Last week the FCC released its report on the economic impact of low-power FM stations on commercial radio. The report was mandated by passage of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA), and its primary conclusion should surprise nobody with any knowledge of LPFM: “LPFM stations are unlikely to have more than a negligible economic impact on full-service commercial FM stations.”

A pithy comment made to a post on The Hill’s technology blog sums it up even more vividly: “It sounds like a study investigating the Salvation Army thrift stores to see if they unfairly compete with Walmart.” In effect, this comment and the report make clear that the idea that LPFM could be a real threat to commercial radio is and always was a red herring tossed out by the commercial broadcast industry to try and thwart any addition to the radio dial that would not be under its own umbrella.

Of course, I’m certain there are many low-power radio advocates who wish low-power stations could be a bigger threat to the commercial radio establishment, especially given how the likes of Clear Channel decimated the medium in the wake of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, the ability for low-power FM to be an actual threat is mitigated by many of the same factors that blindsided the largest commercial radio companies while they were too focused on buying up stations, consolidating operations and firing staff around the turn of the century.

Nevertheless we are on the cusp of adding many more low-power community stations to the airwaves of towns and cities across the country. The stats uncovered in the Commission’s report paint an interesting portrait of LPFM that underlines both the power and limits of their reach.

With regard to the question of effect on commercial stations, the most significant face is that LPFM stations have a miniscule impact on ratings, if they show up at all. The station with the highest listenership managed to rank only 18th in its market.

The flip side of that coin is that, according to the report, amongst those stations that appear in Arbitron ratings, LPFM stations have a high value for “time spent listening” (TSL). This means that LPFM listeners tend to stay tuned in for longer periods of time. This fact leads the Commission to conclude that, “these measures suggest that the popular LPFM stations tend to attract a small but loyal fan base, which tunes in for long periods of time and/or switches stations less frequently than the average full-service station listener.”

LPFM stations are more likely to carry niche programming. So the National Association of Broadcasters told the FCC that it should consider the potential harm LPFMs would have on the small segment of commercial stations that cater to a niche audience. In particular the NAB argued that niche stations are more vulnerable due to having lower average revenues from a more typically formatted station.

However, the Commission notes that the NAB provided no examples of an LPFM that current duplicates or previously duplicated an existing commercial station’s format. The Commission cites comments filed by LPFM advocate Wesli Dymoke who contends that it is unlikely that a low-power station would choose to compete head-on with a more powerful commercial station. It also notes that the NAB provided no plausible explanation why a LPFM station would choose such a Quixotic path. In the end the FCC concludes that there is no evidence that low-power stations pose any threats to commercial stations with niche formats.

The completion of this report represents the penultimate hurdle in front of the expansion of LPFM, which it has now successfully leaped over. The final one is the outcome of the FCC’s proceeding to resolve the queue of pending applications for translator repeater stations, many of which could take up frequencies that would be suitable for new low-power stations after the LCRA. As of last June the Commission was leaning towards establishing a minimum number of LPFM-qualified frequencies that must remain available in a given market after translator applications are approved.

With luck the commissioners will resolve that proceedings in the first quarter of this year. In turn that could pave the way for a new LPFM license application window in the second or third quarter. Then it will have taken only twelve years to overcome the NAB’s attempt to cut low-power community radio off at the knees. Yet, after all that time communities of all sizes across the country still need true community radio, perhaps more than before.

In a statement, Congressman Doyle said,

“The benefits of low power FM radio have been demonstrated time and time again. These stations have been instrumental in local news reporting, emergency response, and cultural enrichment. I hope the FCC will recognize these important values so that many more Americans, in Pittsburgh and all other cities and towns, can enjoy the richness of local radio.”

The 28 House members also urged the Commission “to ensure the licenses are awarded to truly local churches, non-profit organizations, local governments and schools.” Given that local ownership is strictly required by FCC for LPFM licenses one has to wonder if this isn’t a bit of a swipe at the networks of translators piping in distinctly non-local and distant signals which compete with LPFMs for space on the dial.

The deadline to comment on the FCC’s rulemaking on pending translator applications and the implementation of the Local Community Radio Act was Tuesday, September 6.

The National Association of Broadcasters slipped its comments [PDF] in Tuesday just under the wire, pretty much urging the FCC to reduce the priority of licensing LPFM stations in the most densely populated urban cores, while asking the Commission to process and license as many translator stations as possible before moving on to opening up LPFM licensing windows. In particular the NAB suggests the FCC rely on Arbitron markets for determining the availability of LPFM frequencies, rather than the currently proposed method which focuses on keeping frequencies available inside a city’s urban core. Using an Arbitron market as the geographical measure, the requisite number of LPFM-eligible frequencies may remain available, however they could be only on the fringes, unable to serve the city centers that were a priority for many of the Congresspeople who supported the Local Community Radio Act.

The Commission is now accepting replies to comments that have been submitted. This is when the sparks really start to fly, as LPFM advocates attack the NAB’s counter-proposal, and the groups hoping for new translator licenses return the favor. The deadline to submit these reply comments is September 20.

Paul McLane

In his “From the Editor” column Radio World’s Paul McLane takes up Matthew’s recent calculation finding that pirate radio generates a half-billion dollars worth of jobs. Recall that my esteemed Radio Survivor colleague was riffing off a recent study sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters that claimed $135 billion in economic output is attributable to commercial radio and television broadcasting.

McLane admits that he “chuckled” at Matthew’s “poke of NAB’s huge, speculative ‘ripple effect’ numbers.” But apparently he can’t let the joke continue to ride on his high horse as he chides Matthew’s subject of choice, writing,

“Lasar would have done better to discuss the economic value of other legal forms of radio rather than that of pirates. I do not endorse illegal radio, and neither should you.”

McLane goes on to explain that he is a supporter of eclectic college and community radio and sympathetic to “people who want to bring more diverse, nontraditional voices to the broadcast spectrum,” but only provided, “they comply with the law.” He advises that those who disagree with the current legal and regulatory regime should “work to change it, just as LPFM advocates have done.”

Even though LPFM is only a decade old, it would seem that Mr. McLane has forgotten the circumstances that led up to the FCC creating this service. Let’s consider one of LPFM’s strongest and most tireless advocates, Pete TriDish, a founder of the Prometheus Radio Project, which advocates for the service and helps LPFM stations get on the air. What did Pete do before Prometheus? Why, he was an unlicensed broadcaster with the Radio Mutiny collective in Philadelphia during the 1990s.

Radio Mutiny was not alone as unlicensed micropower stations went on the air across the US during the latter half of the 1990s. Many of these stations–especially those calling themselves “micropower” rather than “pirate” –were broadcasting as an act of civil disobedience, protesting the negative effects of the radio consolidation in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the lack of licenses available for low-power community radio.

I would argue that former FCC Chairman William Kennard was responding to dual pressures when he spearheaded the creation of LPFM. Yes, on one hand he was answering the calls made by a growing number of civic, community and religious groups for an expansion of community radio. But on the other hand, Kennard was actively battling, and arguably losing, a war against a rising tide of unlicensed broadcasters that the Commission was unprepared to defeat. Kennard and his fellow commissioners wisely recognized that creating a low-cost low-power radio service would help take the wind from the rhetorical sails of many microbroadcasters, while also making the FCC appear supportive of true community service radio. The Commission also was betting that some would-be unlicensed broadcasters would abandon their plans in favor of pursuing an actual LPFM license.

McLane observes that Radio Survivor, “professes to love radio ‘in all its forms’ and is up front about including illegal radio in that.” I don’t claim to speak for my fellow Radio Survivors, but I’ll admit to some fondness for pirate radio. However, I do not love all pirate radio, in the same way that I do not love all commercial and noncommercial radio. Like so many other underground activities, unlicensed broadcasting often exists to fill a need that is unmet by licensed or legitimized services. The most responsible pirates run technically clean operations, taking care not to cause interference with other stations. I am not a fan of pirates who broadcast dirty signals that trounce on adjoining stations and spit out interference.

We would not have LPFM if it were not for the pirates and microbroadcasters who forced the FCC’s hand. They demonstrated that there was room on the dial for low-powered community stations not through lobbying and engineering studies, but simply by showing their communities that it could be done, and without interference or harm. This could only have been done without a license, the FCC would have endorsed no exception or trial.

I’m sympathetic to the fact that the editor of Radio World can’t really come out in support of pirate radio. And, to be honest, we appreciate the nod from Mr. McLane, even if it comes with a dose of criticism. But it’s important not to lose Matthew’s original point. An underground economy is still an economy. Pirate radio has made significant contributions to broadcasting in the US, and our dials would not be the same had it never existed.

Right now there are a pile of applications for translator stations in the queue for at the FCC. Translators are often called booster stations because their only purpose is to rebroadcast the signal of a full-power station. This backlog of applications is important because translator stations can be spaced closer on the dial to a full-power station than another full-power station can, meaning that translators are eligible for spots on the dial that otherwise may be eligible for a new low-power FM station under the newly passed Local Community Radio Act.

One big question facing the Commission at the moment is whether or not these pending translator apps need to be resolved before accepting new LPFM applications. There are also some groups petitioning the FCC asking it raise the ten application limit it imposed on the translator auction.

All Access recently posted a run down of comments filed with the FCC on the issue. Expectedly, Prometheus Radio Project urges the Commission to open an LPFM filing window first, before processing the backlogged translator apps, while the National Association of Broadcasters advises that the Local Community Radio Act, “cannot be read to create a preference for any particular secondary service.”

Particularly interesting are recommendations made by the LPFM-friendly REC Networks that suggest the use of 87.5, 87.7 and 87.9 FM for low-power stations. REC also suggests modifying the protection contours for many analog low-power TV stations on Channel 6 which have smaller “service contours.” REC argues that LPFM stations can be located on adjacent frequencies geographically closer to these LPTV stations without causing interference.

There still is little public indication of how the FCC proposes to proceed on low-power FM. Last week Prometheus and the Media Access Project did meet with Chairman Genachowski’s Senior Advisor, as well as personnel from the Media Bureau’s Audio Division. Clearly, the most interested groups are not waiting for the Commission to ask how to move forward.

I know that hopeful LPFM applicants and community radio enthusiasts are waiting with baited breath. I hope we can supply a few more answers later this week when we’ll feature an interview with Prometheus on these and other important questions about the future of low-power FM.

Although the revised low-power FM bill contains some additional concessions to the NAB, it still provides the opportunity for many more community radio stations in the nation’s most crowded metropolitan radio markets.

Next the president has to sign the bill. Then the FCC has to go about determining the process for the next application filing window.

It’s certainly easy to understand the sentiment expressed by a commenter to my last LPFM post:

If the NAB is for it, you can pretty much guarantee that it is to the detriment to LPFM.

And while the LPFM bill passed by the House yesterday, HR 6533, does contain compromises agreed to by the NAB, on balance it is far more positive for LPFM than negative. I’m certain we have Prometheus Radio Project and other LPFM groups to thank for the positives.

Michelle Eyre of REC Networks did us a favor by breaking down the details of the bill. The primary concession to the National Association of Broadcasters is that while LPFM stations will be permitted to be spaced closer on the dial to full power stations, the would have to obtain a “second adjacent waiver” in order to be positioned as close as two spaces (say at 100.1 when there’s a full-power station at 100.5). In order to obtain this waiver, an LPFM applicant will have to demonstrate through an engineering study that it will cause no interference. And if there is a complaint of interference the LPFM station will have to remediate it, by first suspending operations and then taking technical measures

Other concessions include making LPFM a secondary service to full-power radio, which means that a full-power station can bump a low-power one if a legitimate change to its license would require it. Furthermore, LPFM stations would be on equal footing with translator stations, meaning that an LPFM applicant could not bump a translator using a frequency qualified for LPFM.

Certainly, this is not quite a win for LPFM that a simple restoration of the FCC’s original 2000 specification would be. In particular, applying for LPFM stations in large metropolitan areas with crowded dials will be more complex than the LPFM process has been so far. Those LPFM applicants looking at second-adjacent channels will have to do more work ahead of time to prove they will not interfere with adjacent stations. Furthermore, they will be more prone to objections from those adjacent full-power stations, who may be able to delay or stymie their applications with objections about potential interference.

Now, these sorts of administrative hassles have always been a part of full-power station licensing. For instance, the community station I worked at in Champaign, IL had its application delayed for years due to objections filed by a station on the same frequency more than 120 miles away in Chicago. But these sorts of speedbumps have not existed for LPFM before, which was designed to have a relatively simple and inexpensive application process in order to greatly lower the barrier to entry.

The bill still has not yet come to a vote in the Senate, There could be changes made in the other house of Congress, but I’m doubting supporters would want to mess with things. At least the Senate is finally out of gridlock and bringing bills to a vote this weekend, so there is hope. I’ll be following LPFM’s progress this weekend and will certainly post if and when something happens.

“The revised legislation will expand the number of LPFM stations in the U.S. while providing full-power radio stations with the protection and clarity we have long sought. NAB salutes today’s House action and offers its support for Senate passage as well.”

From the side of long-standing support for LPFM, Kamilla Kovacs, Communications and Development Director of Media Access Project, said,

“MAP is delighted to see House passage of the Local Community Radio Act. It looks forward to Senate enactment of this important legislation, so that LPFM advocates including MAP can finally begin to work with the Federal Communications Commission to expand opportunities for community radio stations nationwide.”

Now the bill should move to the Senate for a vote by acclimation.

The text of the legislation is not yet available, though it was announced on the House floor that the National Association of Broadcasters has given the bill a letter of support. Now, one would guess that this bill going to the Senate where we might suppose the NAB won’t be fighting it, given their letter of support for the House version. But anything can happen, so it should be an interesting ride.

Grassroots heat has been getting hotter this week as the Senate runs out of time to vote on the Local Community Radio Act, expanding low-power FM. There are some signs that the action is having some effect.

Free Press campaign director Tim Karr tweeted on Thursday,

NAB lobbyists overheard at DC event: “We’re getting beat up on Twitter about LPFM”

Indeed, the twitter petition site act.ly itself tweeted later in the day,

Today’s #1 petition @nabtweets to stop lobbying Congress to block new, independent radio stations

And DC insider newspaper Politico ran a story on how all the NAB lobbying pressure “is pinching the nerves of some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.” So much so, in fact, that congressional staffers are saying their bosses are getting tired of negotiating with the NAB because the lobby is not showing any willingness to compromise on issues like LPFM.

Even the Oregonian, the home paper of NAB president and former-senator Gordon Smith, took notice with a piece on Wednesday that observed,

Gordon Smith is no longer one of Oregon’s U.S. senators, but community radio activists are trying to paint him as still pulling secretive strings in Congress.

It’s unclear how much the NAB cares about the increasingly negative press. However, I’m certain the lobby does care quite a bit how members of Congress are perceiving its efforts, with many starting to wonder if it isn’t squandering its clout and resources on an issue that is more symbolic than any kind of real threat to commercial broadcasters.

The question is whether or not the NAB is willing to risk some standing in order to score a win on LPFM. Or it may be that the broadcast lobby is betting a Republican House and more Republican Senate won’t care or remember come January 1. Given the bipartisan support for LPFM, that may not be the surest bet. But that hasn’t seemed to stop the NAB in the previous nine years, either.

Prometheus has posted photos and video from their hula hooping protest in front of NAB headquarters today in support of low-power FM. According to the group dozens of people showed up to ask NAB head and former senator Gordon Smith to stop blocking the Local Community Radio Act, SB 592.

It turns out that so many people have been calling the NAB about LPFM that the organization has added a menu option to its voicemail specifically for those folks.

While mainstream press coverage of the bill has been relatively scant, today NPR’s All Things Considered aired a story. The NPR piece uses the WGXC barnraising as a jumping off point to demonstrate the value of community radio, but the NAB refuses to comment on record about their disinformation campaign to encourage anonymous holds on the bill.