Re: LPFM Rules

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>R.L Caron wrote:
>
>Listening to FCC representative Roy Stewart solemly tell an assemblage of
>broadcasters that his agency would never do anything to cause interference
>to existing stations, I thought to myself: "Hmm, this is the Clinton
>administration. Watch out for a redefinition of the word interference."
>
>They just did it!

        I try to stay away from the political here, and I'm no cheerleader
for Clinton. But, the FCC has been changing the rules to reduce the signal
protection of AM and FM stations since long before Clinton was chasing his
first skirt in Arkansas. (Such as, when nearly all daytimers were given
some low power at night; and when the Class A FMs were allowed higher
power).
         The FM band has been getting the same treatment now that the AM
band got in earlier years--squeezing in more and more signals and allowing
power increases, causing more interference to other stations. The only
unusual part of the LPFM thing is that it's not backed by the NAB and the
big broadcasting business interests. And that's where I think I detect
politics in your post in singling out the Clinton administration. Some
people might see the LPFM decision as some sort of left-wing kind of a
move, I guess, and it's certainly something that was opposed by big
business. But when you see somebody from the FCC deny that a rule change
will cause more interference to existing stations, when it's obvious that
it will, it's nothing new. It's also very annoying, so we agree on that.
        Also, despite the NAB fighting against LPFM, if you want to think
in political terms, you could argue that LPFM provides protection to the
big group owners against complaints that too many stations are now owned by
too few companies. They can point to LPFM and say, There's an avenue for
local community programming, etc.