Re: FCC gives the green light to LPFM

["Douglas J. Broda" <djbroda@mindspring.com>]

Not that broadcasting law is an area of expertise on my part (as in I know
next
to nothing about it), but I wonder what the NAB's argument might be? 

I assume they'll claim interference on some receivers, but to quote Chairman
Kennard:

"While some studies suggest the possibility of interference even with the
limitations we have adopted, the flaws underling these studies seem plain. 
Some of the studies cited in opposition to a low power FM service start with
the premise that most existing FM radios do not provide adequate reception
even
today, before the creation of a low power service.  These commenters suggest
that we adopt standards that bear no relation to the choices that consumers
have repeatedly made In the market, and that we reject reception standards
that
the over one-half billion radios now in use implicitly endorse.  I see no
reason for the FCC to invent standards on its own, when consumers have already
voted with their dollars to decide on an adequate level of performance."

If the law on the FCC (which I do *not* know, note this caveat) is similar to
most areas of administrative law, the NAB would be in for an uphill fight.

Plus it isn't exactly good PR on their part to try to block flea-power,
non-commercial radio.

At 02:45 PM 1/20/00 -0500, Chris Beckwith wrote:
>The proposal adopted protects out to the third adjacent, is noncommercial and
>limited to 100 watts (10 watts in tight markets.)  The FCC will evaluate
>applications for proposed programming and community service.  Having lost at
>the regulatory level, the NAB is expected to go to the courts to block it
from
>being carried out.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas J. Broda
Broda and Burnett
Attorneys at Law
80 Ferry Street, Troy, NY 12180 USA
(518) 272-0580
djbroda@mindspring.com