Broadcasters Defend FM Translator Interference Rules Targeted by LPFMs

The regulator is unlikely to reconsider the order, industry lawyers told us. The translator interference order was the subject of an extended rulemaking process and includes technical engineering rules that weren’t arrived at arbitrarily, they said. “It’s hard to imagine the commission making changes to the engineering rules,” said Rini O’Neil's David O’Neil. The order was “given a lot of consideration,” he said. The LPFM Coalition’s argument that a policy limiting interference complaints to one per building disenfranchises listeners could get more traction but is ultimately unlikely to lead to reconsideration, a broadcast attorney said.

Counting multiple listener complaints from the same building “would facilitate the filing of interference complaints against translators,” NAB conceded. The one per building limit is intended to force stations to demonstrate interference at “multiple distinct locations” in the name of “industry-wide fairness” and to “help ensure the integrity of the Commission’s processes,” NAB said. The interference order doesn’t adequately justify disenfranchising listeners in large apartment buildings, Media Alliance said.

The joint filing from iHeart and other radio groups said they would “leave it to others” to address LPFM issues raised in recon petitions but noted the FCC addressed arguments that the Local Community Radio Act required that translators and LPFM receive the same protections. The interference order benefits LPFM as well as full powers and translators, NAB said. “Petitioners have allowed their views on the Commission’s priorities to cloud their judgment of the rational, evenhanded approach in the Order.”

LPFM Coalition attorney Michael Richards disputed that the organization’s recon petition is rehashing old matters. It shows the FCC mischaracterized the record, which runs against the Administrative Procedure Act, Richards said in an interview Friday. NAB hasn’t argued with most of the petition's legal basis=, he said. The order “cuts people off” from their constitutional right, Richards said. He disagreed with experts predicting the agency won’t reconsider the order. The coalition isn’t asking for the whole order to be thrown out, but for specific issues to be addressed, he said: “While you may have a goal, you can’t achieve it by means that aren’t proper.” He didn’t comment on whether the issue could lead to litigation, saying agencies shouldn’t require court orders to address mistakes.

The radio companies took aim at recon petitions seeking to change the 45 dBu limit on where full-power outlets can lodge interference complaints against translators. Arguments by petitioner Charles Anderson against data -- provided by the same radio groups -- showing Beasley, Entercom and the others would lose many listeners if the contour were larger have already been raised with the FCC and rejected, the radio broadcasters said. The FCC relied on additional evidence outside the station group-provided data to reach its conclusions, the joint filing said.

NAB and the companies agreed on one issue raised by recon petitioner Skywave. The consulting company said language in the order requiring stations submit documentation using undesired/desired (U/D) ratios would make it difficult for the outlets to submit complaints of co-channel and first-adjacent channel translator interference even within the protected contour. “There likely is a real, albeit probably rare, possibility that the U/D threshold for actionable complaints as set out in the revised rules could bar bona fide interference complaints,” said the full-power radio companies. NAB said it would also support clarification.