REC files reply comments in "Delete Delete Delete"

REC says "no" to commercial LPFM and "maybe" to LPFMers being able to obtain a second station.

The Delete Delete Delete proceeding received over 900 comments, representing many aspects of the FCC’s regulatory domain. A significant number of those comments came from amateur radio and General Mobile Radio Service interests. REC took several positions in this proceeding based on a fair balance of interests in all of our constituent types (LPFM, FM translator, FM booster and smaller NCE and commercial stations) and with our politically neutral approach.

Second, third and intermediate frequency adjacent channels

REC agreed with the Society of Broadcast Engineers that from a technical standpoint, relief for third-adjacent and intermediate frequency (+/- 10.6 and 10.8 MHz) may be possible given the design of modern receivers, which are much more resistant to interference from these sources. On second-adjacent channel, REC stated that there may still be some concerns in regards to situations where two stations operating two channels apart are both running HD Radio.

REC had endorsed the elimination of the intermediate frequency protection requirements. This change could bring more flexibility, especially to FM translator stations that are currently limited at 99 watts.

We noted that while the concept of second and third-adjacent channel protections may be technically possible, there may still be a need for the second and third-adjacent channel spacing and protection requirements where it comes to the fair distribution of licenses among the several states and communities, pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Communications Act. Therefore, REC endorsed the retention of second and third-adjacent channel protections for amendments to the commercial FM Table of Allotments, new NCE FM construction permits and any full-service FM change in community of license.

REC had asked the Commission to develop a codified definition of second-adjacent channel interference. Our proposed definition would allow for a minimal amount of population in areas where the undesired to desired ratio exceeds 40 dB. This will add more flexibility to all station types. In the case of LPFM, we had argued that the Local Community Radio Act does not define “interference” and instead puts its trust on the expert agency, the FCC. It is REC’s position that our proposed definition of interference could pass statutory muster, which could result provides a much needed relief to LPFM stations seeking to relocate.

REC has endorsed the elimination of third-adjacent channel protections, except in the cases where it must be used for fair distribution as previously mentioned. This can accommodate FM translators and short moves of full-service stations under Sections 73.207, 73.215 or 73.509 of the rules.

Community coverage and §73.215

Currently, full-service stations must meet a community coverage requirement. This means for stations in the non-reserved band (92.1~107.9) that the “city grade” or 70 dBu contour must encompass most, if not all of the designated community of license. For a Class A station, this is approximately 16 km. For the reserved band (88.1~91.9), only 50% of the community must be covered by the larger 60 dBu contour.

REC resisted calls from some parties who called for the non-reserved band community coverage requirement to switch to the larger 60 dBu contour (which for a Class A station, would be about 28 km). We stated that stations need to be focused first on the specific community their station is licensed to serve and therefore must provide the best quality signal to that community. Any degradation of that coverage, especially in the cases to provide “rim shot” coverage to more populated well-served and competitive areas would not be in the public interest.

REC opposed the call by SSR Communications to change the definition of protections, pursuant to §73.215, which allows non-reserved band stations seeking to move or upgrade that would otherwise not meet minimum distance separations to be able to a combination of contours and a shorter distance to show protections. A similar plan was advanced by SSR a few years ago as part of the new “C4” service class proceeding. At the time, the plan was strongly opposed by REC, NAB and others. The concept was withdrawn when “C4” was reintroduced as “A10”.

FM Protection of TV Channel 6

REC joined Educational Media Foundation/K-LOVE in endorsing a complete elimination of protection requirements by reserved band FM facilities towards television stations on RF Channel 6. REC further stated that the original restrictions were put in place in 1985 to address interference experienced in television receivers manufactured in the 1960s and 1970s. With the digital transition and a complete equipment switchover (and likely another upcoming one with ATSC3), now is the time to eliminate this old regulation. REC still expressed concerns about relief on 88.1 due to its direct adjacency to the 82-88 MHz channel. REC included in comments, a study that was released by NPR Labs from a 2009 proceeding that demonstrated how FM radio stations impact digital television on Channel 6.

Commercial station ownership

REC joined MusicFIRST Coalition to oppose most additional changes in the broadcast ownership requirements. REC did endorse the elimination of the “UHF discount” and replace it with an “AM discount” in order to spur improvements to the dying AM service.

Commercial LPFM stations

REC had opposed the latest attempt by the LPFM Advocacy Group to allow LPFM stations to air what they called “limited commercials” on statutory grounds. REC stated that the Communications Act is very clear on what is considered a “commercial” and does not provide any tolerances for such content in a limited (less than 10 minutes per hour) form. REC stated that in order to maintain the local independent aspect of LPFM free of corporate ownership and auctions, the noncommercial educational nature of the service must be maintained.

LPFM ownership caps

Based on the trends of how LPFM stations are being operated in a cooperative manner to address the local needs of communities with certain types of geography and demographic needs, REC agreed with LPFM Advocacy Group by showing a willingness to consider the increase in the number of LPFM stations that a single educational organization can own from one to two, as long as the localism requirements are met for both stations based on the same board and headquarters locations. REC had previously endorsed the elimination of the “10 mile” rule in the top-50 markets, replacing it with the “20 mile rule” nationwide.

Other broadcast related issues

REC took other positions, including:

• Maintaining the need for issues lists by full service stations, stating that broadcast stations, which use the finite spectrum that belongs to the people are still accountable to their designated community of license, even in the digital age. We were accommodating to partial relief by reducing the frequency of reports to semi-annual. REC also resisted calls to remove the requirement that full-service FM stations have a local or toll free telephone number, again, citing accountability to their community of license.

• REC joined NAB, PBS and the state broadcasters associations in support of relief on the filing biennial ownership reports, agreeing that they are burdensome, especially for smaller stations where ownership structures rarely change.

• REC joined NAB in support of the elimination of the requirement for TV stations to file Children’s Television Programming Reports and replace with a certification process at renewal to comply with the Children’s Television Act.

• REC opposed in part, a proposal by PBS to eliminate the station identification requirement. REC still endorses the station identification requirement for full-service and LPFM stations, but feels that it is no longer necessary for FM translator stations.

• REC joined NAB, state broadcaster associations and many secular and faith-based broadcasters by inquiring into why the FCC is even in the business of enforcing EEO. This comes in a time when the subject is a hot political topic. We question the value of the FCC’s efforts, which consists of reporting, audits and reviews of hiring practices when there are other local, state and federal agencies that enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, state laws and local ordinances. We feel that resources can be best used for better things that the constant litigation of the EEO rules.

• REC opposed NAB on their request to eliminate the public notices that must be posted on station/company websites or spoken over the air when certain applications are filed. REC states that the notices maintain transparency, accountability to the community of license and are required, pursuant to Section 311(a)(1) of the Communications Act.

• REC opposed calls to allow Low Power TV stations, that were not eligible for two past pieces of legislation to obtain primary status as well as any technical changes that would impact FM stations in the reserved band.

• REC opposed calls by the LPFM Advocacy Group to allow LPFM stations to be sold for a profit.

• REC opposed calls from FM translator interests that would allow stations to achieve primary status on statutory grounds as well as calls that would permit translators carrying AM stations to shut down the AM station and solely broadcast from the translator. REC also opposed calls for FM translators to originate content more than 30 seconds per hour on their analog/HD1 stream and continued to oppose the use of that 30 second period for the airing of commercials, thus limiting it to requests/acknowledgements of financial support and emergency announcements.

• REC opposed most calls from FM translator interests that would expand the “fill-in” area where translators can be placed in respect to FM stations but was accommodating for a some additional reasonable flexibility for AM stations.

• REC supported some calls by various interests to permit the ability to perform changes to any channel without the need of an interference study. This will afford greater flexibility to LPFM and FM translator stations. REC opposed the “poaching” of reserved band FM translator facilities to be changed to a non-reserved band channel and then converted to commercial service.

• REC opposed requests that would allow an FM translator to operate at an effective radiated power exceeding 250 watts.

REC also supported other issues such as an elimination of the “marriage” of AM translators after 10 years of licensed service, the ability for LPFM stations to use 87.5~87.9 where not needed by Channel 6 stations, the creation of a noncommercial Low Power AM service, the concept of “single frequency networks” for FM stations, retention of the FM anti-duplication rule, software-based EAS, the disclosure of AI generated political ads, the elimination of the symbol rate restrictions in ham radio and the requirement to post an employee’s name for closed captioning complaints.

REC opposed other issues such as the NAB proposed mandated cutover schedule to ATSC3, mandatory DIRS/NORS reporting by broadcast stations, multi-lingual EAS, allowing additional competing TV standards other than ATSC3, calls to eliminate the Rural Radio policies, calls to prohibit new AM stations unless they are digital only, removal of skywave protections for Class A AM stations, the ARRL proposal to give more phone privileges to Technician class licensees and NAB’s requests to eliminate the telephone conversation and contest rules.

Amateur radio and GMRS

REC resisted calls by some ham radio interests to reduce the license classes to only the Technician class and would be receptive to eliminating the General class, keeping only Technician and Amateur Extra. REC continued its call for the FCC to embrace the HAREC to allow for international recognition of an operator’s qualifications.

REC stated that while it definitely supports new regulations regarding the reasonable accommodation of antennas in homeowner association (HOA) environments, we noted that this change cannot be done through regulation at this time as the FCC does not have the statutory authority to preclude private covenants, conditions and restrictions for ham radio in the same way it does for television receive antennas and that PRB-1, which precludes state and local laws, was only made possible due to the superiority clause in the US Constitution.

REC took a positions in the General Mobile Radio Service to oppose the use of interconnected linked repeater systems and the use of digital modes, such as DMR, D-Star and P25, in order to maintain the local nature and original intention of the GMRS, especially in light of limited channels available.

Modernization is needed, not deleted regulations

REC called on the FCC to modernize the Agency, in systems, transparency, regulations and culture.

A copy of our Reply Comment filing can be found here.