Re: LPFM Rules

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

>R.L. Caron wrote:
>
>As a (former) small company broadcaster, it was a major irritation to me to
>religiously file comments each time the Commission proposed changes that
>would impact us negatively only to find the big boys, time and again,
>quietly sitting on the sidelines. I could never quite reconcile my thoughts
>on the matter: whether they had other ways of influencing the government or
>that they just didn't want to call attention to how much trough space they
>were occupying.

        That's a major part of how it works in every area of government.
Big business gets the private appointments and hires the lobbyists to do
the work quietly. Usually they feel that, for appearances sake, they need
to show up and testify at the hearing, but not always. Also, on some issues
an organization like the NAB will find that its membership is divided and
then the whole thing gets more complicated.

>However, an unannounced reduction of the protected contour of Class B FMs
>from the 54 dBu curve to the 70 is so outrageous (5500 square miles down to
>1385) that I cannot imagine these guys (who are heavily invested in Class B
>iron) twiddling their thumbs any longer. Up 'till now, I had agreed that the
>NAB's chances of stopping this LPFM thing in court or the Congress were near
>zero. This gives them some real ammunition.

        IMO, the NAB would be wasting its time in court. Congress is
another matter. Big business is the big contributors, and many members of
Congress are very cozy with the remaining small and medium broadcasting
owners back in their home states, not to mention the large companies.
Members of Congress usually will try to kiss up to the media owners. In
fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see LPFM watered down when it's all over.
        The reason the courts are a waste of time, IMO, is that the FCC
basically can do whatever it wants with something like this. If it decides,
like it did the other day, that existing stations' signals are going to
receive less protection because the public interest, convenience and/or
necessity is served by doing that, then so be it. With all the deregulation
and repeal of group ownership limits and all in the past 20 years, I think
we sometimes forget that station "owners" are really just licensees, and
there's nothing in the license that says the FCC can't change the rules at
any time. Unless you can show that the FCC acted in violation of the
Communications Act, you're not going to get anywhere in court. Since the
act still has the public interest/convenience/necessity language in it, the
FCC has huge latitude in matters like LPFM. Even if you can show the FCC
didn't follow all its own procedural rules, or whatever, all you've done is
delay it and make them do it over again.