Re: LPFM Rules

[Robert Smith <rmsmith@ma.ultranet.com>]

Dib9@aol.com wrote:
...Your analysis is solid.  I'm also not a lawyer, but current licensees might

> have an argument that the FCC has engaged in an illegal taking of their
> property by reducing the value of their property by allowing additional
> interference.  I know that station owners are only licensees, but they are
> entitled to retain their licenses and their investment as long as they obey
> the rules.  It's probably a stretch, but those making the claim of regulatory
> "takings" have had some success in federal court in recent years...

I'm not sure you'd get very far arguing that something that never belonged to you
was taken illegally from you.  The spectrum belongs to "the people" and
broadcasters are allowed to use it only as long as they serve "the public
interest, need and necessity".  No one has ever been guarenteed they would "own"
a certain area when theyv'e been granted a license.  The F.C.C., in the pas has
said that full service stations would be free from interference to their 60 or 57
or 54 dBu, now they've changed the rules and say you'll be interference free only
to your 70.  They changed the rules through a procedure that has been found to be
legal in the past.

I live in southern NH and listen frequently to Boston FMs.  I am however well
outside the 70 dBu of those stations.  I'm sure I won't be happy if some LPFM
makes it impossible for me to listen to Boston in the future, but I don't see
much that can be done at this point.

The NAB may not tackle this thinking that it's not PC to fight for big business
and against community groups, minority organiztions, schools and churches.  It's
a tough call.

I've been surprised at how well publicized the LPFM ruling has been.  I've had
about a dozen calls already asking me to prepare applications - and the forms
aren't even availalbe yet.  I hear the first application window may open in May.
The F.C.C. will probably be flooded.

Bob Smith