On the heels of my post about FCC enforcement of “legal” low-power AM broadcasting, I learn that Pacifica plans to jump into the LPAM arena. The plan is for Pacifica’s Los Angeles station KPFK to serve its Spanish-speaking audience with a network of Part 15 LPAM stations deployed strategically in Latino neighborhoods. According to a recent Radio World article, the LPAM plan is to compensate for the fact that KPFK only has 24 hours in a broadcast day, already split amongst many different types of programming, but with an apparently strong audience for its three hours of Spanish programming a night.

Networks of LPAM stations have been tried before. Perhaps the most prominent was Allston-Brighton Free Radio, a Massachusetts station that started out as a 20 watt unlicensed FM before going Part 15 LPAM. The station has been mostly defunct since 2003, but that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t a good one.

Rather, given the limited broadcast range of LPAM stations I think it shows that it’s difficult to keep a full schedule of volunteer DJs motivated and the station funded. Therefore KPFK’s idea of using LPAMs to rebroadcast a stream of already existing Spanish programming seems more sensible. According to RW the cost of a transmitter setup is just $850 — it likely will cost more to feed the station a good audio feed. KPFK program director Alan Minsky tells RW that the station won’t produce more Spanish programming. Instead it will rebroadcast its current Spanish block supplemented by programming from other sources.

However, I suspect that the FCC might pay a little more attention to a prominent licensed station messing around with unlicensed AM transmitters. Commission field agents will probably want to confirm that those transmitters are fully compliant with Part 15 regs.

This should be a very interested experiment to watch when it gets off the ground.

As Jennifer noted in her report, the FCC observed in a footnote to its NAL that, “the frequency used without authority by Roberts and PCR is 87.9 MHz, which is not allocated to the FM broadcast band.” Over email Jennifer asked me if using that frequency might be any sort of contributing factor for the FCC’s attention, especially in light of an unlicensed operator in Florida recently receiving a $2500 fine for broadcasting on the same frequency.

I was actually a little confused by the FCC’s footnote about 87.9 FM because I’d always understood that the frequency is considered part of the FM dial, though typically not assigned except under special circumstances. In fact, at present there are three stations licensed to 87.9 FM: KSFH in Mountain View, CA; K200AA in Sun Valley, NV, a translator in the Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, ID CSN Network; and WA2XNX in Brazos, TX, an experimental station licensed to Federal Signal Corporation.

According to the Code of Federal Regulations title 47 section 73.501, “87.9 MHz, Channel 200, is available only for use of existing Class D stations required to change frequency.” These Class D stations are low-power 10 watt stations licensed prior to 1978, when the service ceased to exist. That’s the rule under which low-power high school station KSFH is licensed to 87.9 FM.

So, while it’s true that the Commission generally doesn’t license new stations to 87.9 FM, it’s simply not true that the frequency is not part of the FM broadcast spectrum as asserted in the NAL issued to Pirate Cat Radio. As to the question of whether using that frequency contributed to the FCC targeting Pirate Cat or the aforementioned Florida pirate, I think it’s quite unlikely. The NAL against the Florida pirate makes no mention of the frequency not being a legitimate part of the FM dial.

As far as the Commission is concerned any given unlicensed operator is no different than another. Each field office tends to have its own set of priorities about chasing down pirates, and looking at the list of enforcement actions you can definitely see that each office seems to have periodic bursts of action against unlicensed operators. By and large enforcement actions are complaint-based, and operating out in the open is more likely to result in a complaint than being clandestine.

I suspect that action against Pirate Cat, in particular, came about rather slowly, perhaps influenced by the positive publicity it received and the position of relative respect it has in the community. Of course, these factors will not stop the FCC from taking action against an unlicensed broadcaster; failing to take any action would only serve as an encouragement to others. But I do think that these factors complicate the Commission’s job, causing it to tread a little more carefully.

I think operating an unlicensed station on 87.9 FM is no more risky than operating on any other frequency. The fact that there are very few stations licensed to this frequency makes it attractive for pirates looking for a clear channel and to avoid interfering with other stations. The FCC’s recent decision that FM stations no longer need to protect channel 6 audio on the far left end of the dial may lead to erosion of this opportunity in some areas as more licensed stations encroach on 87.9 FM. Until then, the risk of being a pirate on 87.9 FM is due to being a pirate broadcaster, and nothing more.