FAQ: Why didn't REC ask for LPFM stations to be able to be engineered like FM translators in RM-11749?

Select FAQ Category:

It is REC's ultimate desire that LPFM be a service where the only difference between a NCE translator and an LPFM is that it can originate programming, remain non-commercial and be subject to the LPFM localism and ownership rules. There is no technical reason why LPFM stations can not use contour overlap.

What does come into question though is the hyperlocal nature of the LPFM service. In 2012, the NAB did question whether LP-250 would be able to maintain the hyperlocal nature of LP-100. Many of these questions were raised because LP-250 was being promoted as a rural expansion service. REC's strategy is to promote LP-250 as enhancing the quality of service within the three-mile-zone while providing some additional fringe coverage. We had looked at extending the service contour west of the Mississippi (except for California) out to 13.3 km similar to the translator rules and ruled that out as that would seriously jeopardize the local nature of LPFM also taking into consideration that many NCE class A stations operate with service contours around 13.3 km.

The main reason why full contour overlap rules were not introduced was because of Section 3(a) of the Local Community Radio Act that prohibits any LPFM from being spaced closer than the values shown in §73.807(a) in respect to full-service FM stations.

To allow Contour Overlap between LPFM and regular domestic FM stations, it will require an act of Congress to amend the LCRA. This can not be done through FCC rulemaking.

That answer above was prepared prior to the writing of RM-11810:

In RM-11810 and the Media Modernization Docket MB 17-105, REC took a different appropach and has asked for a reinterpretation of the LCRA.to consider the following facts:

  • The LCRA requires the Commission "prescribe protection" in respect to co-channel, first and second-adjacent channels.
  • The language of LCRA distinguishes between "Full-service", FM translators, FM boosters and LPFM stations.
  • The LCRA language only requires that the Commission may not reduce minimum distance separations to full-service stations based on the distances codified in the rules when the LCRA was signed by President Obama.
  • At the time when President Obama signed the LCRA, the LP-10 minimum distance separations were still codified.
  • Since LCRA only requires distance separation in respect to full-service FM stations, it does not require it towards FM translators or other LPFM stations as long as protection is prescribed.
  • There is no language in the LCRA that is related to TV Channel 6 protections and likewise, there is no LCRA language that specifies power levels for LPFM stations.

With that, and given the interference that LPFM stations are facing since the translator application activities in 2016, 2017 and 2018, REC has proposed a hybrid protection method for LPFM stations that want to be engineered more like translators.  Under this parallel rule-set, a hybrid of contours and minimum distance separation would be used to protect other facilities.  

REC is hoping for some movement on RM-11810 in 2019.

11/11/2019 update:

REC withdrew the "reinterpretation" concept shown above in favor of an approach similar to that originally proposed in RM-11749.  REC proposes two "backstops" to address potential interference including the use of contours while meeting the LP-100 minimums and the use of the recently changed interference remediation policy that applies to FM translators.

 

Answer Date: 
Monday, November 11, 2019