building owners.

This is the same situation for FM radio. Radio manufacturers and FM station license holders have known that the FCC rules for FM broadcast licensing provide

an overabundance of interference protection. By FCC licensing guidelines, FM radio

stations are spaced far apart in such a conservative manner as to prevent radio interference. This in turn allows FM radios to be manufactured very inexpensively.

The FCC rules for FM broadcast licenses offer so much spacing (e.g. interference

protection) because they were developed when FM radio was in its infancy, when

older FM radio receivers were far more susceptible to adjacent channel interference

and frequency drift than today’s receivers. In fact, the FM station license rules used

today were developed before most FM receivers used completely integrated receiver

circuits (chips). Today’s modern integrated circuit design and filtering technologies

are far more robust to drift and interference than radio receivers of 30 years ago.

The technological advances in receiver technology (just look at today’s cellphone— its much more robust than its shoebox counterpart of 1985) is why the addition of

a few LPFM stations in each market will make virtually no difference to the listening public.

It is important to note that the FCC rules for FM broadcast licensing have no regulatory bearing on how FM radio receivers should perform or be constructed. This

is a wise and sensible approach that the FCC has traditionally taken, because it

allows various manufacturers of radios to freely compete and differentiate themselves on the basis of price and performance. In short, there is a great deal of protection in the FCC’s FM broadcast licensing standards. Small stations of 10 and 100

watts will not harm any current broadcasts. Opponents of LPFM did not objectively

point this out or properly address the relationship between FCC FM licensing guidelines versus commercial FM receiver performance.

Another example will demonstrate the flaws in the NAB’s study. The NAB sought

to identify how well FM receivers work by establishing a performance standard. But

more than half of the FM receivers tested in the NAB study could not even meet

the NAB’s performance standards before the simulation of new low power radio stations. That is, even in a perfect, interference-free environment in the test laboratory,

without the introduction of any additional FM interference, NAB’s experiments had

more than 50% of the radios it tested as failing its own performance standard in

a noise-free environment! But we all know that if we purchase FM radios at random, virtually all of them will work fine. Put another way, according to the NAB,

half of all radios they tested do not perform acceptably today, even before LPFM

is introduced! This result obviously defies common sense. There were many other

issues which, as an engineer and reviewer, disturbed me and which would certainly

disturb others if they were looking for objectivity.

My hope is that this testimony has helped you understand some of the technical

issues involved with FM radio licensing, FM receiver design, and the Low Power

FM Process. I also hope it helps clarify the work that my staff and I have conducted

and made available to the FCC and the public, for possible use in properly licensing

LPFM stations in this country. As an engineering professional who makes a living

41

by teaching, studying, and creating new technologies in the wireless communications field, I am confident that the FCC’s low power FM system, as recently adopted, will have no detrimental impact on existing and future commercial FM radio

stations or their listeners, and will benefit millions of Americans with a will and

desire to communicate responsibly within their own neighborhoods and communities. Thank you again for the honor to address you, and to serve our nation in

this matter.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Professor.

The Chair is now pleased to welcome Mr. Don Schellhardt, National Coordinator, The Amherst Alliance.

Mr. Schellhardt?

STATEMENT OF DON SCHELLHARDT

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. Mr. Chairman, members and staff of the subcommittee, good morning. Thank you for permitting me this opportunity to testify. Thank you also for ordering that my written statement and supplemental materials be included in the permanent

record.

Before I move into the substance of my remarks, I have a procedural point to raise. I have noticed that we have witnesses here

who represent experts and advocates on both sides of the low

power radio issue. However, we don’t have anyone here who actually plans to apply for a low power radio license.

Fortunately, seated behind me are two people who do intend to

apply, Wesley and Marie Denick of Providence, Rhode Island and

Christopher Maxwell of Richmond, Virginia. Wesley is with Providence Community Radio and Christopher is with the Virginia Center for the Public Press.

With the subcommittee’s permission, I would like to request that

their written statements and supplemental materials which have

already been submitted, be included in the record as well.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair has already, by unanimous consent, kept

the record open for 30 days for supplemental filings. The gentleman is perfectly free to do so for the record.

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. I would also ask the subcommittee’s consent

to allow these people to participate in the question and answer session if it is relevant to LP FM licensing.

Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair wishes to inform the gentleman that witnesses are invited to testify in advance of these hearings and that

it is standard procedure for the committees of Congress to hear

from the witnesses invited. Unless there is unanimous consent that

any other witness be introduced to the panel accepted by all the

members here, that the witnesses are limited to those who attend.

I might say Mr. Schellhardt, I don’t think you can say categorically that there aren’t some people at the table who might apply

for one of these licenses. I can see Mr. Eddie Fritts applying for a

license right now.

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. I took my procedural shot and I will move on

to the substance of my remarks. I would like to mention at the outset I am planning to discuss interference last if time permits because there are other important issues that need to be addressed

here.

Let me begin on a personal note. This appearance today represents something of a homecoming for me. A number of years ago

I was legislative counsel to Representative Matthew Renaldo, ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
42

publican of New Jersey, who served on the Commerce Committee

and on this subcommittee.

Also for 12 years, I worked with the American Gas Association

holding several positions which included Director of Legislative and

Regulatory Affairs. Of course that brought me over here fairly

often. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I remember working with you to reform the Fuel Use Act and repealing incremental pricing back in

the 1980’s. That shows why it is important to be civil and reasonable in debates like this. You never know whether the ally of today

is going to be an adversary of tomorrow or vice versa.

I can’t speak for everyone in the movement but in Amherst, we

are trying to be firm but at the same time, very reasonable and

courteous.

I have four points to raise, with interference being last. The first

point concerns my powder blue sports jacket and bright yellow tie.

The relevance there is that back at home, I have an $800 pure wool

corporate gray suit. Some of my friends thought I should wear that

so that I would like all the other lawyers, but I figured this time,

I am not testifying on somebody else’s dime, I am not representing

anybody else except me, I am here on my own time, my own dime,

I am going to be myself. So here I am in my $40 Sears suit.

The relevance of that comment is that a lot of people feel that

way about the radio. They feel that every time they turn on the

dial, all that is out there are corporate gray suits. They would like

to have some powder blue suits and bright yellow ties on the dial

as well.

Mr. TAUZIN. I am sure you will look great on the radio. I am not

sure how you are going to do that, but good luck.

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. My second point concerns the pent-up public

demand out there for reform of the way that ideas and information

are circulated in our society. Low power radio is only the tip of that

iceberg. Beyond low power radio, there is a lot of concern among

a lot of people about the general overconsolidation of ownership in

the radio industry and in the mass media. There is also connected

to that concern about the way the political process is covered by

the media and the way the candidates are able to present their

views to the voter.

Mr. TAUZIN. Your time has expired but I want to do something.

I am going to ask unanimous consent that given the long and very

interesting preamble to your discussion, I will ask that we give you

an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. Moving rapidly, we hope that Congress will

also look at auctions, ending the statutory mandate for auctioning

of all commercial radio licenses. If you can’t do that, we hope that

you will at least choose to exempt commercial low power radio stations 100 watts or less so that we can get some commercial airing

stations out there too.

Not speaking for Amherst, but just speaking for myself, I hope

you will support free air time for candidates and public financing

of elections. I know personally I would like to run for Congress if

I could afford it, so I have a vested interest. Most of the people I

talk to in Amherst don’t want to run for Congress but many of

them want to be on the air and they can’t afford to get a radio station either.

43

So if you multiply my frustrated political ambitions by tens of

thousands and if you multiply the frustrated career aspirations of

some of my followers by millions, that is a lot of pent-up energy.

I think that pent-up energy could do some good.

I remember my friend Bud Laurence from the American Gas Association used to always say, it is better to have them on the inside

spitting out than on the outside spitting in. He didn’t actually say

spitting but you get the point.

Third, to quote another gentleman you all know, former Representative Phil Sharpe from Indiana who was on the House Commerce Committed, he used to always say let us do the doable. That

is my feeling toward the FCC’s proposed final rule. Most of us at

Amherst would like it to go farther, the details of how much further are in the written testimony but we still think it is the best

that probably could have been accomplished under the current circumstances. We think it is a beach head for building more reform

in the future.

We hope that Congress will at least leave it alone and preferably

embrace it with enthusiasm.

Thank you for the extra 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Don Schellhardt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON SCHELLHARDT, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, THE

AMHERST ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Telecommunications Subcommittee and Staff of

the Telecommunications Subcommittee: My name is Don Schellhardt. I am the CoFounder and National Coordinator of THE AMHERST ALLIANCE. I speak to you

today on behalf of this group.

WHAT IS THE AMHERST ALLIANCE?

THE AMHERST ALLIANCE may not be a household word. However, it is the

channel for an immense tide of human energy. We are a nationwide citizens’ advocacy group, organized and mobilized mainly over The Internet. We are composed of

roughly 200 individuals, from Maine to California and Florida to Alaska. Thanks

to Internet postings, we have a ‘‘sphere of influence’’ which reaches hundreds, or

possibly thousands, of additional people around the globe.

We take our name from the small but distinguished college town of Amherst,

Massachusetts—where Minutemen were recruited, two centuries ago, and Emily

Dickinson wrote her gentle, brilliant poetry, which was then rejected by the Media

Establishment of her day. Our group was born, over dinner at Friendly’s, a century

after Emily: on September 17, 1998.

Roughly a third of our members, and about two thirds of our Board Members, are

people who want to obtain a Low Power Radio license and set up a station. The rest

of us, including me, are ‘‘simply’’ concerned citizens. We want more choices on the

dial—and we fear that our representative democracy is endangered by today’s excessive concentrations of mass media ownership.

Every member of Amherst, without exception, has signed a document known as

THE AMHERST DECLARATION. It is our only requirement for membership—and

a copy of it may be found in APPENDIX A of this testimony.

When you read the text of THE AMHERST DECLARATION, you may be struck

by its attempt to invoke the spirit of our nation’s founders. Some consider this effort

at emulation to be pompous, or pretentious, but we see it as a humble attempt to

revive the spirit which gave birth to this nation. That spirit seems to be missing

today, in many quarters, and we like to believe the nation’s founders—wherever

they may be now—are pleased to see us trying to bring it back.

WHO IS DON SCHELLHARDT?

I am an attorney and a writer, with several articles, untold ghostwritten speeches

and one novel—CURRENTLY unpublished—to my credit. I earned a B.A. in Government from Wesleyan University in Connecticut and a law degree from George

Washington University, here in Washington, DC. Among other posts, I have been

44

Legislative Counsel for Representative Matthew J. Rinaldo (R-NJ, retired), Director

of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs at the American Gas Association and a policy

advisor on global warming at U.S. EPA.

With Nickolaus and Judith Leggett, of Reston, Virginia, I co-authored the Petition

For Rulemaking that triggered FCC Docket RM-9208. This Docket led, in turn, to

the FCC’s proposed rule, and later its final rule, on Low Power Radio.

I left Washington for a number of reasons. One key factor, however, was my rising

level of frustration with my inability to get things done in this town.

I had worked for a succession of causes, which I considered to be both noble and

important: Coolwater-style coal gasification, which could enable us to burn America’s abundant coal, efficiently and CLEANLY, in combined cycle powerplants... Natural Gas Vehicles and electric vehicles, which could further reduce our

dangerous dependence on imported oil, and greatly improve our balance of trade,

while making the air we breathe much. much healthier—and meaningful government action on global warming, which may be costly but is still cheaper than the

price tag of global ecosystem collapse.

These three causes were my great passions as a Washington ‘‘insider’’. However,

I was able to make only marginal headway on Natural Gas and electric vehicles—

and no headway at all on the other two fronts.

I did play a role in the 1987 legislation which repealed incremental pricing and

most of the Fuel Use Act. I also played a role in enactment of the 1990 legislation

that reduced, and is still reducing, the acid rain in our atmosphere.

Still, in the face of what needs to be done in our country, these steps forward were

painfully modest. Further, even these ‘‘modest steps forward’’ came only at the cost

of enormous investments of time and energy, often mustered at the expense of

progress on other crucially important priorities.

I finally decided I could accomplish more OUTSIDE The Washington System, at

‘‘the grassroots’’, than I could accomplish WITHIN The Washington System.

This leads me back to our Hearings. Topic A is Low Power Radio, but The Topic

Behind The Topic is REFORM. Reform of the media—and, with it, reform of the political system. Less power for the megacorporations—and other elites. More power

for the people. .Reform of The Washington System.

A SYSTEM OUT OF BALANCE

I want to stress the need for reform—of both the overly ‘‘consolidated’’ mass media

AND the current system for choosing our elected leaders.

At the same time, I do not want to ‘‘demonize The System’’. There ARE good people in Washington: MANY good people. Some of them even work for special interests. I worked for a special interest myself, for 12 years, and my work there was

honorable. I was promoting natural gas: ‘‘America’s cleanest, most affordable fossil

fuel.’’ Most of it drilled right here in the U.S.A.

In short, I saw myself wearing a white hat.

The truth is that Congress and the Executive Branch NEED to hear from special

interests. How can either Branch regulate knowledgeably without SOME kind of

consultation, preferably in advance, with people in the industries they are trying to

regulate? Unless special interests have SOME kind of a voice in Washington, Washington will be ‘‘flying blind’’.

The problem isn’t the fact that special interests have a voice.

The problem is: All too often, nobody else does.

The System is Out Of Balance. The special interests often speak so loudly that

the voice of the people cannot be heard.

The same can be said of the massive concentrations of ownership in the mass

media—particularly after Congress, AND President Clinton, decided to let

megacorporations ‘‘raid the cookie jar’’ through the Telecommunications ‘‘Reform’’

Act of 1996.

There ARE radicals, and even Marxists, within the movement to legalize Low

Power Radio stations. However, most of us in the Low Power Radio movement—and,

certainly,most of us in THE AMHERST ALLIANCE—recognize the value of having

a viable private sector in our economy. We even recognize the value of having

SOME large corporations. With their resources and their profit motivations, they

can get things done that no other institutions can do.

By the same token, however, there are some things that only SMALL businesses

can do. And some things that only non-profits can do. And even some things that

only INDIVIDUALS can do.

So: Few us in Amherst want to put Fox or Disney or ABC out of business.

We just don’t want them to become so large, and control so much, that they

smother everyone else.

45

More to the point: We don’t want them to smother US.

THE EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AT THE FCC

When it comes to radio, the high level of public discontent is evident from the

high level of public participation in the FCC’s Low Power Radio Dockets.

Indeed, the FCC’s proposed rule on Low Power Radio set a record for public participation in the 65-year history of the FCC.

The proposed rule attracted more than 3,000 written comments. Most of these

3,000 comments FAVORED Low Power Radio—and many of them came from individuals and small groups who had never participated in an FCC proceeding, or for

that matter any kind of governmental proceeding, before.

Clearly, there is widespread, and intensely felt, public dissatisfaction with the status quo in radio. Clearly, there is public demand for something new.

Just as clearly, the stance of total ‘‘stonewalling’’ and non-negotiation by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) tells us that this ‘‘something new’’ is not

going to come from the established broadcasters.

It is clear as well that the FCC’s decision to establish a Low Power Radio Service

was not ‘‘a rush to judgment’’. The Commission held a 6-month comment period on RM-9208, the previously referenced Petition For Rulemaking that was filed in June of 1997 by Nickolaus

Leggett, Judith Leggett and myself.

The FCC issued Docket RM-9208 in February of 1998: 8 months after our Petition

For Rulemaking was filed. Three weeks after the FCC established this Docket, soliciting public input on the Leggett/Schellhardt Petition For Rulemaking, an alternative Petition For Rulemaking was filed by J. Rodger Skinner of TRS Communications in Florida. In March of 1998, Skinner’s competing vision of Low Power Radio

was assigned to Docket RM-9242 and the two Dockets were consolidated.

Thus, the FCC spent 6 months receiving public comments on two different Low

Power Radio proposals. Over 1,000 public comments were received, many of them

coming from individual citizens and most of them urging favorable action. Then the

FCC spent several months reviewing these public comments before it drafted and

released a proposed rule—in January of 1999.

Once the proposed rule was issued, public comments were received over an exceptionally long period: 9 months.

Two months after the close of this 9-month comment period, the FCC issued the

final rule that is the target of H.R. 3439. Along the way, it had granted each of several requests by the NAB for extensions of the comment deadline(s).

In short, the FCC’s final rule on Low Power Radio is the product of very deliberate deliberations over a cumulative period of 2 years. Further, the FCC’s decision

is based on abundant evidence of public demand for this Service: far more abundant,

in fact, than the evidence that the public wants Digitalization.

DOES ANY KIND OF LOW POWER RADIO, UNDER ANY KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCES, POSE AN

UNAVOIDABLE LIKELIHOOD OF UNACCEPTABLE RADIO INTERFERENCE?

This is the proper way to ask the question—because H.R. 3439, the Oxley bill,

would remove the FCC’s authority to authorize any kind of Low Power FM stations,

anytime or anywhere... 100 watts and 10 watts and 1 watt, in mid-town Manhattan

and the prairies of Nebraska, regardless of the technology used or the channel spacing required or the level of regulatory oversight.

In the eyes of Representative Oxley’s bill, there is no place in America where the

spectrum is open enough, and no level of wattage where the signal is low enough,

and no technology—present or future—where the signal is controlled enough. Now

and forever, from sea to shining sea, FM stations of 100 watts or less pose an inherent risk of unacceptable interference to all of those helpless, endangered 30,000 watt

and 50,000 watt stations.

Needless to say, Amherst doesn’t see things that way.

Neither does the Federal Communications Commission. Thank God!

The evidence for the Oxley bill’s premise is Missing In Action. The interference

studies commissioned by the NAB may predict major interference, In SOME locations. However, this has not been the conclusion of other studies, conducted by those

who do not have a financial stake in the status quo.

Alarms about radio interference are also unsupported by evidence in ‘‘the real

world’’.

In recent years, many Americans, unable to afford a conventional radio station

and unable to obtain a license for an unconventional one, have taken to the airwaves without FCC authorization. Depending on whose estimates you believe, their

numbers run into the hundreds or even the thousands.

46

All of these unlicensed broadcasters have been COMPLETELY unregulated.

However, even though many of these unlicensed stations have been shut down by

the FCC for violating its regulations, only a handful have been shut down on the

basis of evidence that they have actually caused interference.

Thus, under something approaching a ‘‘worst case scenario’’—that is, hundreds or

even thousands of totally unregulated stations on the air, many of them broadcasting in crowded urban areas—the actual evidence of reported interference has

been minimal.

Why is this the case?

Maybe it’s because there are more ‘‘holes in the spectrum’’, even in crowded urban

areas, than the NAB wants to admit. Or maybe it’s because ‘‘unlicensed broadcasters’’, even including those left-wing ‘‘aging hippies’’ with the sour dispositions,

are more prudent and responsible than the NAB wants you to know.

Or maybe both.

There is, in any event, a problem with the NAB’s logic:

WHATEVER the actual level of interference from unlicensed broadcasters might

be, why would it INCREASE—rather than decrease—after some or most of these

broadcasters obtain licenses and become regulated?

IF RADIO INTERFERENCE IS NOT A PROBLEM, IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON TO

OVERRIDE THE FCC’S AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A LOW POWER RADIO SERVICE?

As we read the various statements by Representative Oxley, and others whose

names appear on H.R. 3439, it appears their answer would be ‘‘No’’.

So far as we can tell, their sole expressed concern has been interference.

We cannot think of any other reasons to ban Low Power Radio, either.

We do consider it worthwhile to mention some of the BENEFITS of Low Power

Radio. These benefits include more choices for radio listeners, more opportunities for

innovation, the return of decent community coverage and—most important of all—

a much-needed increase in the free flow of ideas, without which our country cannot

remain a representative democracy for long.

These benefits are worth fighting for—and many everyday Americans have in fact

been doing just that.

It would indeed be a tragedy if Congress erased these hard-won gains on the basis

of inflated fears, peddled solely by those with dollars to lose.

DOES THE FCC’S NEW RULE GO FAR ENOUGH?

Does the FCC’s rule go as far as Amherst would like? No, it does not.

Is it nevertheless a vast improvement over the status quo that preceded it? Yes,

it is.

Further, given the practical politics of assembling a bi-partisan majority at the

Federal Communications Commission, at this time in our nation’s history, this new

rule may well represent the best work that the Commission could have done under

the circumstances.

We salute the Commission and its willingness to consider, and embrace, positive

change. In particular, we commend FCC Chairman William Kennard—as well as his

indispensable ally, Commissioner Gloria Tristani—for their vision and their courage.

We also thank Commissioners Susan Ness and Michael Powell, whose enthusiasm

for Low Power Radio was somewhat more contained—but who nevertheless voted

to proceed.

To those in the Low Power Radio movement who wanted something more, I quote

the words of Representative Phil Sharp (D-IN, retired): a former member of the

House Commerce Committee and a man I admire.

Phil used to say, all the time: ‘‘Let’s do the doable.’’

That’s what Chairman Kennard, and his fellow Commissioners, have done. They

have done the doable—and we should applaud their efforts.

Having said this, the limits of what is ‘‘doable’’ can change dramatically over time.

They can contract, but they can also expand. In the case of Low Power Radio, and

of media reform and political reform in general, we expect that these limits WILL

expand—if only because a concerned public insists on it.

In the immediate future:

1. Amherst may ask the Commission, in a Motion For Clarification and/or a Motion For Reconsideration, to allow LPFM licenses for Individuals as well as organizations.

2. We may also ask the FCC to either: (1) license non-commercial LPFM stations

which are NOT ‘‘educational’’; or (2) clarify that the ‘‘educational’’ category may include stations which are primarily or exclusively oriented toward entertainment, IF

47

their kind of entertainment is not otherwise available on the airwaves of their community.

3. We may ask again for Primary Service Status for LPFM stations.

4. We may ask for greater protection of Low Power stations from ‘‘bumping’’ by

license applications that ‘‘warehouse’’ frequencies for possible future use and/or

translator applications made for anti-competitive purposes.

The Amherst Board of Directors has not yet decided how and when to seek resolution of these concerns by the FCC. As noted earlier, a Motion For Clarification is

a possibility, as is a Motion For Reconsideration, but neither filing Is a certainty

at this time.

Looking further down the road, Amherst has also made clear to the Commission

that we do not automatically oppose any kind of Digitalization—but we can accept

Digitalization ONLY if reasonable accommodations are made to preserve a viable,

and meaningful, Low Power Radio Service.

On the legislative front, we ask this Subcommittee, AND Congress as a whole,

to reform the Telecommunications ‘‘Reform’’ Act of 1996.

A. Repeal the statutory mandate for auctioning of all commercial radio licenses.

Failing that, AT LEAST allow room for commercial-airing Low Power stations by

exempting commercial stations from the mandatory auctions if they broadcast at

100 watts or less.

B. Reduce—don’t raise or eliminate—the limits of how many radio stations a single entity, including its subsidiaries and affiliates, can own.

C. Restore meaningful restrictions on CROSS-MEDIA ownership, INCLUDING

acquisitions related to The Internet. Make radio more open and competitive. Don’t

let The Net follow radio’s current pattern of ‘‘consolidation’’.

D. Encourage—don’t DIScourage!—reasonable efforts by the FCC to combat radio

‘‘over-consolidation’’ by ordering divestiture of certain radio stations.

E. While you’re at it, direct the Justice Department to start enforcing the antitrust laws again. One Microsoft case, every 20 years or so, isn’t enough.

DOES DON SCHELLHARDT HAVE ‘‘A HIDDEN AGENDA’’?

Let me close as I began: on a personal note.

When people learn that I have no desire to be a Low Power broadcaster, that I

run Amherst on my own time and my own dime, with no pay whatsoever for the

thousands of personhours I’ve invested in it—they often start to look puzzled, or

even suspicious.

‘‘What’s in it for you?’’ they ask.

The bolder ones ask: ‘‘What’s your ‘Hidden Agenda’?’’

It’s a commentary on our time that so few people will accept pure patriotism as

a major motivation. Yet, in truth, patriotism IS one of my motivations.

I was in college during the Vietnam War. I never ‘‘dodged’’ the draft, or joined

the National Guard, but I did have a high enough lottery number to stay out of the

military. I don’t regret that my birthday did get matched to a number that kept me

out of Vietnam: I might not be here today if it hadn’t. Nevertheless, I have always

felt guilty because I believe we all SHOULD give a year or two of service to our

country.

So . . . I put in my year of service around 50 instead of around 20. Call me a late

bloomer. And I spread the year or two over two years or three—because I had to

leave enough room in my schedule to make enough money to keep me alive. But

I did serve my country, even if the service was delayed—and I did fight for freedom,

even if the enemy was here at home.

So much for my noble motivations! I also had self-interested motivations. Not exactly ‘‘a hidden agenda’’ . . . but an agenda that might not be too visible until you got

to know me.

First, Low Power Radio added meaning to my life at a time when I needed it desperately. Most of us like to feel that we add something positive to the planet by

being here—but some of us NEED to feel that way. We need to feel it the same

way we need to drink our water and breathe the air.

I’m one of that second group. Founding Amherst gave me a reason to ‘‘keep on

keepin’ on’’—at a low point in my life.

Second, I’m trying to gain name recognition and build a political base—because

I’d like to be a Member of Congress. In fact, I’d like to have a seat on the House

Commerce Committee.

I’ve served my time as an advisor and an aide. I won’t come back to Washington

just to do that again.

I want to be a player—perhaps right on this Committee.

48

There are several reasons why I’ve never run, but most of them have faded into

the past.

Now there’s only one reason I don’t run for Congress:

I haven’t got the money to run. I’m not even close.

Further, being an independent thinker (and an independent feeler), I don’t see

any special interests I can approach for the money without selling out my conscience.

So I’m stuck On The Outside, Looking In. Along with the other 99% of the American people who can’t afford to run for Congress.

So far, Mr. Chairman, founding Amherst has been the next best thing to being

up there on the Commerce Committee with you. In fact, I may just start up another

national organization, with a broader agenda and a broader base, and push for

change on a bigger scale—from my place On The Outside, Looking In.

And maybe, somewhere along the line, I’ll get my chance to run—and win.

In the meantime, all of this makes my work for reform very, very personal.

Of course, most of the folks in Amherst don’t want a seat in Congress.

They just want a VOICE in the national dialogue. But they don’t feel they have

one now—and, believe me, Mr. Chairman, for them it’s personal, too.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, and Members and Staff of this Subcommittee, we in THE AMHERST ALLIANCE urge you to begin moving—this year, this month, this day—toward the kind of media reform and political we need to revive and maintain our

representative democracy.

Supporting the new Low Power Radio Service Is quite literally THE LEAST that

Congress can do. It is a minimal step . . . a ‘‘down payment’’ on real reform.

Low Power Radio is as clearcut as ‘‘reform’’ issues ever get.

To the best of our knowledge, ALL of the institutions which oppose it have a direct financial stake in the status quo. To the best of our knowledge, NOT ONE financially impartial group or institution is against it.

Politically, tough choices don’t get any easier than this one.

If Congress cannot summon the courage to embrace reform on the Low Power

Radio issue, how can the people of America trust this Congress to make the hard

decisions of the future?

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schellhardt.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to let you know that I

am going to let Congressman Olver know about your congressional

aspirations so that he can take a closer interest.

Mr. TAUZIN. I assume you will be dressing differently in the next

few weeks as well.

The Chair is now pleased to welcome Mr. Dirk Koning, Executive

Director, Grand Rapids Community Media Center.

Mr. Koning?

STATEMENT OF DIRK KONING

Mr. KONING. Thank you very much. That is a tough act to follow.

I will do my best.

Mr. TAUZIN. But you look good too, I want you to know that.

Mr. KONING. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I too am here in support of the FCC’s decision. I am Dirk Koning

from beautiful Grand Rapids, Michigan. I operate a community

media center there that operates an LP 1000 license, owned and

operated by the citizens of the community with over 70 volunteers,

programming 24 hours a day. I also edit the community media review magazine. Our latest issue actually talks about the politics of

community media. I am the President of the Alliance for Communications Democracy, a legal defense fund here in DC that tries to

support citizen access to media where it is challenged constitutionally.

49

I also would like to address you as a 20-year veteran in the field

with sleeves rolled up, soldering connections, trying to make

micromedia work. In the best of conditions, it is not easy to do. I

have been involved with projects in South Korea, projects in Brazil,

projects in Ireland and most recently working with the Mandela

government to launch 18 microradio stations in South Africa.

I am here to say when it comes to citizen access to media and

social uses of media, there is nothing more valuable than media of,

for and by the people. The possibility of these licenses going into

communities, going into the hands of nontraditional users and with

information coming from the community to the community for community needs and interests, that is what this is about.

In southern Africa we had very tough conditions, especially without electricity in most villages and trying to get micro stations to

work with solar power adds a whole other twist to it, but it can

happen and a little interference in that case is better than no information at all. In fact, I point out that the message, even though

they say the medium is the message, the message is still the message and we appreciate the Declaration of Independence even

though it is kind of sloppily written in ink on hemp paper. The contents still comes through loud and clear and is very valuable to citizens to this day.

I try to specialize in researching new technology for its social and

cultural development purposes. How can we use this technology in

a social fashion, not necessarily for profit or for gain and how can

we use appropriate technology in appropriate circumstances. That

is a real tricky one. With all the new technology out there, how do

you assess the value of any given technology. Community radio,

microradio is a very critical source in community for underserved

communities. For a niche mark, it is a niche programming.

We are always looking for a way to share those resources. In

fact, I was looking in a dictionary of word origins. I looked up the

word community. The Latin sub means to share. Then I took a

chance and looked up communication and I shouldn’t have been

surprised that the Latin sub for communication is also to share. I

think it is critical in that context of community communication and

low power radio that we are finding ways to share the air with the

communities in which these are located. That is the critical juncture that the Community Media Center and other low power activists are working for.

In the history of communication, it is quite interesting that sharing has not been a tradition. If you go all the way back to scribes,

Pharisees, in many cases who were able to read and write and

make paper out of papyrus, it wasn’t about helping everyone make

paper out of papyrus. It was a control factor that they knew how

to read and write and they kept that information very close to

themselves.

I wonder if even in some cave somewhere back when there was

argument about who was going to be able to paint what bison on

what wall, if there was a limited spectrum in that particular case.

I know with the church and the Gutenberg printing press, that

thing was locked up and protected very carefully because in fact

the idea was not everyone should have one of these. I think in the

United States, we have taken the chance historically on providing

50

access to information and the means to create and disseminate it

and I think the low power radio stations are a prime example of

citizen access to media and information being the currency of democracy.

So I encourage you to go forward. Find a way to get through the

technical situation, it can’t be that complicated. Let us allow citizens to use media to share in their communities.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dirk Koning follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIRK KONING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GRAND RAPIDS

COMMUNITY MEDIA CENTER

INFORMATION IS THE CURRENCY OF DEMOCRACY

I am Dirk Koning, the executive director of the Community Media Center in

Grand Rapids, Michigan, the chair of the editorial board of the Community Media

Review Magazine of the Alliance for Community Media and the president of the

Washington D.C.-based Alliance for Communications Democracy. This testimony is

in opposition to House Bill 3439, the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act of 1999.

By many accounts the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has already provided a vast

amount of radio broadcasting preservation by allowing expanded ownership of multiple broadcast licenses in local communities and nationwide.

I respectfully provide this testimony as a 20-year veteran of community media including community radio, television and the Internet. I submit that LPFM promotes

the, ‘‘public interest, convenience and necessity.’’ I have read several technical surveys on this issue and am convinced along with the FCC that technical interference

from 10-100 watt stations is not a problem. The relative equivalent of LPFM to full

strength broadcasting is a static shock from dragging your feet across the carpet

versus putting your finger in a socket. My testimony comes from a ‘‘trench’’ worker

who has dedicated half his life to improving civil society through media access and

democracy.

‘‘[T]he people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their

collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners... which is paramount’’

Justice Byron White, writing the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Red

Lion Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission.

BUILDING COMMUNITY THROUGH MEDIA

A media center has a simple mission to: ‘‘Build Community Through Media.’’ Providing for additional non-commercial local voices to the choir of FM stations in a

market will build community with valuable local information, cultural enhancement

and niche services. One of the crucial benefits of LPFM is the concept of

narrowcasting. Traditional commercial radio often selects a marketable format and

then attempts the shotgun approach to build listenership to sell time.

Local non-commercial radio will have the ability to concentrate on narrow interest

groups to provide unique and critical services without market pressures of building

audience share. This is a novel concept in the burgeoning ‘‘deregulated’’ environment of national and international consolidations for cost-effective mass marketing.

Our local communities need a collective local non-commercial voice via radio. Our

local communities need their own voices amplified electronically to serve their own

community. Our local communities need a thin sliver of the public airwaves.

INFORMATION ACCESS AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT

I have had the good fortune to travel to a dozen countries developing various noncommercial media models ranging from local television in Korea to community video

in Brazil and low power radio in South Africa. Many international community

media Activists have crafted the People’s Communications Charter (www.waag.org/

pcc) to spell out basic human rights pertaining to information. The hope is to ultimately amend the United Nation’s Human Rights Charter to add access to information as a fundamental human right worldwide. Several of the 18 published Articles

include: Justice, Privacy, Respect, Access, Literacy and Cultural Identity.

Community Media is an entirely different animal than commercial broadcast

media. The community model provides a motive for social improvement and developVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
51

ment via information exchange with no regard to market share, profit or shareholder desires. I often tell people our Community Media Center is a social service

agency that provides fundamental community needs through media training, equipment access and uncensored transmission via voice, video or data. We are not unlike

United Way, Goodwill or the Red Cross. We just happen to use media as our community development tool.

Lower Power FM in the United States could easily follow international models

pertaining to community development work. The World Association of Community

Radio (www.amarc.org) cites dozens of community improvement projects developed

exclusively through community radio. I personally am aware of community radio development efforts in South Africa. In an attempt to ‘‘jump start’’ democracy in South

Africa, the Mandella Government launched community radio stations. Community

radio was strategically chosen due to the low cost of implementation and operation,

ability to serve niche communities with different languages and dialects, the lack

of expense for the receivers and the ability to operate from solar power.

This ‘‘Bush Radio’’ as it is called provides local programming on HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention, water quality issues, planting and crop rotation issues and indigenous music.

FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH

MEDIA

On the home front in Grand Rapids, the Community Media Center

(www.grcmc.org) is a valuable resource for local governments, churches, non-profit

groups, politicians, artists, activists, seniors and youth. Centers like this are located

in over a thousand communities in the U.S. and groups like the Alliance for Community Media, Community Technology Centers Net and National Federation of

Community Broadcasters provide national guidance and support for these Centers.

On any day but Sunday, you can walk into the Media Center on the second floor

of a 1925 ‘‘Carnegiesque’’ Library and take low cost classes in radio, television and

Internet use and production. Once you take a class you are welcome to use on-site

equipment ranging from camcorders to microphones to digital editing equipment to

a computer lab to tell your story. Once you have your voice, video or data material

ready, you can broadcast it or narrowcast it via cable access television channels, a

1000 watt FM radio station or high speed Internet connections with real audio and

real video streaming. Not to mention all of the above is provided first come, first

served, non-discriminatory on a content neutral basis. Over 30 church groups use

the Center, seven political parties, neighborhood associations, the Public Museum,

Library and Art Museum to name a few. Programs are produced in half a dozen

languages and media from around the world is introduced to the local community.

Almost a thousand local web sites are indexed by major categories to expedite local

research for local services. We even host on line community computer conferences

on critical local issues. As the digital convergence of voice, video and data marches

relentlessly onward, citizen access to integrated information technology will become

increasingly important if not a critical necessity. We are already experiencing effects

of the Digital Divide in Grand Rapids. Certain communities and schools have 70%

access to the Internet and others are lucky to crack 10%.

MEDIA OF, FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE

Corporate radio consolidation has been hot and heavy in Grand Rapids. Located

in the top 50 broadcast markets, Grand Rapids has been indicative of the aggressive

and expansive amount of corporate consolidation of broadcast radio properties. With

the impending merger of Clear Channel and AMFM, over 10 stations will be under

single non-local ownership prior to forced divestiture. In fact Federal Trade Commission guidelines may kick in slowing consolidation for fear of more than 70% of

the advertising market being in a single corporate hand. Arbitron numbers from fall

of 1999 indicate the top three radio companies own just under 70% of the radio stations in our market. Local news is funneled through less channels, local musicians

are almost completely ignored for e-mailed play lists from ‘‘corporate’’ and non

English programming is virtually non existent. We all know the difference between

someone saying, ‘‘Here take this, I know what’s good for you’’ versus self-discovery

and self-programming.

On April 22nd, 1999 the FCC broke into a local Hispanic Church Basement and

seized approximately $2,000 in equipment from La Voz Broadcasting for broadcasting in 93.1 FM without a license. The channel was open and a preliminary injunction had been filed against the FCC. The all-Hispanic programming station provided consumer advice, health and employment information and Christian Music to

the fastest growing minority population in the Grand Rapids market. On September

52

10, 1999, the Grand Rapids Press endorsed Low Power Radio in an Editorial that

stated:

‘‘Why is this important? Because the more opportunities that people have to get

their messages out, the better. The FCC is mulling the small station issue right

now. If the members value free speech, they will let the little broadcasters in.’’

The FCC’s January 27, 2000 Report and Order is a giant step forward in fostering

local non-commercial communication. This action opens a thin but important sliver

of the public airwaves, for such communication. I urge you not to overturn that

needed action.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Koning.

We are pleased now to welcome one of the Commissioners of the

FCC who has arrived and I want to skip the order and welcome

him and allow him to testify. A former staffer of our own Commerce Committee, so he is well known here.

We want to welcome you again, Commissioner Harold

Furchtgott-Roth.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD W. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As always, it

is a great privilege and honor for me to come home to the Commerce Committee. I see a lot of friends here.

I would like to have my testimony entered into the record.

Mr. TAUZIN. Without objection, it has been ordered.

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I have spoken often on the issue of low

power radio in the past year. My message has been consistent. I

am not opposed to low power service but I am opposed to new interference.

I just would like to note that Mr. Koning and his station is a precise example that under preexisting rules community radio can get

on the air, low power radio can get on the air, we do not need to

change the interference standards. Mr. Koning is exactly the poster

child for why that is the case.

The FCC’s recent decision to create a new class of low power

radio service is really, in effect, the degrading of the quality of

radio service on the FM band for listeners nationwide. As you

know, Mr. Chairman, I dissented from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which is very rare, as well as the Order adopting the final

rules on this matter.

At the outset of the low power proceeding, however, I made clear

that I was not then and am not today opposed to the creation of

a low power radio service per se. Whatever new service could have

been provided within the range of existing interference regulations

would have been worth considering but I did not believe that we

should create new stations at the expense of those interference protection standards. That, unfortunately, is precisely what the Commission did last month.

Under the protection standards in place at the time of the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission could have authorized so

few new stations, not more than a handful across the country, that

the results would not have warranted the efforts of even printing

the new regulations.

In order to create any marginal amount of new service, protection standards had to be loosened so as to eliminate third adjacent

channel interference safeguards. In my view, this action represents

a severe incursion on the rights of current licenseholders, as well

53

as on the value of those licenses. These licensees had a reasonable

expectation that the Commission would protect the integrity of the

band on which they were licensed to operate as we do for licensees

in any part of the spectrum.

Far more importantly, this action impairs the ability of current

licensees to serve their listeners who must not be forgotten. While

a few new people may be able to broadcast, others may lose their

ability to receive and to listen to existing stations due to interference. I do not think that radio listeners will be pleased to find

out that their favorite station is no longer listenable on their radio.

It troubles me that the Commission never made any effort to assess, much less quantify, the entire effect on existing stations and

listeners of eliminating interference protections. Not simply conducting some laboratory tests over which we have a very conflicted,

mixed record, but actually go out across America and find out how

this is going to affect ordinary citizens.

Clearly the Commission’s actions harm existing licenseholders

and their listeners. On the other side of the ledger, the benefit side,

let us consider what the Commission has actually achieved.

According to the NPRM in this proceeding, elimination of third

adjacent channel protection for 100 watt stations will allow for the

creation of entirely one station in Houston, Texas in the top five

markets in America. No such stations will be created in New York,

Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, Dallas, San Francisco, Washington, Charlotte or Miami.

At the very last minute, the Commission staff rejiggered these

numbers so as to produce slightly more stations. Current and final

estimates are that in the five largest cities there will now be a total

of three stations. Where there were previously no stations, there

will now be one station in Philadelphia or in Dallas, two in San

Francisco, three in Washington and four in Miami, but still none

in New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, Charlotte or any number of

other cities.

Of course the extra stations that were created between the

NPRM stage and the final Order were bought at the price of dropping interference protection that would have protected low power

stations from full power stations. So while there may be a few more

stations now than originally thought, they are still very few in

number and those stations are defenseless in terms of interference

from regular power stations, further decreasing the utility of these

stations.

In short, so much for the gall of creating low power stations to

serve urban communities. There will simply be precious few new

licenses in urban America. In fact, the bulk of new licensees will

be in smaller markets. In many of these areas, full power stations

could likely already be dropped in without changing the third adjacent channel standards at all. At least there is no indication of an

effort on the part of the Commission even to consider such an alternative approach.

Given that there is little existing demand for additional full

power stations in these markets, there is no evidence of commercial

viability. Indeed, the evidence suggests that such stations are not

capable of existing as going concerns.

54

Perhaps there is a demand for low power, noncommercial stations. Theoretically, however, any such actual demand could be met

by the dispensing licenses within our previous rules, that is by giving out 101 watt licenses consistent with the 100 watt minimum

requirement.

Notably the rationale for the 100 watt minimum was efficiency

in spectrum distribution. It was thought inefficient, unwise and unmanageable to license radio stations at operating powers any less

than 100 watts. The Commission has never explained why it is any

less inefficient today than it has been for decades to allocate radio

spectrum at lower levels. This was Commission policy for decades.

There would be no licenses at 100 watts or less because it was inefficient spectrum management.

In any event, we receive few, if any, applications for 101 watt licenses. People could walk in and say I want a 101 watt license. No

one came. As far as going below that, people could seek a waiver

and say, I would like a 10 watt station. Do you know how many

applications we have had for waivers over the 100 watt rule. As far

as I can tell, no such waiver request has ever been filed, again suggesting a lack of any real demand for such licenses.

In short, there is no evidence in the behavior of actual license applicants that suggests any pent up demand for the stations in question.

After creating this new class of licensees, the Commission loaded

them up with the heavy regulatory burdens that most broadcasters

must shoulder. Make no mistake, being a broadcaster, a small

radio broadcaster is not the way to get rich in America today. You

do it because you love it and you do it knowing you have to put

up with all kinds of regulations. The Commission loaded them on

this new class of licensees.

The required actions and paperwork for compliance with the new

regulations may well prove overwhelming for the operators of low

power radio stations. If these duties are taken seriously by operators and enforced by the Commission, low power operators will

spend more time attempting to figure out what Title 47 of the Code

of Federal Regulations requires than actual time spent broadcasting.

The net result of the foregoing is that there is very little evidence

in the form of applications for 100 watt stations or waivers to put

in 10 watt minimum stations indicative of current market demand

for the stations now being created. When we do receive license applications for the new low power licenses, one must ask the question, why didn’t you apply 6 months ago? You could have.

The only instances where you couldn’t have is where we had

changed the interference standard. The only instance where anyone

in America can come in and request these new licenses where they

couldn’t have before is where interference will be created, where

the listeners of radio are going to be harmed.

In short, the Commission has, at the expense of existing service

quality to the American listening public, created a handful of new

stations in primarily nonurban markets, stations that themselves

may well be unlistenable due to interference from high power stations, a threat to the development of digital radio services, with the

new heavy regulatory scheme including ownership, cross ownerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
55

ship, political programming to govern these very small operators,

and more enforcement obligations on an already taxed Commission.

To conclude, let me say that this is not a wise balance of interests. Nor does it comply with our fundamental statutory charge to

make available a rapid—let me emphasize efficient—nationwide

and worldwide wire and radio communications service.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD W. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Thank you Chairman Tauzin, distinguished members of the Telecommunications,

Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify on the Federal Communications Commission’s recent decision to create a new class of ‘‘low

power’’ radio service—or, put another way, to degrade the quality of radio service

on the FM band for listeners nationwide.

As you know Mr. Chairman, I dissented from both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the Order adopting final rules on this matter. At the outset

of the low power proceeding, however, I made clear that I was not—nor am I

today—opposed to the creation of a low power radio service per se. Whatever new

service could have been provided within the range of existing interference regulations would have been worth considering. But I did not believe that we should create new stations at the expense of those interference protection standards. That, unfortunately, is precisely what the Commission did last month.

Under the well established protection standards in place at the time of the

NPRM, the Commission could have authorized so few new stations—not more than

a handful across the country—that the results would hardly have warranted the effort of printing the new regulations. In order to create any marginal amount of new

service, protection standards had to be loosened so as to eliminate long-standing

third adjacent channel safeguards.

In my view, this action represents a severe incursion on the rights of current FM

band licenseholders, as well as on the value of their licenses. These licensees reasonably expected that the Commission would protect the integrity of the band on which

they were licensed to operate, and they invested heavily in their businesses based

on this reasonable expectation.

Perhaps more importantly, this action also impairs the ability of current licensees

to serve their listeners, who must not be forgotten. While a few new people may be

able to broadcast, others may lose their ability to receive and listen to existing stations due to interference. I do not think that radio listeners will be pleased to find

out that their favorite station is no longer listenable on their radio. Troublingly,

however, the Commission never made any effort to assess, much less quantify, the

effect on existing stations and listeners of eliminating these well established interference protections.

Clearly, the Commission’s action harms existing license holders and their listeners. On the other side of the ledger—the ‘‘benefits’’ side—let’s consider what the

Commission has actually achieved.

According to the NPRM in this proceeding, elimination of third adjacent channel

protections for 100 watt stations will allow for the creation of one such station—

in Houston, Texas—in the top five American cities. No such stations will be created

in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, Dallas, San Francisco,

Washington, Charlotte, or Miami.

At the very last minute—in fact, the evening before the final vote took place, and

without the knowledge of this Commissioner—these numbers were rejiggered so as

to produce slightly more stations. Current and final estimates are that in the five

largest cities there will now be a total of three stations. And, where there were previously no stations, there will now be one station in Philadelphia, four in Dallas,

two in San Francisco, three in Washington, and four in Miami. But there will still

be no stations in New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, or Charlotte. Of course, the

extra stations that were created between the NPRM stage and the final Order were

bought at the price of dropping proposed spacing requirements that would have protected low power from full service stations.

So while there may be a few more stations now than originally thought, they are

still very few in number, and those stations are defenseless in terms of interference

from regular power stations, further decreasing the utility of these stations. So

56

much for the goal of creating low power stations to serve urban communities; there

will be precious few new licensees in urban markets, and these small-scale licensees

will have to contend with a sea of interference from full power broadcasters.

In fact, the bulk of new licensees will be in smaller markets. In many of these

areas, full power stations likely could already be dropped in without changing thirdadjacent channel standards at all. (At least, there is no indication of an effort on

the part of the Commission even to consider such an alternative approach.) Given

that there is little existing demand for additional full-power stations in these markets, there is no evidence of commercial viability. Indeed, the evidence suggests that

such stations are not capable of existence as going concerns.

Perhaps there is a demand for lower power noncommercial stations. Theoretically,

however, any such actual demand could be met by the dispensation of licenses within our previous rules—i.e., by giving out 101 watt licenses consistent with the 100

watt minimum requirement. Notably, the rationale for the 100-watt minimum was

efficiency in spectrum distribution. It was thought inefficient, unwise, and unmanageable to license radio stations at operating powers any less than this. The Commission has never explained why it is any less inefficient today than it has been

for decades to allocate radio spectrum at lower levels.

In any event, we receive few if any applications for 101 watt licenses, even in the

noncommercial arena. Similarly, if somebody really wanted to operate a 50-watt station, they might file a request for waiver of the 100-watt minimum rule. As far as

I can tell, though, no such waiver has ever been filed, again suggesting a lack of

any real demand for such licenses. In short, there is no evidence in the behavior

of license applicants that suggests any pent-up demand for the stations in question.

After creating this new class of licensees, the Commission then loaded them up

with the same heavy regulatory burdens that most broadcasters must shoulder. For

instance, the newly recreated Equal Employment Opportunity rules will apply to

low power stations to the same extent that they apply to all broadcasters. Also applicable are all the political programming rules, cross-ownership restrictions, special

ownership limits for low power stations, and a slew of other FCC regulations.

The required actions and paperwork for compliance with these regulations may

well prove overwhelming for the operators of low-power radio stations. If these duties are taken seriously by operators and enforced by the Commission, low power

operators will spend more time attempting to figure out what Title 47 of the Code

of Federal Regulations requires of them than they will spend broadcasting.

The net result of the foregoing is that there is very little evidence—in the form

of applications for, say, 101 watt stations or waivers of the 10-watt minimum—indicative of current market demand for the stations now being created. Layered on

top of the apparently low state of demand for these licenses today are the many regulations to which the stations will be subject. Any current demand for 100 and 10

watt stations will only be dampened by these regulatory burdens.

In short, the Commission has, at the expense of established service quality and

existing radio listeners, created: a handful of new stations in primarily non-urban

areas, failing to fulfill one of its own chief goals; stations that themselves may well

be unlistenable due to interference from high power stations; a threat to the development of digital radio services; a heavy regulatory scheme, including ownership,

cross-ownership, political programming, and EEO rules, to govern these very small

operators; and more enforcement and administration burdens for the Commission.

To conclude, this is not a wise balance of interests. Nor does it comply with our

fundamental statutory charge to ‘‘make available . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide

and world-wide wire and radio communication service.’’ 47 USC section 151 (emphasis added).

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.

Our final witness is Mr. Kevin Klose, President and CEO, National Public Radio.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KLOSE

Mr. KLOSE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Markey

and distinguished members of the subcommittee.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today on behalf of National Public Radio and the hundreds of public radio stations across

the country that air both their own innovative local programming

57

as well as NPR programming reaching audiences estimated at close

to 15 million listeners each week in the United States.

NPR is a private, nonprofit corporation that produces and distributes award winning programming such as Morning Edition, All

Things Considered, Performance Today and Car Talk. It was founded 30 years ago this month under the aegis of the 1967 Public

Broadcasting Act. We are very pleased to say we will be marking

that 30th anniversary within a few weeks.

At the outset, let me say firmly that we favor in principle, diversity of voices and access to the radio space. We acknowledge the

intent of the FCC to expand diversity in adopting the recent report

and order for a new service of low power FM radio stations to encourage such diversity.

While recognizing that LPFM will never be a viable substitute

for the services provided now to millions of listeners by the public

radio community, we nevertheless believe there can be compatibility between a new LPFM service and public radio. However,

there are several significant, unresolved issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure a compatible environment for the benefit

of listeners. We seek the following actions and we make the following points. We are concerned that public radio listeners may be

adversely affected by the new LPFM stations due to signal interference caused by the insertion of LPFM transmitters into existing

radio spectrum. We note there are different opinions on the possibility of potential interference which underscores the uncertainty

about this crucial matter. Unfortunately, this issue is not adequately addressed in the FCC’s recent LPFM decision.

We take the position that it is reasonable to address this issue

in order to ensure that audiences to existing public radio stations

can continue to receive our services without interference and that

potential new audiences not be denied that opportunity. In addition, the radio reading services that predominantly rely on public

radio’s subcarrier channels are much more susceptible to this kind

of interference.

David Noble, President of the International Association of Audio

Information Services is with us here today. Mr. Noble and the

IAAIS represent hundreds of radio reading services for the print

impaired and blind serving and estimated 1 million-plus listeners

every day across the country.

We seek timely creation of a swift, fair process at the FCC to adjudicate cases of interference to full service stations, translator inputs and radio reading services for the print impaired. We seek

protection of translators that are generally used to broadcast to underserved areas. In our view, the FCC order provides secondary

and inadequate protection for these areas.

The LPFM decision was announced just days before comments

were due on the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the transition of analog radio stations to digital audio broadcasting, DAB.

This is a very complex transition for public radio with many technical matters still to be resolved. Having both initiated the DAB

process and having acknowledged the potential effect of LPFM on

this process, the FCC proceeded with its plan without, in our opinion, carefully analyzing the impact on DAB, digital audio broadcasting.

58

We believe it imprudent to act on LPFM without fully exploring

the potential adverse consequences of these actions on DAB or

without considering the comments of broadcasters, receiver manufacturers and digital audio broadcast proponents prior to acting on

LPFM.

There are various reasonable remedies to these problems to assure compatibility and to do no harm to existing services. We are

considering appropriate administrative and/or judicial processes to

resolve these issues. NPR and our member stations also are prepared to seek appropriate and timely legislative redress.

We will continue working regularly with stations and other professional and industry organizations on this matter. We seek a reasonable, rational outcome that assures compatibility by creating

the practical means to guarantee compatibility.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Kevin Klose follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN KLOSE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO

Good morning Chairman Tauzin, Congressman Markey and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you on behalf of

National Public Radio (NPR) and the hundreds of public radio stations that air NPR

programming across the country. As you know, NPR is a private, nonprofit corporation that produces and distributes award-winning programming such as Morning

Edition, All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, Performance Today, and

Car Talk. NPR is also a membership organization. NPR Member stations are independent entities, licensed to a variety of non-profit organizations, local communities,

colleges, universities and other institutions. The majority of NPR Member stations

are licensed to educational institutions such as the University of Houston and The

Ohio State University. In addition, a number of states have established state-wide

networks to provide universal access to public radio service.

Thank you also for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Communications

Commission’s (FCC) decision to implement a new service of low power FM radio

(LPFM) stations. At the outset, let me say firmly that NPR favors, in principle, diversity of voices and access to the radio space. We applaud the intent of the FCC

in adopting the recent Report and Order (Order) regarding LPFM to encourage such

diversity. While recognizing that LPFM will never be a viable substitute for the

services provided now to millions of listeners by the public radio community, we

nevertheless believe there can be compatibility between a new LPFM service and

public radio. LPFM stations can only provide service to narrow geographic segments

of a community since the largest stations covering 3.5 miles and the smallest stations covering 1 mile.

However, there are three significant unresolved issues that need to be addressed

in order to insure a compatible environment for the benefit of our listeners. We seek

the following actions:

1—Timely creation of a swift, fair process at the FCC to adjudicate cases of interference. The FCC has overturned long-standing policy of providing protection on

‘‘third adjacent’’ frequencies and now will permit LPFM stations to acquire frequencies that may disrupt radio stations in their extended coverage areas. In addition, the radio reading services that rely on FM subcarrier channels are much more

susceptible to this kind of interference. We recognize that the FCC has chosen to

rely on its own engineering studies rather than the evidence submitted by NPR, the

NAB and others, and we do not intend to argue that issue in front of the Subcommittee. However, what is deeply troubling to public radio is that the FCC has

chosen to commit to this course without providing a more complete remedy to radio

stations or their audiences if in fact interference does occur.

2—Protection of translators. Many areas, especially in the West and the Midwest,

depend upon translator stations to receive public radio broadcasts that repeat full

service stations in the heart of the community. In rural and other under-served

areas, with relatively fewer radio and television signals available, translators have

a heightened meaning to listeners of public radio. But, the FCC Order provides secondary and inadequate protection for these services.

59

3—Assuring the transition to Digital Audio Broadcasting. The LPFM decision was

announced just four days before comments were due on the FCC Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on the transition of analog radio stations to Digital Audio Broadcasting

(DAB). Having both initiated the DAB process and acknowledged the potential effect

of LPFM on this process, the FCC proceeded with its plan without analyzing the

impact on DAB. We believe it imprudent of the FCC to act on LPFM without fully

understanding the consequences of its actions to DAB or considering the comments

of broadcasters, receiver manufacturers and DAB proponents.

We are considering appropriate administrative and/or judicial processes to resolve

these issues. NPR and our Member stations also are prepared to seek an appropriate and timely legislative solution. Millions of Americans listen to and support

public radio. We ask that that support be honored by a positive response to our

presentation of the need for assuring the compatibility of this powerful, yet fragile

public radio space.

PUBLIC RADIO’S LONG-STANDING SERVICE TO UN-SERVED AND UNDER-SERVED

AUDIENCES

NPR and its Member stations appreciate and value the public policy objective of

fostering a diversity of broadcast voices to ensure programming that is responsive

to local needs and interests. Since its origins in the first part of this century, public

radio has pursued a mission of producing and disseminating programming to meet

the needs of audiences un-served and under-served by commercial media. In fact,

one of public radio’s greatest strengths derives from a proven record of producing

high quality public service broadcasting that both celebrates the individual community and welcomes national programming. This powerful local-national amalgam has

created a broadcast space greater than the sum of its parts.

NPR’s devotion to presenting ideas, whether news or cultural, engages audiences

and enhances the connections between people in local communities and across the

nation. For example:

• Morning Edition is the premier national/local program on public radio, with 10

million weekly listeners, larger than the Today Show. The program is designed

to encourage local stations’ news departments to report on community news and

events by inserting these stories into the national feed.

• All Things Considered is NPR’s award-winning, flagship program. It produced the

Lost and Found Sound series that included the ‘‘Quest for Sound,’’ a call to listeners to send in their home recordings of sounds of the last one hundred years.

This is a prime example of local contact that creates national content.

• Weekend All Things Considered invites listeners to collaborate with novelist Paul

Auster by submitting true stories to be re-worked and read on air as part of

The National Story Project.

• Talk of the Nation is a distinctive news program providing opportunities for listeners to call into national and international experts to discuss the issues of the

day and the issues behind the headlines. The show also takes to the road on

the last Thursday of each month as part of a year long series, The Changing

Face of America. This series also allows a studio audience to share local concerns with a national audience and allowing the national audience to compare

and contrast local views with its own.

In addition, local public stations complement and strengthen this noncommercial,

educational service by producing programs particularly relevant to their communities:

• WABE-FM in Atlanta, Georgia, produces The New South Radio Drive-In, drawing

together some of Georgia’s best talent in theater, comedy, oral tradition storytelling, and folk music for a live, half-hour show devoted to a celebration of

Georgia’s historic culture.

• WCPN-FM in Cleveland, Ohio, produced a four-month special in collaboration

with public television station WVIZ-TV called Your Land, My Land. This special

focused on urban development and its impact on the citizens of northeast Ohio.

WCPN-FM produced a series of special news reports on all issues surrounding

development, while WVIZ-TV produced local TV programs. WCPN also hosted

call-in programs that featured local, state and national organizations on all

sides of the development issue.

• WWNO-FM in New Orleans, Louisiana, records and broadcasts 16 or more concerts of the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra and other classical music concerts each year. In 1997, the station won special recognition at the Big Easy

Awards Tribute to the Classical Arts for its role in the broadcast and promotion

of classical music.

60

The value of public radio goes beyond its own broadcasts. Public radio stations

are working directly with communities. Some examples:

• KSMU-FM in Springfield, Missouri, works with fifth grade students in the

Springfield Public School system to produce and edit a monthly news program

about issues and activities at their school. KSMU-FM both broadcasts and webcasts the program on the station’s web site. • KPCC-FM in Pasadena, California, works with inner-city kids by sponsoring essay

contests and arranging for students to tour the station. In past years, young

people from Heart of LA Youth (HOLA) have worked with a KPCC-FM and a

NPR reporter to create radio documentaries that aired locally. Similar collaborations involved African-American students from All Saint’s Episcopal Church

in a program called Brothers Making a Difference.

As a result, Americans have come to rely on public radio to provide thought-provoking, in-depth programming that addresses national, regional and local issues.

THE SUBSTANTIAL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC RADIO

Consistent with this public service record, the federal government has a longstanding policy of promoting the development and expansion of locally oriented public radio. Congress has made a substantial federal investment through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to support the basic operations of public radio

and television stations and to foster the production of programming. Congress has

also invested in the construction of public broadcast facilities through the Public

Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) since 1962. Moreover, Congress established the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS) in 1978, the first of its kind.

This nationwide interconnection system is a lifeline that provides universal access

to programming.

Although federal support is important, the majority of funding comes from local

and state governments and from community sources, including listeners. The fundamental element underlying the public’s support for public radio has been the role

of public radio stations as community resources and as outlets of community expression. Indeed, the history of public radio has been the evolution of public radio stations as sources of locally responsive programming. It has accomplished these important public service objectives as the result of concerted federal policies and with

the assistance of a substantial investment of resources over the past half-century.

THE LPFM ORDER

In several important respects, the Commission’s Order accommodated concerns

expressed by public radio. Although NPR appreciates these accommodations and the

spirit in which they were intended, we are deeply concerned that the Order may

diminish the service public radio provides to the American people. As the record

demonstrates, public radio is an invaluable community resource, and it makes little

sense to implement the LPFM plan in such a way as to undercut public access to

public radio.

INTERFERENCE: In eliminating 3rd adjacent protection for FM radio stations,

the FCC has departed from its long-standing and traditional standard of measuring

interference. It has done so despite substantial evidence presented by NPR, the

NAB and others. We recognize that the FCC may disagree with that evidence, but

we believe it to be imprudent for the Commission to fail to provide an adequate remedy if, in fact, interference does occur. The consequence of error by the Commission

in this technical debate will fall directly on existing radio services and the communities which long and faithfully have supported these stations with substantial voluntary financial support and growing audiences.

Full Service Stations: If the Commission is incorrect in its predictions about the

likelihood and severity of interference, there is no apparent means to remedy or

even minimize the harm.

As a related matter, we request clarification that mutually exclusive applications,

which in many cases have been held up for years, are indeed protected. Public radio

stations are making a substantial financial investment in gaining access to spectrum in order to expand public service to the American people.

Radio Reading Services: The potential harm also extends to radio reading services offered by public radio stations across the country to the visually-impaired and

others such as paraplegics whose disability prevents them from using print media.

This service is unique. No other source adequately satisfies these citizen’s needs.

Approximately one hundred radio reading services use public radio stations’ sub-carrier channels, which operate closer to other signals and thus are more likely to engender interference, for broadcast information and programming to commonly available receivers.

61

For instance, the radio reading service in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, serves 6,500

people, 24 hours, seven days-a-week with readings from local newspapers, geographic and ethnic community newspapers such as the Jewish Chronicle, Pittsburgh

Catholic and The Pittsburgh Courier which serves the African-American community.

Moreover, the radio reading service provides daily grocery and shopping information. In addition, community organizations such as Lion’s Clubs help purchase subchannel receivers, and WDUQ-FM and its licensee, Duquesne University, donate engineering assistance and the subcarrier frequency on which the service is broadcast.

Translator Inputs & Outputs: Although the Commission required LPFM stations to protect existing translator/booster facilities, it did not expressly require the

protection of translator/booster input signals. Because translator/booster facilities

operating on non-reserved frequencies must be ′′fed′′ by an over-the-air signal, disruption of the input signal could eliminate the service of that translator/booster facility as well as every translator/booster facility that depends on a clear signal to

and from the affected facility.

Particularly in more rural areas of the United States, networks of translator and

booster facilities are typically the only means by which public radio stations can

cover large, sparsely populated areas. For example, KUWR-FM in Laramie, Wyoming, has seven translators that carry the station’s signal to approximately 45,000

people in underserved areas. Similarly, the translators in Rawlins and Dubois, Wyoming, provide the only public radio service in these areas.

This problem may also impact other regions of the United States. For instance,

public radio station WKMS-FM in Murray, Kentucky, has translators in Paducah,

Kentucky, and in Paris, Tennessee. These translators bring the only public radio

service to about 43,213 persons. In Southwest Virginia, WVTF-FM is in the process

of constructing a translator in Lynchburg on 89.5. If its input is not protected, the

service it will provide may be entirely negated.

PROTECTING FUTURE TRANSLATORS AND BOOSTERS: While the FCC

grand-fathered existing translator/booster facilities, it required future translator and

booster stations to protect previously authorized LPFM stations. Since there has

been a freeze on translator applications since 1997, this aspect of the LPFM decision

is likely to further undermine the extension of public radio services to under-served

and un-served areas.

In addition, translator and booster stations are considered a secondary service to

full powered stations. As a result, a translator or booster station that is forced to

relocate to accommodate a new or newly modified full power station will likely have

an even harder time relocating the facility and maintaining service once significant

numbers of LPFM stations have begun operations. If the dislocated translator is

part of a network of such facilities, service may be lost over a wide area.

DIGITAL AUDIO BROADCASTING: The LPFM decision was announced just

four days before comments were due on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

regarding the transition of analog radio stations to digital audio broadcasting

(DAB). Having initiated a proceeding to address the transition of existing full power

radio broadcasters to DAB, and acknowledged the potential impact of LPFM interference to DAB, the FCC’s Order essentially ignores the issue. Given the uncertainty regarding the transition to DAB, we believe the potential affect of LPFM stations on full powered stations warrants further analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although public radio supports a multitude of voices over the nation’s airwaves

and the general principle of empowering communities to make their voices heard,

we do not believe that it constitutes sound public policy to implement LPFM in such

a way as to interfere with the educational and community mission of public radio.

Our belief in this proposition is only strengthened by the realization that the LPFM

proposal, as currently constructed, could have the greatest harm on public radio audiences in rural and traditionally underserved areas, the exact audience who may

be in the greatest need for access to public radio programming. We thus seek an

adequate remedy for existing stations in case of actual interference, greater protection for translator services in rural and under-served communities, and reevaluation

of the LPFM plan in concert with the ongoing DAB proceeding.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Klose.

The Chair will recognize himself for a round of questions.

Let me first observe a couple of things. As I observed the testimony of the Commissioner, you, Mr. Franca, and others, what we

are really talking about is an order that relaxes standards of interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
62

ference that have been in place a long time to accommodate the

new stations, relaxing standards of interference.

As I understand, the office used distortion to test for interference

rather than signal to noise ratios which has been the standard

used by the FCC in setting interference protection rules for a long,

long time. Am I wrong about that?

Mr. FRANCA. One of the difficulties here and one of the reasons

why people came up with different standards is the way FM service

was started. It started as a monophonic service. We established

mileage separations among stations but the Commission never defined what level of service or what grade of service that meant for

FM service.

Mr. TAUZIN. Hasn’t the international standard always used signal to noise ratios?

Mr. FRANCA. There is an international ITU standard.

Mr. TAUZIN. Isn’t that the standard they have always used?

Mr. FRANCA. It is not the standard that we use.

Mr. TAUZIN. It is not the standard that has been used by the

FCC?

Mr. FRANCA. Absolutely not, and in fact, the reports cited by the

NAB in their comments to this proceeding in which they said they

cite the ITU standard of 50 db should be used for our standard—— Mr. TAUZIN. But you are saying you did not abandon a long-held

standard by the FCC in measuring interference?

Mr. FRANCA. Absolutely not.

Mr. TAUZIN. Second, I was puzzled by why a Walkman was used

in Mr. Jackson’s test and then it dawned on me what is going on

here. Here is the question I want to ask you. Portable, personal,

clock radios make up 65 percent of the radios sold in the year 1998,

according to our numbers, hundreds of millions of them out there.

What I think I am hearing is that the rationale of the Commission

is that because these radios are always likely to be subject, susceptible to interference because people use them anyhow, it is okay to

have more interference on them? Is that the rationale upon which

this decision was based?

Mr. FRANCA. I think the rationale is that those radios provide

limited service today. In fact, if you look at the NAB test data and

their 50 db number, the Walkman radio performance, their 50 db

number, at the edge of service is 1,000 times less than that.

Mr. TAUZIN. The point I am making is that we are talking about

radios that hundreds of millions of Americans have bought and

use. These are the low cost radios that people use for the clock radios, the Walkman we just saw demonstrated and I hear the

Walkman being described as a poor performance radio today, that

these so-called poor performance radios are going to be poorer in

performance as a result of some of this interference that you now

will permit as acceptable interference.

Let me start with Harold’s premise that the idea of diversity, of

public radio, letting more people into the business of the airwaves,

Mr. Koning made very strong and convincing arguments for that

and I think it is something we have always accepted. But in doing

so in a rule that is premised upon the notion that the radios most

Americans buy and use are going to be poorer quality performers

now because you are going to allow more interference on those raVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
63

dios and the rationale is, well, you bought a poor radio to start, you

deserve a little more interference. Has that rationale been behind

this decision? It is pretty disturbing to us.

Mr. FRANCA. I think the rationale is always the benefits of a

service versus the interference it cause.

Mr. TAUZIN. What you are saying is, in order to get a few—if

Harold is right about this, if we are only talking about four, five,

six, eight stations in the major metropolitan areas of America, if

you are telling hundreds of millions of Americans that you are

going to have poorer quality radios because you can’t afford the

highest quality radios, you are buying these Walkmans, you

thought you got a great product, but now you are going to have a

less quality product because we want to accommodate for the good,

eight to ten new radio stations in these metro areas and heaven

knows what else?

What I am telling you though, I want you to hear this, is that

many of us who are concerned that kind of subjective balancing of

American values is something perhaps you should have talked to

us about. We get elected by those Americans who buy those radio

stations as well as the Americans who would like to own a radio

station. All the Americans who bought those Walkmans are going

to be calling us, if Mr. Jackson’s demonstration is correct, wondering why they have all this backtalk on the radio they used to

listen to.

Mr. FRANCA. Well, I think you have to look at where that interference will occur. What we are saying is that the interference area

will be right around the low power station.

Mr. TAUZIN. A square mile in the metro area. Do you know how

many people drive through that square mile on a daily basis?

Mr. FRANCA. If they are driving through, their car radios are

going to operate perfectly.

Mr. TAUZIN. Do you know how many people use Walkmans in

those square miles? What concerns me, sir, is that you are saying

for the first time I think in the history of the Commission, No. 1,

that this is a good and efficient use of the spectrum and it doesn’t

matter, for the good of this rule, that all of these products that

Americans have bought will now serve them in a poor capacity.

Your argument is, well, you should have known it when you bought

those cheap, old products? That is a pretty nasty way to treat the

American public, sir.

Mr. FRANCA. Sir, every service that we authorize—and we think

it is good spectrum management policy—is interference limited. So

when we put in a new service and a new station, such as a full

power FM station, someone is going to lose service. They are, however, going to be gaining service from that new station.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me ask you the tough question. You eliminated

third adjacent channel protection for the LPFM station but you

kept it for the full power station. If your arguments are as you concluded, that you reject third channel interference, why keep it for

the full stations? If you are creating all these new low power stations that can receive all this horrible interference from the full

power station, you are creating new stations that are going to be

horrible to listen to on the one hand because you are not protecting

them against adjacent interference and at the same time saying it

64

is okay to establish these because, in our opinion, third adjacent interference is not significant for the public good. That seems a bit

inconsistent. Would you please explain that to me?

Mr. FRANCA. I think the difference there is looking at where the

interference would occur. Generally, it is a very small area. The

reason why you don’t do it for the full power stations is basically

because the higher power of those stations would cause a much

greater service area loss to the public.

In most instances, the loss of service in the LPFM case will be

on the property of the low power station owner.

Mr. TAUZIN. I just have real problems. I am like the Commissioner, I don’t start from the notion that what you tried to do is

all bad. I supported low power television and still do for a lot of

the reasons that low power television has added a component to

our communications marketplace. I think it has been good for this

country.

I don’t necessarily think low powered FM is a bad concept to

start with, but the notion that the order is based on a premise that

it is okay to have more interference on the radios that most Americans buy and use because they are low cost radios is a very disturbing premise to me. We will have more discussions of this.

My time has expired. The chairman recognizes the gentleman

from Massachusetts for a round of questions.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by first congratulating Mr. Franca for his

historic testimony today. Usually when the Federal Communications Commission is testifying before this committee, it is to receive

a round of bitter criticism for dragging its feet and not moving

quickly enough. Today, Mr. Franca, you have been able to elicit

criticism from those same people for moving too quickly and trying

to get the process completed in an area of important national policy. For that, you are to be congratulated because you demonstrate

to a very large extent much of the criticism of the FCC has nothing

to do with speed, it has to do with result, the conclusion to which

they come on issues with which they are dealing.

Today what we are talking about is a obviously a huge deregulation issue—how do we deregulate the third adjacent station. As

part of the deregulatory agenda of the Congress, we are obviously

moving forward. Sometimes there are realignments on deregulatory

issues. That is just the way it is but clearly there is a real intent

here to move forward.

We begin, of course, by noting the limited nature of this interference. It is a significant issue but with limited consequences, so

all of the FM car radios, 150 percent of all listenership is that.

Home stereos, they are out. People who use Sony Walkmans or cassettes, which I would say is a very high percentage of people out

there jogging using these Sony Walkmans, are also out as well.

So we come down to the Sony Walkman issue which is an important issue, I don’t deny that. I think most of us begin with a pretty

low quality portable radio, although they may not be the highest

target audience for advertisers in terms of generating revenues.

I guess what I would like to know, Mr. Franca, is, first of all,

is there a disagreement about the underlying data between you

and Mr. Jackson, for example, or is there a debate over the interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
65

pretation of the data? Which is it? Is it the data or the interpretation of the data that we are discussing here?

Mr. FRANCA. We believe the primary differences here are in the

interpretation.

Mr. MARKEY. So you agree with Mr. Jackson’s conclusions?

Mr. FRANCA. We certainly think their tests provided good information that we used to make our decision.

Mr. MARKEY. Do you agree with Mr. Franca, Mr. Jackson, in

terms of his evaluation that the data you both are working from

is identical?

Mr. JACKSON. I wouldn’t say identical but what Professor

Picholtz and I did in our study was we tried to reconcile the four

studies and make adjustments. We were able to find that they all

came pretty close and that the difference between the people who

thought the third adjacent channel interference was going to be a

real problem and those who thought it wasn’t, came from how people defined interference and how badly a signal had to be degraded

before a consumer suffered.

Mr. MARKEY. So we debate then not over the technical conclusions which you reached. Do you agree with that Mr. Rappaport?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. Anyone here disagree that it is a debate over data

rather than interpretation of data?

[No response.]

Mr. MARKEY. Is there an appeal process here, Mr. Franca?

Mr. FRANCA. We have a reconsideration process at the Commission.

Mr. MARKEY. Are all of the panelists here and all others in the

country free to participate in that appeal process?

Mr. FRANCA. Yes.

Mr. MARKEY. What is that process? Can you explain it to us in

terms of its length and the process that interests would use in

order to testify or have their views heard?

Mr. FRANCA. Thirty days after publication of the rules in the

Federal Register, people can file petitions to ask us to reconsider

the adopted rules.

Mr. MARKEY. Then what happens after that, Mr. Franca?

Mr. FRANCA. The Commission looks at that information and puts

out a Memorandum Opinion and Order either agreeing with the

petitioner or upholding the rules.

Mr. MARKEY. So how long a period has yet to elapse? Can you

give us an idea as to the duration of that period of time that everyone will have a chance—Mr. Jackson and others—in order to

present their information and contest the conclusions you have

reached with regard to your interpretation?

Mr. FRANCA. I believe the rules were published in the Federal

Register yesterday, so the 30-day period started yesterday.

Mr. MARKEY. In terms of the comment period and then how long

after that before the FCC would then rule on those additional comments?

Mr. FRANCA. That depends on what gets filed but we certainly

try to look at this information relatively quickly and the staff

would present a recommendation to the Commission.

66

Mr. MARKEY. So the process has not concluded yet with regard

to modifications that could be made taking into account the concerns which have been raised by this panel and others in the country?

Mr. FRANCA. That is correct.

Mr. MARKEY. So at this point we are kind of at the halfway point

in the process in terms of your initial conclusions and now the commentary coming from the public and other interested parties.

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. I might note for the record that Associated Press

carries the story today that the National Broadcasting Association

has filed a petition in U.S. District Court of Appeals asking the

court to set aside this rule. So we also have a court proceeding

commenced in the matter.

The Chair recognizes the vice chairman of the committee, Mr.

Oxley, for comments.

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth, welcome. I take it from your

comments that you support my bill?

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Mr. Oxley, I have a longstanding position of not taking positions on legislation before Congress. I am not

sure it is the appropriate role of commissioners to be out lobbying

Congress.

Mr. OXLEY. We would welcome you as an ally at any point.

Your testimony was interesting, and I was thinking initially

when this whole issue came up, why would my broadcasters back

home be concerned? I thought there would be more angst perhaps

in urban areas as opposed to rural and semi-rural areas and yet,

as you indicated and others indicated, the bulk of these new licenses would be in the smaller markets. Then I realized that a station in Delphos, Ohio that has been there for a long time, family

owned, that is why they would be concerned about a low power license.

Could you characterize and give us some idea why apparently

there is very little, if any, demand for existing low power licenses?

Is it not that people don’t realize they are out there? Why is there

apparently a lack of demand for the existing licenses out there?

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Mr. Oxley, I think in smaller markets,

anyone could come in and apply for a license and in most small and

mid-size markets, get a license, a full power license. If they want

to operate at a low level, they could. The reason they don’t is they

would lose a lot of money. Presumably in small markets, anyone

who could make a penny at this business is already in the business

and there are a lot of folks who are in the business who are losing

a lot of money. So it is not very attractive to enter a market where

you are probably going to lose money.

Where there is demand is in the major urban markets where

even the smallest, lowest power station in a major market can sell

for a lot of money. No one can come in and get a license today for

free in those markets, but those are precisely the markets where

few, if any, new licenses will be created for low power FM. The only

ones that will be created will be created at the cost of new interference.

67

Mr. OXLEY. As I understand it, in 1998 over 65 percent of radios

sold were portable, personal and clock radios, a rather substantial

number. I have a shower radio, a great invention. If I want to sing

along with the oldies station, I should be able to do that without

interference. You listen to news, music and everything. There are

a lot of those out there, and I would think that I ought to be entitled to a clear signal, the same with the Walkman user or anybody

else.

Mr. Franca, would you acknowledge that there are literally millions and millions of those kinds of radios out there, the shower

and Walkman radios?

Mr. FRANCA. Absolutely and I think the numbers and distances

that were presented here were based on the NAB test results and

a very, very high level of performance that these radios don’t meet.

We think that the interference areas would be much, much smaller

than were presented based on the NAB tests.

The only issue, if you actually look at the data, is with regard

to the Walkman-type radios which really were an anomaly of all

the radios tested.

Mr. OXLEY. Would you put the Walkman and the shower radio

all in the same category?

Mr. FRANCA. No.

Mr. OXLEY. You wouldn’t? Why is that?

Mr. FRANCA. We didn’t test the shower radio but I would assume

it would be more like a clock radio or the portables which offered

much better performance.

Mr. OXLEY. My time has expired.

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, is recognized.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you also for having this important and timely hearing.

This is a subject we need to be discussing now. I have a couple of

questions.

Mr. Franca, if there is a need for the low power stations, can

that not be met on the noncommercial band?

Mr. FRANCA. I am with the Office of Engineering and Technology.

That is really outside my area of expertise how many allotments

are available there. We really just looked at the interference issues.

I can certainly go back and get that information.

[The following was received for the record:]

Of the 100 FM radio channels, 20 are reserved for noncommercial use. Noncommercial stations are not assigned channels in the FM Table of Allotments, for

which protection is based on minimum separations between stations assumed to be

operating at the maximum facilities for their class. Rather, noncommercial FM stations are fit into the broadcast landscape on the basis of protecting the service contours of earlier-authorized stations, based on the licensed facilities. As a result, the

noncommercial band is intensely utilized in many areas. Restricting LPFM stations

to the noncommercial band would further preclude or limit opportunities for LPFM

service, especially in urban areas where there are few opportunities for LPFM stations on commercial and noncommercial channels. For these reasons, we do not believe that the substantial interest in LPFM service could be accommodated in the

noncommercial band.

Mr. GORDON. I would like you to do that.

68

Two people can see an accident and view it differently and sometimes who hires an expert has an impact on those. I have to say

that you were very persuasive here today.

As a proponent of the low power stations, you are still saying

there is going to be interference. It is really a question of what is

acceptable interference and how large an interference. In your testimony, you said there was going to be interference, it would be acceptable. Can you better define for me what is the high level of

your acceptability?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. Sure. That unfortunately as you can see with

this panel is a bit subjective. We can all measure the same data,

but what is and is not interference can differ between two parties.

Mr. GORDON. Proximity is one major element?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. Yes, that is the major impact. In radio propagation, the closer you are to a transmitting source, the more interference you will experience for a given transmitter power. These

low power FM stations are orders of magnitude weaker in power

from the antenna than any of the other commercial broadcast stations.

Mr. GORDON. In a quarter of a mile of a low power station, would

that be unacceptable interference?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. In a quarter of a mile, which is longer than the

125 meter blanketing region, my estimation is you would have no

interference to virtually every radio that exists today.

Mr. GORDON. What about three blocks?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. If three blocks are about 300 meters, that again

is well outside of the 125 meter footprint of the maximum powerlow power FM station, so I would say you would have virtually no

interference whatsoever.

Mr. GORDON. What about a ham operator?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. I am glad you mentioned that because there are

about 250 to 300,000 amateur radio operators in schools, apartments, houses all across the country transmitting ten to twenty

times the power.

Mr. GORDON. So if you have one of these in your home, how

many next door neighbors do you bother?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. It depends on the proximity of the neighbor.

Mr. GORDON. Typical.

Mr. RAPPAPORT. If it is a typical quarter acre lot, probably two

to three neighbors might be impacted to some of the stations depending on their make of radio, maybe no stations, maybe two or

three stations. If it is a very inexpensive radio, possibly all of the

stations.

If I could just mention the FCC I think was very responsible because they enforced the same ruling on low power FM.

Mr. GORDON. Again, I don’t have time. The gentleman next to

you on your left, what is your proximity issue? Is it going to be

more than two or three neighbors, two or three houses down the

block?

Mr. JACKSON. It is going to depend on the consumer’s receiver

and that is an issue I haven’t spent a lot of time on, so I am going

to beg off on that. I would like to make one observation which is

Professor Rappaport said the interference would be acceptable, it

was a good tradeoff. That is not what engineers are for. Engineers

69

are to tell you how bad things are, how good things are and what

the choices are.

Mr. GORDON. So you are an engineer and you can’t tell me this?

What I am trying to ask you is whether you are going to affect one

neighbor or two neighbors.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Franca had an exhibit showing the range

which was fairly substantial.

Mr. GORDON. From what you know, can you not interpolate the

information?

Mr. JACKSON. I apologize, sir. I have not looked at that issue and

I can’t give you a number.

Mr. GORDON. That is fine. Thanks.

With my time running out, let me say, Mr. Chairman, we need

to have more hearings and take more information. My quick

thought for what it is worth, probably not much and if anyone

cares, is that I certainly understand the FCC’s interest in trying,

in this period of consolidation and concentration, to have more diversity, more access. Is there going to be a new Spike Lee or Bob

Dylan or someone out there who wants to bring in something new

that might catch on, I think has some merit. But, I think there is

a price that we have to consider here. It is this inference.

I certainly want to know the answer to this noncommercial band

question. We really haven’t talked much but it doesn’t seem there

is an outpouring for these stations right now. Potentially, the noncommercial band could take care of that until there is an increase,

as there will be, in technology for Walkmans and others that can

better accept this interference.

I want to hear more about that and I would hope that the Commission, during this comment period, would go slow, let us learn

a little more about it. I certainly would very unfavorable to wholesale getting into this without knowing more than we do. If there

is the potential to do two or three experiments, I want to know. I

want to know more about the FCC, whether it is an open door, if

we are going to have lots of these if no turning back or whether

there is a way to do it incrementally as we learn more.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for bringing this open. We need to

study this more. I would assume even with good cause, as I think

the FCC has, anytime you are going to bring about this kind of

change, the burden of proof is on you in terms of this matter of interference. My feeling at home has been that everybody wants

gravel on their roads but they don’t want the rock quarry next

door. Everybody wants the garbage picked up but they don’t want

the landfill next door. You may want these extra stations but you

don’t want them next door to you if they are going to cause interference. I think we really do have to answer the question of what

happens to those neighbors. I just want to learn more about that.

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you.

Mr. Klose wanted to respond. We will allow that and move on to

the next.

Mr. KLOSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gordon, I would like to point out that the reserve portion of

the FM band, which is the noncommercial part that we are most

concerned about, as we are noncommercial, is more subject to interVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
70

ference for engineering reasons. We can submit information to the

record to detail those problems. They have to do with the way our

signals are processed to give full, dynamic range of our particular

program matter and the sound we give is processed differently

from the sounds you hear and the way sound is processed in the

nonreserve portion.

Mr. GORDON. Is it as crowded?

Mr. KLOSE. It is extremely susceptible to interference because it

is a much higher range.

Mr. GORDON. Is it as crowded now, the noncommercial?

Mr. KLOSE. I can’t say comparatively. We view it as a fill part

of the spectrum.

Mr. TAUZIN. The record will stay open. We would appreciate a

submission that details why you have a special problem with this.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your having this hearing today.

I was intrigued that my colleague from Massachusetts talked

about how quickly the FCC reacted and his commendation of the

Commission. I would bring to his attention that our vice chairman,

Mr. Oxley, was very instrumental in acting quickly when the FCC

had a ruling on December 29, 1999 in which the FCC said noncommercial television stations, as a part of their 50 percent allocation for education programming, could not count religious programming. Mr. Oxley and a few of us quickly got a bill and as a result

the FCC rescinded its decision that it made last December. This decision was made without any hearings or any information from the

religious community. So I was glad to see the FCC acted to rescind

what it did so quickly on December 29.

I bring that because lots of things that happen in Washington— and I am not saying this was one of them—happen for political reasons.

Mr. TAUZIN. Will the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman might be aware that we submitted

a very extensive list of questions to the Commissioners regarding

that decision that was pulled, one of which asked how was Handel’s Messiah considered cultural when it was performed at the

Kennedy Center but not on a religious broadcast station? I must

tell you that we got no answers to those questions. We did get a

response from the Chairman saying that it was now moot since

they had withdrawn the rule but it is a good example of how moving too fast has created some real problems out there.

Mr. STEARNS. It is a good example of what is the basic motivation sometimes for moving so quickly without public input.

Let me ask Mr. Franca, say I get this spectrum allocation and

I guess the assumption is that I will have full integrity, that I am

going to build my station, build my towers and spend a lot of

money, go to the banks and put my name on a mortgage. Then I

am going to find out that this spectrum you gave me has interference. I am going to complain to you. Aren’t you going to have

to go ahead and hire a lot of people to enforce all these low power

stations to make sure they are in the proper performance? My first

question I guess is, have you done an analysis of this? How many

71

more people are you going to hire to administer these new licenses

and to make sure there is enough personnel to prevent interference

and to give the full integrity to the person that is obligated to

building the tower, mortgages, and has put all the capital out

there?

Mr. FRANCA. Congressman, again, I am from the Office of Engineering and Technology. That is a little outside my area but certainly that was an issue that was discussed before the Commission.

The Commission felt comfortable that it had the resources to do

that.

We do that today. We have an Enforcement Bureau, we have offices around the country. We do investigate causes of interference

and we find those cases and correct those cases.

We think having the rules and regulations that we are adopting

for this low power service really will minimize the interference.

Mr. STEARNS. Have you done an analysis of this? Is this analysis

available for the committee?

Mr. FRANCA. Analysis of the interference or analysis of the enforcement effort?

Mr. STEARNS. Enforcement?

Mr. FRANCA. I don’t believe an analysis was done, not a formal

one.

Mr. STEARNS. A formal one, okay.

Let me ask Mr. Jackson, how do you respond to the criticism

that FM receivers used in your study could not even meet the

NAB’s high performance standard before the simulation of low

power radio stations?

Mr. JACKSON. There are two points—that is a criticism that has

been raised not at my study but of a study that the NAB filed.

There are two responses to that. One, it involves a misreading of

the criterion that the NAB used. The NAB’s criterion did apply to

every radio and basically the criterion they used was if it is a very

high performance radio, say 70 db signal and noise ratio, it is not

degraded until interference drives the performance all the way

down to 50 db. I am using db’s and I apologize.

If it is a lower performance radio, then if interference degrades

it enough that it would bug a consumer a little bit, according to the

research, that is harmful interference and that is the definition the

NAB used in their study and it applies to all radios. What is done

to take the part of that definition that applies to the highest performance radios that says that was the definition and that is unreasonable.

I will observe, by the way, that the Commission did earlier use

signal to noise ratios in their analysis in FCC Docket 8090. If you

look at their report, we had some dispute on this before saying the

FCC had never used signal to noise ratio in their analysis of FM

but if you look at report in Docket 8090, paragraph 36, you will

find such an analysis.

Mr. FRANCA. If I might respond?

Mr. TAUZIN. I think he needs to since we have two conflicts in

testimony. Mr. Franca?

Mr. FRANCA. What I said is that the Commission has never defined a specific signal to noise ratio as acceptable FM service. We,

72

in fact, measured signal to noise even when we did our testing in

this——

Mr. STEARNS. My question to you was have you used that standard previously?

Mr. FRANCA. There is no standard signal to noise.

Mr. STEARNS. You said you had not used it as a standard?

Mr. FRANCA. We have not used signal to noise as a standard.

Mr. STEARNS. You are saying, Mr. Jackson, they have?

Mr. JACKSON. I will let you judge for yourself, Mr. Chairman. I

will read a couple of sentences from their 1984 order, ‘‘A 50 db,

audio frequency signal to noise ratio was used to represent the

high quality stereophonic service referenced by the comment. We

developed the following table based on the receiver having the performance characteristics’’ and then it goes on and shows characteristics of different signal to noise ratios. It is paragraph 36 and the

order is FCC 83-259.

Mr. TAUZIN. The record will speak for itself. The Chair will extend the gentleman’s time.

Mr. STEARNS. You are saying the FCC has never used signal to

noise as a criteria? Notwithstanding what he just said, you are just

saying as a general practice?

Mr. FRANCA. I was saying that one of the difficult things in this

proceeding was that we could not point to a specific signal to noise

reference as a criteria for acceptable FM service. That is why the

CEA folks came up with the value used by NPR. The study funded

by NPR said 45 db signal to noise is what they believe should be

high quality service; NAB said 50 db should be the appropriate

level of FM service. Nobody pointed to an FCC rule that says this

level of signal to noise is what we have determined should be used

to define service area or interference.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me, since this is

very controversial, there should be established signal to noise ratios. The NAB says it is 50 and you don’t agree. Let me ask the

panel, am I wrong in assuming that there is a signal to noise ratio

as a criteria that we should use, that we should all agree upon?

Mr. Jackson?

Mr. JACKSON. I think this is where some of the problem in the

engineering studies came from. The FCC said tell us whether today’s receivers provide satisfactory—I think the words in the Notice of Inquiry were ‘‘satisfactory rejection of interference,’’ but they

didn’t define what satisfactory was.

Mr. STEARNS. They gave no signal to noise criteria?

Mr. JACKSON. Right. So on one side, you had the parties coming

in, the interference had to knock the receiver completely off the air

before it is impaired and other people said, if it is the level that

subjective tests have shown bugs consumers, that is an impairment. If the Commission had chosen one or the other of those

standards in advance, then I think the studies would have been

much closer. That is what the debate is about. Is interference to

be defined as something that harms consumers or does it have to

be something that knocks the radio station completely away from

the consumer’s availability?

73

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear that some

of this controversy is hinging on the question that there is no established signal to noise ratio.

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman’s time has expired but you have a

couple of people who want to respond. Why don’t we let them?

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Mr. Stearns, I am not an engineer but

I am reminded that we have another major proceeding that has

gone on at the Commission for about a decade on digital television.

On digital television, the Commission spent years doing detailed

engineering studies, new service, very controversial, years and

years and years of study.

At the end of the day, the service went on and despite years of

preparation, we haven’t worked out all the bugs yet. Digital television is a very important service but the Commission waited until

we had years of engineering studies before we moved forward.

Low power FM, we went to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

without a single engineering study. Within a year and with all due

respect to the engineers present at the table, if I as an economist

went to a referee journal and said, I have a study based on a handful of receivers, I want this published, I would be laughed at. If I

said, I can tell you about interference across America based on laboratory experiments, I wouldn’t have confidence.

We have had what can only be described as a rush to judgment,

a judgment that was predetermined before we had a single engineering study.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Franca, you wanted to respond?

Mr. FRANCA. Yes. What we have in our rules in terms of standards of interference are separation distances between stations. If I

might, basically this is an NAB report that was cited by NAB in

its comments. It says ‘‘The FCC’s allocation technical standards are

based, to a large degree, on a co-channel signal to inference ratio

of 20 db.’’ It then goes on and talks about the 50 db signal to noise

and the international matters. It says ‘‘For stereophonic transmission, a 20 db signal to interference ratio, the FCC rules, yields

an aural signal to interference ratio of only 30 db.’’

What the NAB was saying in this report is that our separation

standards do not yield a 50 db audio signal to noise ratio that the

NAB now advances as a performance standard. That is based on

the distance separation among stations as defined in our rules.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me see if we can move to the last and those who

want to respond, I will give you time.

Thank you, gentleman.

Mr. Markey is asking consent for 30 seconds. Any objection?

[No response.]

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I apologize

to the gentleman from Maryland.

I think we are at half-time. Obviously there are disagreements.

NAB is seeking relief in court halfway through the process. I think

it is good to have called the hearings, Mr. Chairman, so that we

can air all of these issues. Obviously we have reached a level now

where it has become very contentious.

My hope is that out of this over the next 30 days and the period

beyond, that we can have intensive negotiations and try to resolve

this issue. I think it would be best for all parties if that was the

74

case. I would rather have a reconciliation than escalation of the

issues. I hope this hearing has made it possible to give all the parties incentive to get together.

Mr. STEARNS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman has about 10 seconds. He yields.

Mr. STEARNS. Wouldn’t you agree though that based upon what

Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth has said that there should have

been a lot more analysis of this before they rushed to judgment?

Mr. MARKEY. The experts are here. It is beyond my technical

knowledge. That is why I went to law school rather than engineering school. I think the experts can definitely telescope the timeframe to resolve the complex issues you have raised.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank the gentleman.

I am going to give each of you just a minute to sum at the end

but I want to yield to my friend from Maryland, Mr. Wynn.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to yield 20 seconds to my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. GORDON. That is very generous, Al. I am late for a meeting

also and I am sure you are too. I just have one thing I want to

quickly ask to receive more information.

There seems to be a consensus, although there is lots of conflicting testimony, that there is going to be some interference. The

question is what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

One element that really hasn’t been discussed that much is the

question of proximity. I would like to know whether there can be

some matrix with proximity and acceptable and unacceptable so

that in conjunction with getting a license, there may be a proximity

requirement. That is, if you are on a campus, a church that has

a little bit of property so that a part of the license would mean that

you had enough proximity that you wouldn’t be interfering with

your neighbors. At a later date, I would like to hear more about

that.

Thank you.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Jackson, you said in your last statement I think

that there really isn’t a subjective level for interference, what really disturbs the consumer. Mr. Franca, my question is, do you agree

with that and if so, can’t we use that as a starting point as to what

is the level of interference that annoys the general public, the average consumer? Do you agree with him and can we get a consensus?

Mr. FRANCA. There is technical literature that suggests—this is

the reason why we chose 1 percent distortion—that a 1-percent

change is the minimal amount the expert listener can hear. So you

can’t hear less than 1 percent.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Jackson, do you agree with that?

Mr. JACKSON. I am very troubled by the fact that the FCC continues to conflake distortion and signal to noise. Typically distortion can be heard at about the 1 percent to 3 percent level depending on the kind of distortion it is and things like that. I believe consumers can tell the difference between a 60 db signal to noise ratio

and 50 db signal to noise ratio and FM and that is well below the

1 percent level. I am sorry about the jargon.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Franca, it seems to me that FCC should address

that issue with some consumer-based studies that either say it is

75

this or that level. I don’t speak the jargon, so I won’t attempt to.

That should be the threshold for having this discussion.

Mr. FRANCA. Absolutely.

Mr. WYNN. Everyone is talking about what we do from here. One

of the things I hope we will do from here is have the FCC come

up with a definitive consumer-based analysis of what level of distortion or interference is acceptable.

Mr. TAUZIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYNN. Were you here when the demonstration was made?

Mr. WYNN. I missed the Jackson demonstration. I heard the

demonstration by Mr. Franca.

Mr. TAUZIN. It might be good for you to hear both. Could you just

do one of those so you get the flavor of why we are having an argument and what is the difference in the demonstration?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. Mr. Chairman, may I say one word about this

demonstration?

Mr. TAUZIN. Sure.

Mr. RAPPAPORT. This is just an example of how interference was

used as scare tactics in this entire proceedings.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Rappaport, you are giving an opinion but I simply want Mr. Wynn to have the advantage of hearing it and then

you can criticize it if you like, but let him hear it first.

Mr. JACKSON. This is a short cut. It is a cut from WGMS, a local

classical station here in Washington, DC. It was recorded off the

air. First, you will hear WGMS as it was recorded and then you

will hear a recording with cross-talk added at a level that the

FCC’s test procedure would regard as acceptable if a consumer had

a Sony Walkman.

Mr. WYNN. That is the same 1 percent Mr. Franca referred to in

his test?

Mr. JACKSON. No. This is actually just under 3 percent which the

FCC said was the boundary of harmful.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let us hear it.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. JACKSON. This is the interfered one.

[Playing of sample.]

Mr. WYNN. It is pretty evident that is unacceptable. It is also

pretty evident that Mr. Franca’s test at 1 percent was acceptable

and so it seems to me we are still passing in the dark with respect

to what is acceptable to the consumer.

Mr. TAUZIN. To be fair to the witness, the disagreement to

whether this would happen or could happen, I just wanted you to

hear both of them because that’s the way the hearing started with

these two demonstrations. These two gentlemen have a disagreement about their demonstrations.

Mr. WYNN. First of all, thank you, Mr. Jackson. That was helpful, but I still think what the consumer would need in order to

make a judgment would be something that has not occurred yet.

I would like to see that. I would like you to be able to say—because

I guess you have the burden of proof—this is what the consumer

would hear and this is what we think is acceptable or unacceptable

and then give it some numerical designation that makes some

sense.

76

Mr. FRANCA. Yes, sir. The point I only wanted to make is that

the presumption that we used the 3 percent level as a determination of our judgment here is just incorrect and the item is very

clear about saying when we measured, we said we used the 1 percent level in all of our receivers. In fact, the reason why we measured at 3 percent, our initial testing, is that we talked to Carl T.

Jones, the contractor for NAB. In fact, this was the reason why we

actually started with distortion measurements.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Franca, I don’t have a lot of time but I think

there ought to be a better consensus than I am hearing. I want to

go back to another issue. It seems that you and Mr. Maxon, and

to some extent, Mr. Rappaport, all agree that the Sony Walkman

example is problematic, that if someone has a Walkman or, in my

case a clock radio, that we would have problems under a scenario

in which we introduced low power. Is that true, is there consensus

on that or not? You disagree, Mr. Maxon?

Mr. MAXON. Yes. I think one thing we are doing is we are generalizing the specific to the whole case. We are saying that because

one Walkman in one room in one house near one LPFM transmitter might, might get interference on one radio station that we

are assuming whatever it is, 65 million radios get it, and that is

where I think the leap in thinking is going.

What we have is a circumstance where if you are within the

blanketing radius or one of these interference radiuses that has

been calculated by a number of the different parties involved, there

is a greater likelihood that the proper conditions of an interfering

level from the LPFM and an interfered level of the desired station

will combine to cause you to perceive interference.

That doesn’t mean in every room in your house or for every moment or every Sony Walkman you have, that you will have that

problem.

Mr. WYNN. I think we need more tests then, something from

which we can draw some broader conclusions. Is it four out of ten,

six out of ten. There ought to be some averages. I agree with you,

you can’t say one Walkman makes a case but by the same time,

if this is one of the more popular brands and argument is being

made that this brand is affected or similar products are affected,

it seems to me that is a concern.

I want to move on because I know time is limited. The Commissioner made a pretty persuasive argument about a lack of demand

and Mr. Koning actually kind of suggested humorously that you

might be the poster child for why there is a lack of demand. I put

to you and to Mr. Schellhardt, how do you respond to the Commissioner’s argument that there is really not legitimate demand for

this type of low power station?

Mr. KONING. I briefly mentioned that in the 20 years I have been

involved with various forms of micro radio, I was unaware of the

ability to apply for the smaller licenses. We have held two hearings

now in Grand Rapids where we have five potential licenses under

the current FCC guidelines, five potential new licenses. We have

had over 100 citizens participate in these forums.

It is a matter, in my opinion and in our community, for lack of

awareness of availability. Now that it has become public and now

that people are discussing it, we do have a groundswell of interest,

77

especially in the Hispanic community that is very underserved in

our market.

Maybe it is ignorance in some cases or a practical ability with

new technology now to very inexpensively launch these low power

stations.

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Schellhardt, and then I would like to come back

to the Commissioner for his response.

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. I think low profile visibility including very

low profile and visibility for the possibility of getting waivers has

been a contributing factor but I want to stress that there has been

an enormous amount of public interest in this. The proceedings at

the Commission on this proposed rule drew over 3,000 comments

from the public, most of them from individuals and groups supporting low power radio. That set a record comfortably for the highest public participation in any FCC proceeding in the 65 years the

Commission has been operating.

The year before they started the rulemaking process, they received 13,000 unsolicited inquiries from the public about whether

or not low power licenses were available and how to apply for

them. So there is a tremendous interest and it is spreading.

If you look at the metropolitan Detroit area where we have some

activists at the Michigan Music Is World Class campaign, they

have the city of Detroit and virtually every community in metropolitan Detroit to pass resolutions calling for low power radio. Portraying this as a minor concern of a few people is totally inaccurate.

I will say one thing about the 101 licenses. The higher the wattage, the more it is going to cost you to set up the station. A lot the

reason people want something below 100 watts is because they are

middle-class, lower middle-class and in some cases, they are even

poor and if they can’t get it down to 50, 20, 10 watts, they can’t

afford to get on the air, 101 watts is just above their budget.

Also, the higher the wattage, the bigger your coverage area. Believe it or not, there are some folks in the movement who feel that

their coverage area should be self-limited, so that they are forced

to concentrate on specific neighborhoods or specific towns, specific

communities that are just lost in the demographic background

noise today.

Mr. WYNN. I think you have made a good argument.

Commissioner, I think that is pretty persuasive. What would be

your response?

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Mr. Wynn, let me respond to both sets

of comments. I think Mr. Koning makes a good point, that there

may not have been a great deal of awareness. When people want

to go into the broadcast business, they want to do it despite the

fact that all their friends tell them they are crazy. They want to

do it despite the fact their parents say they are going to disinherit

them. They want to do it because they love to do it. They want to

get into the business because only a crazy person would dare to do

this.

It takes a great deal of initiative, it takes an incredible amount

of commitment. It takes a willingness to take risks that ordinary

people rationally choose not to do. Part of that is saying I am going

to find out what is out there. There are people who come to the

78

Commission every day, applying for licenses. We get lots of requests. What is amazing is all of those requests are for high power

wattage because that is the only way these people think they have

any chance of ever breaking even, even though they know the

chances are when they apply for a full power license, the odds are

against them.

I think the point about Detroit is very instructive. Where we do

have a shortage of licenses today, where if you came to the Commission and you couldn’t get a 50,000 watt station, you couldn’t get

a 10,000 watt station, you couldn’t get a 1,000 watt station, you

couldn’t get a 101 watt station, you couldn’t get a 10 watt station,

are in major urban areas.

There is a lot of demand. I have no idea how many of the thousands of inquiries that were made were from urban areas. I suspect

a great many. The Commission gets a lot of reaction on issues that

are very hot at the time. I can attest that in the past month I have

probably gotten and have saved over 2,000 emails on the religious

broadcaster issue. The American public is aware when things become hot at the Commission.

What continues to surprise me is if there really is a demand for

low watt radio stations, why have we not seen people come forward

before the fact and apply? It is there.

Mr. WYNN. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. The ranking minority member of the full committee,

Mr. Dingell, submitted a list of five questions he would like the

FCC to respond to and ask that I read them into the record. I am

going to do that as a courtesy.

One, I understand the FCC used harmonic distortion as a primary standard for measuring harmful interference. How many field

tests were performed in the real world to ensure this standard was

proper? He has in parentheses, ‘‘No field tests, just laboratory,’’ is

what he understands happened. He would like an explanation as

to whether or not that is true.

Two, did you perform any lab tests to determine the degree of

cross-talk interference that might exist within the FCC susceptible

levels of harmonic distortion?

Three, let us assume the standard you chose was the right one,

you know that laboratory and real world test results often differ.

Why did the Commission reject a phase-in approach to putting the

stations on the air in order to mitigate potential disruption to existing stations? He understands at last one of the Commissioners suggested this approach during the process.

Four, what are the enforcement procedures and remedies available to help broadcasters who may be harmed by any inaccuracies

in your assumptions?

Five, history shows that the FCC has been slow to address the

problem of unlicensed operators, the so-called pirates. It would appear that not enough resources were devoted in the past to pursuing violators and shutting them down. Now some of these pirates

will be operating legally. What specific new and improved plan

does the FCC have in place to ensure that new licensees do not

boost their power levels above the legal limit.

79

If the Commission would please respond in writing to the committee that Mr. Dingell might have an answer?

[The response appears at the end of the hearing.}

In conclusion and I will give each of you a chance to say one final

thing if you would like, the vice president of NBC Broadcasting is

quoted as saying that Gutenberg made us all readers and that television made us all viewers and the Internet has made or can make

us all broadcasters.

An interesting observation and one of the questions that Mr.

Schellhardt, Mr. Koning and others who have come before us have

talked about this issue, I would like to sort of leave hanging out

there, is will the Internet, as it becomes predominantly distributed

among the citizens of the country and the planet, assume a role

whereby anyone can become a broadcaster, can establish a talk

show, can establish a cultural program to reach the citizens that

otherwise would have been reached over the air processes?

Let me give each one of you a chance to have a last word, the

last thing you would like us to remember and I will ask you to do

it in as quick a manner as you can because I too have to run.

Commissioner?

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to

thank you for holding these hearings. I have spoken many times

on this topic and I am glad there is yet another chance to get this

information.

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Klose?

Mr. KLOSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that under paragraph 64 of the LPFM report and order, there is no process to address actual interference that could result from the elimination of

the third adjacency protection.

The Commission also has not proposed to protect the input signals of translators and boosters, it has required future translators

to protect LPFM stations, even when the translator is necessary to

replace one that was dislocated by a full power station.

Also, we believe that greater protection of translators is essential

and that a process to handle interference issues must be put in

place for this to work.

Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Koning?

Mr. KONING. I really appreciate the chance to speak. We had

cleared a videotape through Congressman Markey’s office. It is 2

minutes. Is it possible to have that cued and at the end of the comments, that would be the final statement?

Mr. TAUZIN. Actually not. I won’t have time for it. We will accept

it to the committee record.

Mr. KONING. Let me briefly say then that I do hope the technical

interference questions can be answered; that when you do talk

about the ratio of these broadcast properties, that 10 watts and 100

watts are exponentially smaller and have so much less potential for

interference than 50,000 and greater watt stations. So I think the

benefits for community uses and free speech activists to have a

local voice in a local community with programming of, for and

about that community have to be paramount and that the technical

questions can be answered and must be.

80

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Schellhardt?

Mr. SCHELLHARDT. One, Amherst will be filing a supplemental

statement on some of these matters. I am sure Christopher Maxwell and Wesley Dimick will do the same.

Two, I want to say hello to those who are listening to the

webcast. Amherst does have a web site and you can find me, Don

Schellhardt, in the phonebook of Bridgewater, Virginia.

Third, substantively, we have had a lot of talk about how much

interference there might be with the Sony Walkman and how horrible it might be if some degree of interference occurred. I just

want to close by pointing out what is at stake on the other side.

Look at what happens if we don’t act, if we allow the status quo

to remain. As of 1997, according to Radio World, 90 percent of the

dollars spent on radio advertising in America went to just four

companies. That is an awful lot of market concentration.

On the publishing side, according to Professor Stephen Barber of

Princeton, six companies own 50 percent of the publishing capacity

in the entire world. Now with the loosened cross ownership restrictions, you could theoretically have a new AOL-Time Warner that

owned half of the Internet, owned the biggest TV station in the biggest five cities and owned several of the biggest radio stations in

the biggest five cities and owned the largest newspaper in the largest five cities and on and on and on. It is legally possible for one

company or a handful of companies to control the lion’s share of

media across the board.

That is extremely dangerous and if I have to take a few chances

with reception on a Sony Walkman to stop that from happening,

I think it is a price worth paying.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Jackson?

Mr. JACKSON. I also thank you for the opportunity to be here

today. I have a lot of points but I will be very brief and I will skip

them all.

I would like to observe that engineering should inform democratic choice and that the standards of interference that are chosen

should reflect how consumers will be affected, not cooked to provide

support for the position of the proponents. I think that is a problem

in this proceeding.

Second, I think your closing comment about the Internet was directly on target. When we try to think about this choice, the Internet is going to open doors, we are going to see very rapid, continuing development in the Internet, we are going to have consumers with wireless access to the Internet, so when we think of

the choices before us, you must keep the Internet in mind and understand that gives you more tradeoffs than you would otherwise

have.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Rappaport?

Mr. RAPPAPORT. I agree engineering should be used to make intelligent choices. What I fear has happened here is that the engineering facts have not been properly communicated. The fact is

that there is a lot of scare tactics being used on the interference.

We all agree Walkman radios work but in the filing of public

comments from NAB and others, they claim by their own standard,

without any interference in a perfect test chamber, Walkman radios and over half the other radios tested would not work. This was

81

then multiplied into maps that show a very scary impact of interference throughout cities across the Nation which won’t happen.

We just heard an audio rendition of what cross-talk would occur

but that would never happen in the commercial FM service. In fact,

the low power FM service is usually the exact same co-channel and

first and second adjacent spacings that all FM licenses are happening today, so you would never hear that co-channel interference

as demonstrated. It would never happen. It doesn’t happen today

in FM radio and it would never happen with low power FM.

Furthermore, if we were scared of every little bit of interference

and didn’t look at the impact it would have in improving our lives,

we would put our head in the sand. Increased interference has allowed keyless entry to our cars, baby monitors in our houses, more

and more millions of subscribers in the cellular telephone service

by allowing more and more towers and when engineered responsibly, we can accommodate many, many more users with intelligent

and proper management of the spectrum.

In my technical opinion, the FCC has been very thorough and

very careful to address all of the current concerns in their rulemaking. I think it is a very responsible action and as a citizen just

on the technical issue, forget the political debate, they have done

a very, very good job of taking into consideration all of the concerns

voiced in the extensive public filing comment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Reese?

Mr. REESE. I think your closing comment was the one I would

make. There is a solution, it doesn’t involve the creation of new interference for existing radio listeners and for existing radio stations. It is the Internet, it will be wireless, it will be wireless soon.

It is not bandwidth limited. We do not need to mess up the FM

band in order to provide all of the benefits that the FCC purports

to be pushing here.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Fritts?

Mr. FRITTS. Congress established the FCC and entrusted it as

the guardian for spectrum integrity. I think what we have seen

here today is somewhat appalling. What we have seen is that the

FCC has turned its back on spectrum integrity and for 10 years,

the FCC studies the transition to digital television. Now we are

talking about adding new FM radio services and the FCC was

told—quite frankly, Chairman Kennard told the FCC engineering

staff to find a way to make this happen. What we have ended up

with is interference by the FCC’s own admission.

How much is subjective? I would submit that any additional interference is too much and that we should stop where we are in

terms of that. There is plenty of diversity on the air today. There

is plenty of opportunity as enunciated by Commissioner FurchtgottRoth for various groups to get on the air. I would hope we would

go forward by moving the legislation which Vice Chairman Oxley

has introduced.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Maxon?

Mr. MAXON. I would just like to say that we have a track record

in this Nation already with low power FM stations, called translators and Class D stations. Many of those are already exceeding

the third adjacent channel protections quite successfully and quite

82

safely. I made an example in my introductory remarks about a station outside of Boston that does so.

We have evidence that the interference these things cause, if

they cause any interference at all, is de minimis. The low power

FMs are simply an extension of what we are already familiar with

in translators and Class D.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Franca?

Mr. FRANCA. I would just like to say Chairman Kennard did not

ask us to make this happen in any way. He basically asked us to

make sure that we preserved the integrity of the FM band.

Seventy-five radios were tested during this proceeding. I believe

signal to noise versus distortion and the discussions about them

are really red herrings. Whether you measure somebody’s height in

inches or feet, they are the same height. Whether you measure

with signal to noise or distortion, you can determine whether interference is caused. You heard what 3 percent distortion sounds like.

It sounds like interference.

I believe we have taken a very conservative approach here. We

didn’t adopt low power proposals for 1,000 watt stations. We didn’t

abandon second adjacent channel restrictions. We also added extra

protections on both co-and first adjacent separations for full power

stations to allow those stations additional flexibility. I believe we

have taken a very conservative and reasonable approach and that

there will not be significant interference from LPFM operations.

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you all very much. I think we have added to

the understanding of the issue if nothing else today and I cannot

yet predict the next step of the subcommittee other than to tell you

that I would deeply appreciate the request I have made for you to

follow up with additional information.

You have seen the questions raised by members on both sides of

the aisle. You have seen the request of the ranking minority member that the concerns we have heard expressed today be considered

by the Commission. Hopefully in the time that remains before final

judgment is made on this at the Commission level, those concerns

can be thoroughly vented and hopefully addressed to the satisfaction of members of this committee before we are called upon to

take congressional action or before the courts are called upon to

consider the matter.

That is always the best result and I would join my colleague

from Massachusetts in encouraging all of you to continue these discussions so that we can have an outcome that gets you the advantages you want without the disadvantages we are hearing may be

present in this operation.

To that end, I commend your attention going from this meeting

and appreciate your other submissions and certainly your testimony today.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

RESPONSES OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DINGELL

Question 1: I understand the FCC used ‘‘harmonic distortion’’ as the primary

standard for measuring harmful interference. How many field tests were performed

in the real world to ensure that this standard was proper?

83

1 According to NAB staff, their demonstration was made by recording two off-air FM radio signals and then combining those signals using an audio mixer at different signal strengths to represent the 1% and 3 % distortion levels. In other words, they merely recorded the two signals

(one loud and one soft) on the same audio track. This does not represent accurately the way

interference occurs in the FM radio service or would occur from LPFM stations. In the real

world, an FM receiver ‘‘captures’’ the strongest signal appearing at the channel to which the

receiver is tuned and only this signal is intelligible. Any lower level interfering signals are heard

as noise. The FCC demonstration, on the other hand, used the exact same test set up that was

used to measure interference and recorded the actual interference effect of a 3rd adjacent channel signal.

Answer: The FCC Laboratory tested a sample of 21 FM radio receivers. Distortion

measurements were used to measure the effects of interference from low power FM

(LPFM) stations on those sample radios. The FCC Laboratory used a measuring instrument called a distortion analyzer, which measures Total Harmonic Distortion

plus Noise (THD+N). All interference impairments to the desired audio signal appear as either distortion or noise; thus the THD+N measurement captures all interference effects. Interference was deemed to occur when the receiver’s unimpaired

THD+N level (i.e., the level with no interference present) increased by 1%. For example, if the receiver had a THD+N level of 0.2% with no interference present, interference was assumed to occur in the FCC tests when the interfering signal

caused the THD+N of the receiver to be 1.2% or greater. A harmonic distortion

value of 1% was chosen based on scientific literature that suggests that a 1% level

is the minimum that can be perceived by listeners. For example, NAB, in its reply

comments, notes that that ‘‘(I)t is generally accepted that harmonic distortion has

to rise to about 1 to 2% before people find it objectionable’’ and that ‘‘(S)ome people

would find 1% harmonic distortion hard to notice.’’ The FCC Laboratory staff also measured a small sample of radios, including one

of the receivers tested by the Consumer Electronics Association, using both signalto-noise (S/N) ratio and harmonic distortion measurements. Having performed both

distortion and S/N measurements, the FCC stated that both S/N and harmonic distortion can be used to satisfactorily measure interference to FM receivers. It further

stated that both of these techniques quantify in an accurate and repeatable manner

the amount of energy produced by the interfering signal in the receiver’s audio output. In this regard, the FCC considered data from all of the tests in making its decision. For example, in paragraphs 101 and 102 of the decision, the FCC computed

interference areas based on NAB’s test results. It further stated that even using this

NAB data for its three ‘‘worst’’ FM radio categories, the area where such receivers

could experience degradation from interference would be small, generally 1 km or

less from the LPFM antenna site.

No field tests were performed by the FCC or any of the other entities that tested

FM receivers. However, there is no reason to believe that the results in the field

would vary from those in the laboratory. In fact, defining radio performance and

subjective matters such as when interference occurs that involve human hearing

and perception are best quantified in a controlled laboratory environment.

Question 2: Did you perform any lab tests to determine the degree of ‘‘crosstalk’’ interference that might exist within the FCC’s acceptable levels of harmonic distortion?

Answer: No lab tests were performed ‘‘to determine the degree of ‘crosstalk’ interference.’’ As indicated above, the 1% distortion level was chosen based upon scientific literature that suggests that this level of distortion or interference would not

be perceived by listeners as objectionable.

Crosstalk interference is a term that is generally associated with voice and

wireline networks. Crosstalk can be classified as intelligible and unintelligible. Intelligible crosstalk can be understood by the listener and, because it diverts his or

her attention, it is more objectionable and therefore has a more interfering affect

than unintelligible crosstalk. NAB demonstrated a simulation of intelligible

crosstalk at the February 17, 2000 hearing using audio mixing of two recorded signals.1

As pointed out by Dr. Rappaport of Virginia Tech at the hearing, that type of intelligible crosstalk ‘‘would never happen in the commercial FM service . . . It doesn’t

happen today in FM radio and it would never happen with low power FM.’’ The

crosstalk or interference from a 3rd adjacent channel LPFM station would be unintelligible and would appear as an increase in the noise level in the receiver. As was

shown in the FCC demonstration, such noise is much less objectionable to the listener. See, for example, Reference Data for Radio Engineers at 35-1, ‘‘crosstalk due

to incomplete suppression of sidebands, to intermodulation of two or more carrier

channels, or... between carrier channels having offset frequency spectra is generally

unintelligible. Such crosstalk is often classified as miscellaneous noise.’’

84

Question 3: Let’s assume the standard you chose was the right one. We know that

laboratory and real world test results often differ. Why did the Commission reject

a phase-in approach to putting the stations on the air in order to mitigate potential

disruption to existing stations?

Answer: A ‘‘phase-in’’ of LPFM stations was believed to be unnecessary given the

technically conservative approach taken in the LPFM Report and Order. The Commission chose to limit LPFM stations to a radiated power level of 100 watts, deciding not to create a 1000-watt station class. It established minimum distance separations between LPFM and full-service FM stations on the same channel and first and

second adjacent channels, based on the assumption that all FM stations operate at

the maximum permitted antenna height and power for their station class. Also, a

20-kilometer buffer zone was added to the required minimum separations to protect

co- and first adjacent channel stations, thereby permitting FM operators the flexibility to relocate their stations in the direction of an LPFM station without a loss

of interference protection. The Commission concluded, based on a careful review of

the record, that LPFM would be unlikely to cause unacceptable levels of interference

to FM stations operating on third adjacent channels and, therefore, found a third

adjacency protection requirement to be unnecessary. The Commission remains confident that its various interference requirements for LPFM are conservative and will

adequately protect existing and future FM service requirements.

Question 4: What are the enforcement procedures and remedies available in your

Order to help broadcasters who may be harmed by any inaccuracies in your assumptions?

Answer: The Order contemplates that enforcement procedures and remedies for

LPFM stations will be similar to those for all FCC licenses. Specifically, LPFM stations are required to eliminate interference caused by operations that violate the

terms of the station’s authorization or the Commission’s Rules. LPFM stations also

must respond to complaints of blanketing interference. Further, they are subject to

international agreements regarding the elimination of interference to primary Canadian and Mexican broadcast stations. LPFM Report and Order, FCC 00-19, 1, 27

¶ 64. LPFM stations also must not cause actual interference within the principal

community contour of subsequently authorized full-power FM stations. Within 24

hours of receiving a complaint of actual interference to a subsequently authorized

FM station’s principal community contour, LPFM stations must suspend operations

unless the interference has been eliminated by application of suitable techniques

and to the satisfaction of the complainant. The LPFM station may resume operations only at the direction of the Commission. LPFM Report and Order, at ¶ 67.

Parties experiencing harmful interference from any source, including LPFM operations, may file a formal or informal complaint with the FCC Enforcement Bureau’s

Technical & Public Safety Division or one of the FCC’s Field Offices. Consistent

with the regular practice of the agency, the FCC may take a number of actions to

address harmful interference. Possible actions by FCC agents in Washington, D.C.

and around the country include identifying the source of interference, assisting the

parties to eliminate the interference, and requiring licensees to eliminate interference. In addition, the FCC may issue a notice of violation against a licensee causing interference in violation of FCC rules, issue a monetary forfeiture or, in extreme

cases, institute a license revocation proceeding.

Question 5: History shows that the FCC has been slow to address the problem

of unlicensed operators—the so-called ‘‘pirates.’’ It would appear that not enough resources were devoted in the past to pursuing violators and shutting them down.

Now some of these ‘‘pirates’’ will be operating legally. What specific new and improved plan does the FCC have in place to ensure that new licensees do not boost

their power levels above the legal limit?

Answer: We have no basis at this time to conclude that LPFM licensees will be

any more likely than other broadcast station licensees to operate their stations in

a manner not authorized by their licenses or the FCC’s Rules. Our experience in

general has been that broadcast licensees are diligent in attempting to comply with

the rules and we anticipate that LPFM licensees, which will include schools, community groups, churches, etc., will do so as well. The LPFM rules specifically preclude former ‘‘pirate’’ operators who did not comply when directed by the FCC or

after a date certain from receiving LPFM licenses. Moreover, LPFM licensees who

operate at power levels beyond that authorized will be subject to enforcement action,

including assessment of monetary forfeitures and possible license revocation.

As noted in response to Question 4, parties believing that a LPFM licensee is operating in a manner inconsistent with their license or the FCC’s Rules may file a

formal or informal complaint with the Enforcement Bureau’s Technical & Public

Safety Division or one of the FCC’s Field Offices. Further, as is the case with all

85

FCC-licensed radio station operators, LPFM stations will be subject to periodic inspection by FCC agents.

Quite apart from LPFM enforcement, we should comment briefly on the FCC’s enforcement against unlicensed ‘‘pirate’’ operators. The FCC takes the issue of enforcement actions against pirate broadcasters very seriously. In 1998, the FCC shut

down 153 pirate radio operations through seizure of their equipment or through

issuance of warning letters. In 1999, the FCC shut down 154 pirate radio operations. So far, this year, from January 1, 2000 to February 23, 2000, the FCC has

shut down 25 pirate radio operations. In addition, the Commission has issued numerous monetary forfeitures against pirate operators. It has also worked with the

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for injunctions and arrests. The Commission is continuing

active enforcement in this area, with several matters pending, including several

with the U.S. Attorneys’ or U.S. Marshals’ Offices.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MICHIGAN MUSIC IS WORLD CLASS CAMPAIGN

Mr. Chairman, and Members and Staff of the Subcommittee: I am the founder

and representative of the Michigan Music is World Class Campaign. We are an informal coalition of thousands of musicians, music-related business owners and music

fans based primarily in Southeastern Michigan.

The Michigan Music Campaign has far exceeded any other party in measuring

and demonstrating the will of the public when it comes to low power ‘‘community’’

FM radio. We have gathered approximately 10,000 constituent letters in support of

the new service (copies of over 4,000 on file and available for inspection). We have

gathered 45 supporting resolutions from Michigan cities, townships and county commissions representing about three million Michigan citizens. Every single one has

passed unanimously (with the exception of just two votes)! We gathered over 1,200

endorsements of our Comments filed with the F.C.C. We have held weekly public

meetings for over three years, along with many other public forums, to give residents of our area an opportunity to express their support or opposition to community radio. We have given dozens of presentations to community groups in our area

about the subject.

No other party in the entire country, either in support or opposition to community

radio, has come close to matching our efforts to gauge public opinion about community radio.

What did we find? Consistently, wherever we turned, we found virtually unanimous support for opening up access to the public airwaves through community

radio. In all sincerity, it was very difficult to find anyone who was opposed to the

new service (who wasn’t already a broadcaster). We found overwhelming support

from labor, religious, ethnic, civil rights and educational institutions. We even found

considerable support from existing licensed broadcasters who expressed disgust with

the National Association of Broadcasters’ manner of opposition to LPFM.

Particularly striking to us was the contrast between the unanimous support for

community radio at the local governmental level (who will be directly affected by

the new stations), the substantial but weakening support at the state level—and the

almost total absence of visible support in the U.S. Congress! The city governments

we worked with are very well informed of the technical ramifications, much more

so than the Congressional offices we visited. So how can one explain the extraordinary divergence in support between the local, state and federal governments—except as a clear demonstration of the undue, excessive and anti-democratic influence

of the powerful broadcast lobby which is non-existent at the local level, strong at

the state level and nearly tyrannical in Washington.

For 66 years, Congress has wisely maintained a clear mandate in regards to the

public airwaves: they must be administered in a way which serves the ‘‘public interest, necessity and convenience.’’

But who is to say what is really in the public interest? Should we listen to the

broadcasters?

Should we listen to the F.C.C.? Should Congress be the final arbiter? Or should

we not consult the public directly?! We maintain that to ignore the overwhelming

public demand for LPFM community radio would be a direct betrayal of our democracy.

Let the public use our public airwaves! We are not prepared to suffer anything

less.

These comments are offered with the greatest respect.

86

SUMMARY & GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

1. The fundamental issue with which Congress must concern itself in the matter

of H.R. 3439 is that of determining and fulfilling public interest and demand. It is

impossible to square with the ‘‘public interest’’ (which Chairman Kennard accurately

refers to as the F.C.C.’s ‘‘bedrock principle’’) a ruling which fails to abide by the virtually unanimous public demand for LPFM. We point out the absolute failure of the

broadcast industry to demonstrate opposition to LPFM from the public itself, and

that a significant part of the broadcast industry itself favors LPFM.

2. Congress, through the F.C.C., is obligated to institute a system of license allocation which does not discriminate on the basis of economic standing; where the rights

of one are not held superior to the rights of others and; where those rights are not

held in perpetuity such that the rights of others are never recognized. Such a system now exists with the creation of LPFM, albeit in a dramatically limited fashion.

3. We express concern for: A. Fundamental issues of fairness regarding the allocation of public resources. B. The twin threats to democracy of i. Media consolidation

and ii. Rising economic thresholds barring access to public resources; C. Cultural

homogenization; D. Local economic issues.

4. In contrast to other forms of public property where use and participation is encouraged, access to the public airwaves has been held in elitist reserve, despite the

historic role played by amateurs and hobbyists in the development of radio technology.

5. The broadcast industry exerts an excessive, undue and anti-democratic influence over the regulatory process at the F.C.C. and in Congress itself.

6. We dispute our opponents’ claims that existing stations already serve ‘‘the myriad needs’’ of our communities.

7. We regret the reckless endangerment of our democracy by those who advocate

lifting further or even altogether media ownership limits. And we criticize the nonsensical and argumentative ploy of suggesting that less owners are ever likely to

produce greater diversity.

8. We draw attention to Canadian and Mexican provisions which allow LPFM

broadcasting without harm.

9. Actual broadcast industry studies conclude that existing commercial stations

continue to lose listeners every year because listeners want more local content, more

diversity and fewer commercials. These conclusions strongly suggest that N.A.B. opposition to LPFM is really due to fear of competition. In fact, the broadcasters are

on the record admitting that they oppose LPFM because they seek to avoid additional competition.

10. In terms of communication options available to the public, there are no serious

alternatives that stand equivalent to LPFM. And even the existence of such alternatives fails to justify the granting of broadcast licenses to some but not others, including, as is apparently the case, when such discrimination is based essentially on

economic standing. This argument against LPFM clearly represents unconstitutional prior restraint.

11. We are deeply concerned about IBOC terrestrial digital, and how it is being

foisted on the American public with barely a pretense of public debate. There is an

almost complete lack of public demand for digital broadcasting of any kind, in contrast with powerful demand for LPFM.

12. The need and demand for LPFM did not begin with the Telecom Act of 1996

nor was it inspired solely by the ensuing consolidation. These factors merely aggravated the need and demand for LPFM.

13. We suggest that a more meaningful definition for the term ‘‘spectrum efficiency’’ would be based on the quality and level of public interest, necessity and convenience; that ‘‘efficiency’’ should refer to how well the spectrum is used, rather

than simply how much.

14. The Michigan Music Campaign has documented long-term, consistent interest

and activity in this issue. As well, we have documented overwhelming and essentially unanimous public support for LPFM.

15. Locally-based independent musicians and composers are effectively shut out

of commercial broadcast outlets, thus making it impossible for them to ‘‘display their

wares’’ in the music industry marketplace. This has a detrimental ripple effect on

entire local music economies. It also carries negative cultural ramifications.

16. We should not continue to allow transnational media empires to act as our

nation’s cultural gatekeepers, with such comprehensive authority not only over what

we hear on our airwaves, but also what we read, see and hear elsewhere.

17. We have documented a consistent effort to work with existing license holders

towards resolution of our concerns and a consistent record of being rebuffed, with

some substantial hostility, by the broadcast industry. We have documented their efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:47 Jan 31, 2001 Jkt 066999 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\62973 pfrm01 PsN: 62973
87

forts to restrain debate about this subject over the public airwaves, and a consistent

pattern on the part of licensed broadcasters of arrogance, hypocrisy and callousness

towards both their listeners and their public interest responsibilities.

18. We have demonstrated how unlicensed broadcasters have filled the public-interest gap left by the licensed broadcasters in our area. We offer an alternative perspective on who are the real ‘‘pirates’’ in the broadcast industry—in our opinion it

is those who exploit the public airwaves for tens of billions of dollars annually while

flaunting their contempt for their public interest obligations. We point to the respect

and admiration our society often gives to acts and practitioners of non-violent civil

disobedience, and invoke the historic role such action has played in nurturing our

nation’s democracy. We cast doubt about the character deficiencies of some licensed

broadcasters, in light of their words and deeds.

19. We have documented a need for at least 120 LPFM stations in an area such

as Metro Detroit in order to serve the myriad ethnic, political, cultural, religious

and other communities. The F.C.C.’s newly approved LPFM service fails miserably

in providing for this urgent need. We have suggested several ways to increase the

potential number of licenses available. However, under no circumstances should the

insufficiency of the new service be used as an excuse to abandon LPFM altogether— even a single crumb is better than nothing. We draw attention to the spectrum-inefficient nature of IBOC, which only further hampers LPFM.

20. We support primary service status for LPFM stations. We support the creation

of the LP-10 micro-radio service, which we believe will be especially critical for the

urban underclass. We agree with the F.C.C.’s view that the LPFM service can and

should serve a wide range of purposes; can and should allow access to the public

airwaves to a wide range of Americans; can and should serve a myriad of unique

and diverse interests; can and should provide service to currently unserved communities.

21. We criticize the underlying assumptions behind the broadcast industry’s stated concerns about potential interference. And we support the F.C.C.’s position that ‘‘small amounts of potential 2nd and 3rd channel interference... are counter-balanced by substantial service gains.’’ It is disingenuous for the industry to protest

the elimination of second channel interference protections for LPFM stations when

the industry favors such practices for their own existing translator stations.

22. We urge the F.C.C. to explore tighter bandwidth allocations, and higher standards for receiver manufacturers in terms of selectivity.

23. We regret the failure of Congress to consult with the American public while

the broadcast industry drafted the ’96 Telecom Act.

24. We challenge the principle of renewal expectancy for both low power and full

power stations.

26. We support calls for anti-trust investigations into the broadcast industry.

27. We are in profound disagreement with Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth, and

note several subtle signals which we find greatly alarming; especially his tendency

to twist the very benefits of LPFM into arguments against its implementation, but

also his consistent arguments in favor of limiting rather than fostering communication between Americans. We express serious concern about his elitist attitude that

the general public is simply not up to broadcasting, and his apparent disdain for

the public’s own expression of the public interest. We share his concerns that the

agency has acted as ‘‘an advocate instead of a neutral decision-maker’’—however,

this has happened with IBOC, not LPFM!

‘‘Increased competition could over-saturate the market. Profits could deteriorate.’’

From a letter from the Michigan Association of Broadcasters stating their reasons

for opposing LPFM community radio.

‘‘We’re the landlords of the public airwaves, the broadcasters are the tenants.

Yet they pay us no rent, they decide who plays what 24 hours a day, and they

laugh all the way to the bank. Isn’t it time we made a national political issue

out of this enormous anomaly that we own the public airwaves but don’t control

anything?’’

Ralph Nader, August 1996

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID NOBLE, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF AUDIO INFORMATION SERVICES

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement for the record on

behalf of the member stations of the International Association of Audio Information

Services (IAAIS), a group of non-profit services for blind, legally blind, visually impaired, and other disabled populations.

88

In the United States alone there are more than 100 services offering print access

to an estimated 1.2 million Americans. These subcarrier services are typically low

budget, non-profit organizations that engaged volunteers in every aspect of operations and management. They are true, grassroots organizations that listen carefully to the voice of their community.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) plan to establish a new low power FM radio service. While we support the goals contained in the Report and Order establishing LPFM stations, we

remain concerned that the introduction of LPFM may be detrimental to the people

who depend on radio reading services. Specifically, we believe that interference may

disrupt service and we seek a process to resolve potential interference.

Daily services from our member stations keep elderly blind and visually impaired

residents in touch with their communities. They are better able to live in their own

homes, maintain independent lifestyles, and contribute to rather than live off of society. With daily news they can initiate conversations and offer opinions rather than

sit at home alone and lonely. Editorial pages encourage them to be involved in the

community. With local event listings, they can plan trips for themselves or their

family. At election time, they hear the candidates’ qualifications read and make informed choices in the voting booth. When interference makes listening impossible,

all these benefits are gone. There is no other service available.

Because subcarrier delivered reading services are at 92 or 67khz they are more

fragile and more subject to interference. Since 1976 when C. Stanley Potter founded

the first reading service in Minnesota, interference and poor reception in the secondary contour has been a part of subcarrier services history. The Association remains greatly concerned that its members will not have the ability or means to have

interference acted upon quickly enough in a low power FM world without appropriate protections.

IAAIS members are for the most part, unable to keep an engineer on staff for

budgetary reasons. As the Commission knows, the subcarrier stations do not hold

a broadcast license. They provide programming to main channel operators who hold

the license. What standing will a reading service have in an interference situation?

Most main channel operators are also non-profit, public stations. The cost to hire

appropriate personnel to monitor and prosecute interference would bankrupt a typical reading service and threaten the financial health of the main channel public

station.

It has been argued that reading services should avail themselves of the low power

opportunity and ‘‘snap up’’ LPFM licenses to replace their fragile subcarrier signals.

This is not economically feasible. The cost to operate the low power station and the

range restrictions low power imposes are both detrimental to the listeners, and

that’s where IAAIS concerns come full circle.

The FCC has long recognized that reading services for the blind need protections

and in fact, the FCC has helped to create regulations that make reading services

possible. Now reading services need continued protection, especially in a FM band

that is ‘‘tighter’’ than ever before. IAAIS is relieved that 1st and 2nd channel protections remain intact and thanks the Commission for hearing IAAIS members’ concern and acting accordingly. However, we are concerned that future FM subcarrier

would not have the same protections from LPFM as existing services. In grade ‘‘B’’

contours, where no protections exist at all, reading services and other subcarrier

services will be the first to experience interference from neighboring LPFM stations.

Although increasing diversity of programming and ownership is important, the

FCC must not pursue these goals to the detriment of existing service for the blind

and print-impaired.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PENGUINRADIO, INC.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today.

Today’s hearing addresses the FCC’s recent ruling in favor of low-powered radio.

However, from the perspective of PenguinRadio, the debate over low-powered FM

will soon become a moot point.

Because of the emergence of Internet audio technology, ‘‘radio’’ is no longer a

small allocation of frequencies that must be divvied up in fair and equitable portions, incurring review after review by the FCC and tremendous costs on the broadcasters. People should stop thinking about radio stations in terms of large broadcast

towers, mixing boards, and government licenses.

That is the radio of old.

Today, the Internet is already bringing radio back to the people, and the amount

of programming available on the Internet will soon exceed the number of programs

89

available via traditional radio broadcasts. In addition, in the very near future, people will be able to tune into Internet radio programming using a wide variety of low

cost, easy-to-use net appliances.

Our company, PenguinRadio, and other Internet appliance companies such as

Sonicbox and Kerbango, are developing low cost Internet audio receivers that will

play thousands of radio stations from all over the world without the need for a personal computer. We plan to work with the broadband community, including

Northpoint Communications, which just announced plans to create a high-speed

streaming audio service that will be delivered over its network. We will also work

with our partners at Ellipso satellite to bring Internet radio to mobile locations,

such as cars, and isolated rural areas where traditional radio cannot penetrate.

Using a technology called streaming media, anyone with a personal computer and

an Internet connection can open their own radio station, broadcasting over the Net

to anyplace on earth. These low barriers to entry have led to hundreds of ‘‘radio stations’’ opening every day on the Internet. To date, nearly 4,000 commercial radio

stations have their feeds on the Internet, and several thousand ‘‘Internet-only’’ radio

stations broadcast everything from local neighborhood news, to high school radio, to

many other forms of radio that could not compete in the commercial market.

The growth of Internet radio is astounding. Arbitron reports that in 1998, approximately 18% of American’s online regularly listened to the Internet using personal computers. In July of 1999, that number had jumped to 30% of those online.

This represents millions of households tuning to this new medium to listen to the

radio. The convergence of broadband, Internet appliances and wireless net

connectivity is accelerating the revolutionary development of Internet radio. We are

moving so fast in this market that even we cannot predict how prevalent it will become in the next few months. Mr. Chairman, we have trademarked the saying ‘‘One

day every radio will work this way’’ (referring to Internet radio) because it makes

sense, both technologically and financially.

So while this Committee debates the problems and merits of low-power radio, and

lobbyists and grass roots activists harass you on both sides of this issue, we’ll be

out changing the world by making Internet radio available to everyone.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak today.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SALIDA RADIO CLUB

Dear Committee Members: We are a small non-profit group representing Salida,

a small mountain community in Central Colorado. We have actively followed the

LPFM issue, and have submitted formal comments to the FCC on the LPFM docket

99-25. It is our intention to apply for a LPFM license, when they become available,

to serve our community in a way that no out of town or commercial radio outlet

can. We have widespread public support, including resolutions passed unanimously

by our City Council, as well as local School Board R-32J, supporting the civic, educational, and cultural benefits of Low Power FM to our city. Ours is a relatively poor

rural community—we do not have the resources available to license and fund a full

power station. A service such as LPFM is the only realistic way to bring community

radio to our area.

We are very disturbed by the content of HR 3439, which we see as a blatant attempt to not only keep the status quo in radio from any potential competition (we

trust you’d agree that this would be illegal), but to pave the way for an expanded

commercial potential with the introduction of IBOC digital broadcasts. There is

strong suspicion in the Low Power radio community that the real issue here is preserving and potentially increasing bandwidth for ancillary (and highly profitable)

operations by full power licensees, after the possible (and contentious) introduction

of on-band digital broadcasting, such as advertising and beeper/pager services. To

deny the public, who own the spectrum and are effectively shut out from participation, is an egregious mishandling of a public resource that the FCC is mandated

to efficiently and fairly manage.

Studies, including those of the FCC, have shown that the much ballyhooed interference problems that the NAB and their friends at NPR have touted will not adversely affect reception. Indeed, what about the 300-plus short-spaced full-power

stations that the FCC has grandfathered? if those are acceptable, and have not received too many complaints of unacceptable interference (which they have not), then

the industry’s arguments are moot. We are particularly disturbed by the stance of

National Public Radio on the Low Power rulemaking; NPR is an organization that

supposedly stands for community radio. Their opposition to LPFM (as well as the

now unavailable Class D licenses) is not compatible with ‘‘community service’’: our

90

nearest NPR station is 21⁄2 hours and two mountain passes by car, and still calls

itself a ‘‘community service’’ (KRCC-FM). This is not our community.

As you are no doubt aware, this rulemaking received more formal positive public

comments than any other in FCC history (over 3000 total), most from individuals

and groups (such as ours), who have absolutely no financial stake in the passage

of LPFM. To pass a bill such as HR 3439 would plainly show the undemocratic

power of highly financed special interests in our government. Please do the right

thing and listen to the people and not the lobbyists on this issue: do not pass this

bill. We are serious, voting, every-day citizens, not ‘‘insiders’’; we hope this fact will

make our point of view ever more valuable to you.

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MAXWELL, SECRETARY/TREASURER, THE

VIRGINIA CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC PRESS

Dear Honored Representatives of the House, you have a tough job ahead of you

today.

The historic choices you make today could either revive participatory democracy

by creating competitive opportunities for new programming OR could destroy the

FM dial as we know it.

Which result is predicted depends on who you talk to.

So let us consider the testimony of those who many consider the most qualified

to speak on such technological issues: Industry and their engineers.

The NAB themselves said that the current rules were ‘‘in some cases’’ overly restrictive. In 1996, The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) argued in docket

99-120 that 3rd and even 2nd adjacent frequency ‘‘Short Spaced Grandfathered FM

Radio Stations’’ should have greater flexibility of movement for their transmitters

and towers. The FCC agreed!

Then came those who claimed that their voices, their news and their cultures

were not heard on stations already on the air.

They wanted a chance at the American Dream—to be who you want to be and

to share your story with those whose choices and votes affect your life.

They saw that these 30,000 watt stations were transmitting on third and even

on second adjacent frequencies, AND HAD DONE SO FOR OVER 30 YEARS!

There were no complaints found on file at the FCC of citizen’s radios unable to

separate the signals of these 3OkW short spaced stations.

So the supporters of competition effectively said, what’s good for the NAB is good

for the us. If they can, then so can we.

The NAB naturally disagreed. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC)

wished that all the petitioners would all go away. We did not go away, and the FCC

received more comments on the LPFM proposal THAN ANY PROPOSAL IN FCC

HISTORY. Over 3000 comments were mostly favorable to creating competition using

the same rules (but at less power) that the Short Spaced Full Power stations had

been allowed to use for 30+ years.

Then the NAB said they needed that space to be competitive.

Competitive how?

To create Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB).

And why would digital make the NAB stations more competitive than their 35+%

profits indicated?

The NAB consortium claims is that they were losing listeners to the Internet,

which is digital and therefore they needed to be digital.

There were only two wrinkles in that argument.

Wrinkle one is that Now the NAB had to make a 180 degree change in argument.

Now the argument is that the space is needed for additional energy, only their energy, to be placed on the FM spectrum and that this additional energy and bandwidth and that furthermore placing digital carriers immediately adjacent analog carriers would cause no interference!

This adds energy sources and places them closer together on the FM dial. When

the LPFM wanted to do this, the NAB claimed that Physics don’t change for politics,

but now it is OK for NAB to add energy to the FM dial.

Both of the In-Band variants of DAB (IBOC and IBAC) have substantial industry

support for expanding the stations footprint from 200kHz to 400kHz.

The IBAC (In Band Adjacent Channel) variant places (in-effect) two multi-thousand watt digital stations on the FIRST adjacent frequencies on both sides of the

‘‘host’’ analog station.

The IBOC (In Band On Channel, uses expanded and modified subcarriers)

91

In both cases, doubling the bandwidth to 400kHz (and at multi-thousand watt levels) will cause the same and likely worse trouble than if we had doubled the number

of stations on the FM dial with LPFM 100 watt stations!

This argument appears to contradict NAB testimony earlier that same year that

THIRD and even SECOND adjacent sub 1000 watt 200kHz LPFM stations WOULD

cause interference.

So it appears that additional energy sources closer together on the FM dial are

only interference when they are new entrants.

The NAB contradict themselves AGAIN with support for their own membership’s

Short Spaced 3rd and 2nd adjacent multi-thousand watt ‘‘short spaced’’ FM stations.* Which is it? The laws of physics don’t work differently for us than them!

The second wrinkle is the strange assumption (once explicitly stated) that Americans switched to CDs and the Internet merely because they are digital.

Would Americans want the slight increase in sound quality and RDS style banner

ad services that digital claims to offer enough to sacrifice all their millions of radios,

especially car radios and antique radios?

Will Americans gladly sacrifice their ability to hear more different stations?

Will America put up with the buzzing that some studies claim that first adjacent

digital signals would cause for the analog signal?

Apparent NAB flip-flopping could be incompetence, but that seems unlikely.

The immediate obvious alternative possibility is that the NAB is not actually concerned about TECHNICAL interference. The interference that the NAB is worried

about is the FACT that they have lost 12% of their listenership.

To the Internet, CDs, Tapes and to noncommercial broadcasters.

Their own industry’s consultants, such as Duncan American Radio cite the 12%

loss of listenership and blame ‘‘villains [such as] increased spot loads [ads] and lack

of programming innovation.’’

Sony themselves said in the IBAC proceedings (docket 99-325):

‘‘The players [of Internet Audio files such as MP3] themselves are offering high

quality digital audio and are increasingly becoming a more desirable alternative, in some cases, to the limited variety of music offered on the radio.

AND

‘‘Sony has seen a very slow market penetration in Europe with DAB, which employs the Eureka-147 standard. The disappointing ramp-up is attributable to a

service that offers little more than improved audio.’’

THEY EVEN REPEAT THIS ADMISSION:

‘‘In Europe, Eureka-147 sales have been very slow. This is largely due to there

not being enough incentive for consumers to buy a more expensive radio for

simply getting digital quality and very limited data services.

AND MOST TELLINGLY:

. . . needs to be more of an impetus for the average consumer to adopt DAB. This

impetus is either derived from a variety of new channels or new value-added

services. S-DARS in the U.S. has chosen both methods. A value-added service

offered by S-DARS, as an example, is commercial free radio broadcasting.’’

AND THE FINAL BLOW:

‘‘Sony also recognizes the potential benefit of a fixed analog ‘‘sunset’’ date to foster a transition to an all-digital service and, believes one should not preclude

the other. In fact, both may be necessary to stimulate the market to fully adopt

the digital transition.’’

Sony is as much as admitting that few will buy in unless forced to by taxpayer

funded government agency edict! Only then would we abandon our Billion$ inve$ted

in analog FM receiver equipment.

Technology Investor magazine in discussing Worldspace (the Satellite Direct radio

service already implemented in South Africa) said, ‘‘The only complaint: customers

want more radio stations, more niche stations.’’

So WHAT potential benefits is Sony referring to when they demand ‘‘encouragement’’ of the purchase of their products?

If you look at Duncan American Radio analysis, there is no mention of a desire

for ‘‘near CD quality’’ nor for the banner ads and artist IDs proposed as a variant

of the Radio Data Systems (RDS) style radios that have already been available since

1979 and have always been a crashing market failure!

And what is ‘‘near CD quality’’? Lucent cites in appendix F.1 of their 99-325 comments that:

‘‘. . . result of the first test indicates that audio compressed by the FM IBOC system has a quality rating of 4.23 which is better than best FM (4.05) by approximately 0.2 points on the MOS scale...the CD source [on the MOS scale is

(4.32)].’’

92

When that slight an increase in sound quality (mostly in reduced noise) has to

compete with road noise, wind noise, office noises or is on a walkman or a clock

radio... would anyone notice or care enough to spend hundreds of dollars and lose

access to the only station that had their favorite programming? Significantly, roughly 20% of listeners can only find their desired programming on smaller noncommercial stations.

The NAB stations have largely fired the staff that would have created that programming innovation or Sony’s ‘‘variety of new program channels’’ and show no sign

of rehiring.

But the NAB doesn’t want us to step in and create a new service in the finest

American Tradition.

The NAB wants you to approve laws to protect their declining ability to serve the

public.

I can almost sympathize with the NAB stations that must cut staff for an unrelenting Wall Street demand for greater and greater profits in a mature industry—

even 35% is not enough.

In 1992, the NAB supported the world accepted standard for a proven technology,

pure digital called Eureka 147 on the ‘‘L-Band’’ at 1400mHz. The world has moved

forward without us. We could do the same, but for the reluctance of the military

to allow the constitutional government of, by and for the people that they are sworn

to protect, to use that L-Band for Eureka 147 and create new broadcast opportunities.

The Eureka 147 at 1400mHz standard was not accepted and so in desperation,

the NAB wants you to allow them to FORCE a standard for technology (IBAC, of

unproven value and functionality) that will likely destroy smaller church, community and NPR stations ENFORCED AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!!

In other words, the NAB consortium and NPR want you to chase the listeners

back into their commercials and national underwriters such as Phizer and Archer

Daniels Midland by destroying our refuge from crass commercial and commercialized NPR programming still provided by local noncommercial religious, civic and

college radio.

So you have a hard choice ahead of you today.

If you allow the NAB to stop LPFM, but then allow the creation of FIRST adjacent

digital stations, the voters may come down on you when their old radios no longer

receive anything. This government edict would mean voters could hear even fewer

stations than they can now.

If on the other hand, you allow LPFM to create competition, then you will likely

feel the immediate wrath of the Wall Street funders of reelection campaigns that

pay for the ads on the stations they own. I do not envy your position.

Notice in this graphic taken from the Lucent Website, that the digital carriers are

in-effect, two first adjacent stations... but they would like you to think there will

be no bleed into the analog station in the middle or stations next door. This suggestion is partially graphic—they show the analog as a triangle (actually should be a

bell curve) and the digital as a block (nature is not that sharp-edged!)

Notice that the proposed station mask takes up considerably more room than it

currently does (now goes from -100 to +100)... and that the energy level further out

is just the same as if two weaker first adjacent stations were there.

Now reinvision those blocks as they should be, bell curves with the tails extending

to the right and left.

93

FM Digital Transition Plan

That mixing of signals is why I will likely lose the ability to hear 100 Watt

WDCE90.1FM when WCVE88.9FM at 17.5kW goes from 200kHz (and already periodically stomping their signal until they get around to maintenance) to 400kHz.

What happens if WDCE (with an annual budget of about $20,000) cannot afford

the brand-new $60,000 to $200,000 DAB transmitters by the ‘‘Mandatory

Sunsetting’’ (prohibition) date?

Will fewer stations increase my choices of programming?

It is clear between the IBOC DAB and LPFM, there is no doubt that I WILL be

losing access to some stations in the coming years. But will the programming variety be replaced?

I will lose the ability to hear some Washington stations as far south as my friend’s

farm in Ashland, Va. But will I lose reception because IBAC Digital Audio Broadcasting destroyed my favorite signal with twin first adjacent glorified fax machines

(the mobile packet digital data delivery a.k.a. ‘‘auxiliary services’’ like CUE corporation’s SCA voicemail beepers) . . . or . . .

. . . will I lose reception of those distant and weaker stations because there are

hundreds of new stations with all kinds of niche programming that are informed

by the many different programming values of many different owners?

And why is it suddenly your job to save industry profits from competition? The

cost of campaigning on the same electronic media that has less and less competition.

Which will save the FM dial’s value to its owners, the American Public; more different programs such as Sony admits the Internet offers, or fewer programs that

sound slightly better but cost hundred’s of dollars more for a required purchase of

new radios?

In conclusion and as a hint to that answer, allow me to note that when Howard

Steam was taken off the air in Richmond, the Norfolk station that carried Steam

earned a THREE SHARE IN THE RICHMOND RADIO MARKET!!! Lack of competition in Richmond is causing a dramatic loss of service and economic opportunity

so that a few anointed elite can tell us what is best for us.

94

It is no exaggeration to say that you have the future of the American Dream in

your hands today.

Thank-you for allowing me the opportunity to witness this moment in the history

of American Freedom of the Press, economic opportunity, and the fundamental

democratic right to have your story heard by those whose decisions affect your life.

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171