Re: LPFM Rules

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

>Dan Billings 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.
<snip>

        Without getting into the general subject of property takings, I
don't think it applies here. No one is taking their property--i.e.,
transmitters, etc. They do not have a legal ownership interest in the
license. The fact that they are entitled to retain the license for the
stated period if they obey the rules is a separate question. This is not
about licensees obeying the rules. It's about the FCC changing the rules.
There's just nothing to prohibit that.
        The regulatory record of the FCC since it was set up, and the Radio
Commission before that, is overflowing with precedents for rules changes
that diminished the signal protection of one group of stations in favor of
another. Bringing up my favorite axe to grind, I could suggest asking the
Clear Channel Broadcasters Association, which for many years lobbied the
FCC on behalf of the former I-A and I-B stations on AM, about the history
of these precedents. But I think the organization was beaten to death by
losing too many rule-change battles and went defunct some years back.