List of Comments Filed in MM 99-25 LCRA Section 5 Implementation NPRM

The following are comments that were filed in the September, 2011 MM Docket 99-25 proceeding regarding the disposition of Auction 83 (Great Translator Invasion) Translators in respect to the implementation of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.


The following are based on notes that are taken by REC when reviewing comments. This list represents many, but not all who filed at least two pages of comments. Various items of interest have been selected and may not necessarily reflect the entire feelings of the commenter. READ THE ACTUAL COMMENTS - DO NOT BASE OPINION JUST ON THIS NOTE SHEET - WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MIS-QUOTES - AGAIN, READ THE ACTUAL COMMENTS FILED WITH THE FCC BEFORE REPLYING.

Also be forewarned, these notes are written in "Michi-scratch" and may seem cryptic to some readers. A few commonly used abbreviations:
FX - translator
LCRA - Local Community Radio Act
A83 - Auction 83 (Great Translator Invasion)

Use this information at your own risk.

Reply comment deadline, September 27, 2011.

For best results, you may want to right click on the links and click on "open in new window" or "open in new tab", that way, you don't lose this page.

LPFM Proponents

Reduces grid to 21x21 from 31x31, uses REC Networks search methodlogy, raises channel floors.

SUPPORTS JOINT PROPOSAL, existing LPFM stations should not be included in channel floor minimums, LPFM will never be truly "equal in status" due to statute, while REC overall supports individual review of each translator (2x70 plan) - it will support JOINT PROPOSAL, supports freeze in dismiss markets and all areas within 40 km of a dismiss market, non-co owned FX applications must include notarized statements from primary stations giving permission to rebroadcast on short form, CPs should be only transferrable for zero consideration (not even out of pocket), fill-in FX should be prohibited from rebroadcasting HD multicast streams, national ownership caps on FX, cross-service AM should be limited to stand-alone AM stations (no co-owned FM that can use HD2 for their AM signal).

SUPPORTS JOINT PROPOSAL, multiple filing windows, supports Summer 2012 filing window period, return to the 10-cap for future FX windows, restrict transfers of FX CPs except under financial distress, consider localism before allowing AM cross service, prohibit FX to be used to rebroadast multicast (HD) streams.

SUPPORTS JOINT PROPOSAL, FX service should be appropriately defined, LPFM-FX not equal in status - FX is superior, opposes HD multicast fill-in, 1 FX per market in process markets, ownership caps on "interstate" FX, collect more info on translator purpose on short form, FX licenses should be held for 2 years before transferred -- 4 year moritorium on receiving money, leasing FX is only for operating expenses, end redundant feeds on multiple translators, additional scruitny in determining which AM stations should be cross-service FX.

Supports Option 3 with advice to consider alternative proposals such as the JOINT (REC) PROPOSAL.

Don Schellhardt/Nickolaus Leggett
While option 1 is the preferred, it's likely that option 3 would be the only alternative.

Full Power

Supports full cross-service AM, option 3 jumps too fast to dismiss FX apps, supports inclusion of exsting LPFM in channel floors (even if outside grid), argues if FX is dismissed in some markets-- there will still be no LPFM opportunities, appendix "A" locations should be taken into consideration, amendments should be permitted in "process" markets, supports a refresh (querying that FX applicants are still active and still interested), allow LPFM to file on top of FX.

Many pending FX apps may no longer be viable, FCC should do inquiries on suspected traffickers to assure they are capable of constructing, supports a cap - can be higher than 10, encourage settlements between FX, no data to support channel floors, limit CP transfers to out of pocket expenses, mandatory holding periods to assure applicants construct, opposes cross-service due to trafficking issues.

Broadcast Maximization Committee
Original proponents of digital 76-88 proposal, feels proposal may help aleviate this problem, proposing setting aside 1 MHz of spectrum at 100 kHz spacing (10 channels) for LPFM in 76-88.

Catholic Radio Association
Does not endorse dismissing FX, disagrees with option 3, supports AM cross service.

WCFR - Amherst MA
FX applicants being punished by a "handful of applicants", must still allow minor amendments in "process" markets, open settlement process first, limit future FX apps to one or few per market.

Radio Power (WAMO-AM)
Minority owned standalone AM (has other holdings in other markets), opposes channel floors as it denies opportunities for minority owned AM cross service.

Hope Christian Church of Marlton, Inc.
Option 3 unfair as there is no demonstration that it will yield one single LPFM frequency, market based approach will deny rural translators for urban LPFM, process pending A83 FX, FX rules for LPFM, LPFM availability should be recalculated to exclude 2nd adjacent, no pending translator should be dismissed that will not directly create an opening for LPFM, real competitior to LPFM is internet, iPhones and other broadband devices.

Concerned that FX in NYC market will be dismissed even though there are no LPFM channels available in NYC grid, support 10-cap, give preference to fill-in.


Shift to terrain-based program to determine availability. Allow flipping between LPFM and FX.

Under LCRA, stations and applications are interchangable. Does not support option 3. FX rules are easier than LPFM. Feels that FX application dismissal would be a "bait and switch". There's more available spectrum than supposed. No national FX caps but a market cap of 3. 4 pages of defending FCCs statements regarding trafficking. Allow FX minor site changes.

Supports abandonment of 10-cap, while not perfect - supports option 3, grid should be expanded to include entire metro market, should look at locations in addition to channels, using first amendment argument to defend distant translators, channel floors overstate demand, A83 apps should be allowed to amend, bar sales of unconstructed CPs, forbid sales of FX for a period of time for higher than out of pocket.

Jerry Isenhart
Supports option 3 (channel floors), does not support undue limitations in the amount of FX applications. If an application cap is necessary, 50 to 75 should remain pending. Allow cross-service. Since LPFM and FX are "equal in status", LPFMs should be allowed to become FX and vice versa.

Northeast Broadcasting Company
Has 4 pending FXs in Boston market, claims due to Boston having no LPFMs available, claims section 5 applies to "new" translators and LPFM, supports keeping all translators in place.

Robert A. Lynch
Supports relaxation of cross-service (AM) FX usage, option 3 is sweeping and arbitrary, supports reinstatement of the 10-cap, reduce to 3-cap if necessary, add preference for local ownership and existing AM/FM licensees or hold applications and allow LPFM to file on top of them.

Charles (Ched) Keiler
Resolve MX FX applicants first, allow LPFM to use FX protection rules, Longley-Rice on all FM services, unfair to dismiss A83 aps for others to take advantage in future filings, "Equal in Status" means simultaneous filing windows, recommends an "option 4" (read comments for full details), supports 50-cap on applications, supports cross-service. Surprised NPRM only covered section 5, supports contours, supports ch 198-200, supports 76-88 analog FM.

CircuitWerkes, Inc.
Dismissing FX is imprudent and unecessary. FCC option 3 study did not take 2nd-adj waivers into consideration. No consideration was given to LP-10 in availability. Remove 2nd Adj LPFM-FX, remove IF

William Doerner
Open a FX settlement window, no blanket dismissals, compensate those who have been dismissed due to policy change.

Potential LPFMs with specific opinions

Blue Ridge Free Media
Wants to see changes to LPFM technical rules similar to REC.

Kern Community Radio
Advocating that Bakersfield become a "dismiss" market.

Tube City Community Media
Distant translators contravenes LCRA, supports LPAM and 76-88 FM.

Access Sacramento
Advocating that Sacramento become a "dismiss" market.

Questions why Santa Cruz market is considered a process market. (NOTE: Santa Cruz is abbreviated with the Monterey-Salinas-Santa Cruz metro. The FCC's measurement was taken from the geographic center of Monterey)

Potential LPFMs basic support letters

Riverwest Radio

Make This World Foundation

Hillsborough Community Media

Delta Star Radio

Hollow Earth Radio

San Francisco Bay Organizations - Media Alliance, et al

Main Street Project


Alan W. Jurison
Raises issues regarding the Syracuse market FCC reporting, feels should be a "dismiss" market. Supports 50-75 cap on FX but that could be limiting. Supports per-market ownership FX limits. LPFM should not have priority over fill-in FX. No restrictions on cross-service. Show Cause process on FX apps.

Mullaney Engineering, Inc.
The "cut-off" process has been around since dinosaurs started roaming the 8th floor of the FCC bldg, LPFM-FX rules must be consistent, supports digital use of 76-88.

Robert Moore
LPFM rules do not allow for optimal packing due to distance separation and non-directional antennas, contours for LPFMs, FX must keep same primary station for at least first 4 years, clean up FX MX groups, monthly windows with a cap of 50 per window, simulataneous FX-LPFM windows.

Communications Technologies, Inc.
Opposes option 3, may support eliminating IF and 2nd Adj if no intereference is shown, supports BMC analog 76-88 band.

Jeff Sibert
Proposal does not include 2d Adj waivers, opposes joint FX-LPFM window, open FX and LPFM windows in several year intervals, supports freezing of HD multicast until FCC can investigate this 'abuse', CP should only be assigned without renumeration, Cross service: 1 freq per AM with a limit of 5 FX per AM, syncronous freuency networks, translators to adhere to 74.1235(b) (non-fill in translator rules), limit to class C and D AM. New ??AM?? class A1 at 1kW 50m HAAT, expand to 76-88 MHz.

John Giberson
Allow LPFM to 250w 45m HAAT, cross service should be held until after LPFM window, cross service then should be limited to daytime AM stations then to night time power of 1kw or less, 87.9~91.9 should be made commercial, LPFM should be commercial, AM cross service should be given preference to local owners.

Organizational Endorsements

One America