Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Report to the Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:42:52 -0500

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
445 12th STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20554
February 19, 2004

Report to the Congress on the Low Power FM Interference Testing Program
Pub. L. No. 106-553

In accordance with Section 632 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, FY 2001 (the “Act”),1 the Federal Communications
Commission (“Commission”) submits this report to the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives. This report
includes the Commission’s recommendations to Congress regarding the
modification or elimination of minimum distance separation requirements
for low power FM (“LPFM”) stations operating on third-adjacent channels
(+/- 600 kHz) to full power and other FM broadcast stations.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2000, the Commission authorized the licensing of LPFM
stations,
and imposed minimum distance separation requirements for LPFM stations
consistent
with current FM protection standards with respect to existing commercial
and
noncommercial educational (“NCE”) FM stations, and FM translator and
booster stations
operating on the same and on the two immediately adjacent channels.
Based on studies
done by the Commission and the public, the Commission determined that
LPFM stations
would not cause unacceptable levels of interference to FM stations
operating on thirdadjacent
channels. Accordingly, the initial LPFM technical rules did not impose
thirdadjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements on LPFM stations. On
September 20, 2000, the Commission, on reconsideration, adopted
complaint and license
modification procedures to ensure that significant third-adjacent
channel interference
problems would be resolved expeditiously.2 On December 21, 2000,
President Clinton
signed the Act into law, requiring the Commission to impose
third-adjacent channel
minimum distance separation requirements on LPFM stations, and to
conduct
independent field tests and an experimental program to determine whether
the
elimination of third-adjacent channel protection requirements would
result in LPFM
stations causing harmful interference to existing FM stations operating
on third-adjacent
channels. On March 22, 2001, the Commission adopted an order imposing
third-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements on LPFM stations
consistent with the
third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation requirements
currently in effect for
1 D.C. Appropriations – FY 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-553, § 632, 114 Stat.
2762, 2762A-111 (2000).
2 See Creation of Low Power Radio Service, 15 FCC Rcd 19208 (2000).
2 full power commercial and NCE FM stations.3 In July 2001, the
Commission selected The Mitre Corporation ("Mitre") to conduct the
required LPFM field tests and experimental program, and to prepare a
report containing the analyses required by the Act.

II. THE MITRE STUDY AND REPORT

The scope of work for the LPFM field tests and experimental program
required by the Act and specified in the contract between the Commission
and Mitre required Mitre to:

• Perform market research for the field tests and experimental program

• Establish and manage the acquisition program for the field tests and
experimental program

• Design the test plans and obtain the information required by the Act

• Select and manage the field tests subcontractor

• Prepare a final report on the field tests and experimental program to
be submitted to Congress Due to budgetary constraints that became
apparent at the conclusion of Mitre’s market research, the required LPFM
field tests and experimental program were divided into two phases. In
Phase I, Mitre was required to take LPFM field strength
measurements and make high quality digital recordings, and to analyze
the effect of thirdadjacent
channel LPFM stations on the transition from analog to digital
terrestrial radio.  Phase II of the LPFM field tests and experimental
program would consist of audience listener tests based on the Phase I
digital recordings and an economic analysis of the effect of
third-adjacent channel LPFM stations on existing broadcasters.
Mitre completed Phase I of the LPFM field tests and experimental program
and
delivered its final report to the Commission on June 2, 2003. The
Commission accepted
the Mitre Report and issued a Public Notice on July 11, 2003, requesting
public comment
on the Mitre report.4 Originally, comments were due on September 12,
2003. However,
on August 8, 2003, two parties, National Public Radio ("NPR") and the
International
Association of Audio Information Services ("IAAIS"), jointly requested a
90-day
extension of time in which to prepare and submit comments.5 On August
29, 2003, the
Commission granted an extension of time until October 14, 2003, for
filing comments on
the Mitre report.6

3 See Creation of Low Power Radio Service, 16 FCC Rcd 8026 (2001).
4 Public Notice, Comment Sought on The Mitre Corporation’s Technical
Report, "Experimental
Measurements of the Third-Adjacent Channel Impacts of Low Power FM
Stations," DA 03-2277 (rel. July
11, 2003).

5 NPR/IAAIS Motion for Further Extension of Time (filed Aug. 8, 2003).
6 Order, DA 03-2767 (rel. Aug. 29, 2003) (MM Docket No. 99-25).
3
The Mitre Report contains the following conclusions/recommendations
concerning
LPFM stations and existing third-adjacent channel FM stations:

1. Reduction or elimination of existing third-adjacent channel LPFM
minimum distance separation requirements is possible without increasing
the potential for third-adjacent channel LPFM interference to existing
stations.  2. Adoption of a more stringent third-adjacent channel LPFM
emissions mask would mitigate LPFM interference potential because most
LPFM transmitters achieve spurious emission suppression in excess of the
current mask value.  3. Third-adjacent channel LPFM stations will have
little or no effect on the transition to terrestrial digital radio since
third-adjacent channel LPFM interference to digital receivers is
unlikely to occur beyond 130 meters from the LPFM transmitter.

4. Due to the lack of measurable interference produced by third-adjacent
channel LPFM stations during testing, the listener tests and economic
analysis scheduled for Phase II of the LPFM field tests and experimental
program should not be done.

III. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

Appendix A is a list of the twenty-four parties (including one untimely
filer) that submitted comments on the Mitre Report. Eighteen filers
support elimination or modification of the existing third-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirements for LPFM stations.
Three support retention of the existing third-adjacent channel minimum
distance separation requirements. Ten individuals who favor elimination
of the current third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements reported that their local LPFM station is suffering
co-channel interference that could be eliminated if the station could
change frequency to a third-adjacent channel.  They state that they
value highly this station’s local community-oriented programming.  One
supporter of the current distance separation restrictions contends that
the additional LPFM stations that could be authorized without
third-adjacent channel protections could have a negative cumulative
interference impact on the FM service. Three parties support retention
of the existing third-adjacent channel minimum distance separation
requirements with respect to existing full-power FM stations providing
Reading Services for the Visually Impaired (RSVI) on FM sub-carriers.
Four filers addressed the Mitre Report recommendation to modify the
third-adjacent channel emissions mask limits for LPFM stations. Two of
the four endorse and one opposes the Mitre proposal, and one maintains
that further study is required before a decision on the mask
modification can be made. No comments addressed the Mitre Report
assessment of the effect of thirdadjacent channel LPFM stations on the
transition to terrestrial digital radio.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Existing third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements
between LPFM stations and existing full-service FM stations and FM
translator and booster stations should be eliminated.

The Mitre Report states that, even in the worst case, no third-adjacent
channel interference between an LPFM station and an existing
full-service FM station will exist beyond a radius of 1.1 kilometers
around the LPFM transmitter site. The Commission’s technical studies
similarly showed that LPFM stations do not pose a significant risk of
causing interference to existing full-service FM stations or FM
translator and booster stations operating on third-adjacent channels. If
such interference were to occur, the Commission would address it on a
case-by-case basis using the third-adjacent channel LFPM interference
complaint and license modification procedures adopted in September
2000.7 Based on the Phase I testing results, the complaint and license
modification procedures should be sufficient to resolve any anomalous
cases of third-adjacent channel interference. Further, the Commission
specifically requires an LPFM station to meet the second-adjacent
channel minimum distance separation requirement with respect to an FM
station providing radio reading services via subcarrier that is
operating on a third-adjacent channel. Based on these reasons, there
appears to be no public interest reason to retain third-adjacent minimum
distance separation requirement for LPFM stations.8 Congress should
re-address this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the
third-adjacent channel distant separation requirements for LPFM
stations.

2. Congress should re-evaluate the necessity of completing Phase II
testing.

The results of Phase I testing call into question the necessity of
completing Phase II. In Phase I, the Mitre field tests found that no
100-watt LPFM station significantly degraded the reception of a
full-service station at any distance greater than 126 meters from the
LPFM transmitter. Also, with the exception of a single anomalous result,
no significant LPFM-related degradation to the reception of a
full-service station was identified at a distance greater than 333
meters from the LPFM transmitter, a test result based on over 1,400
measurements. Mitre concluded that the expenditure of public funds for
listener tests and economic analysis would be unwarranted based on the
de minimis potential for actual third-adjacent channel LPFM interference
to commercial and NCE FM stations.

We agree.
First, the Phase I testing showed a limited number of test points where
interference was detected. Spending additional money on listening tests
would not
appear to add any substantive information because there was no
significant interference

7 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.810 and § 73.827.
8 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.807(a)(2) and § 73.807(b)(2).

5 detected. Next, the Commission’s experience with licensing LPFM
stations shows there has not been a great demand for licenses in rural
areas. Thus, an adverse economic impact on small market stations may not
be realized. Additionally, even with modification of the third-adjacent
channel separations, there will not be many new LPFM opportunities in
most communities of any significant size. Further, nothing in the record
demonstrates that a limit on local radio competition is necessary to
protect incumbent broadcasters or that additional competition from
noncommercial educational LPFM stations would cause significant economic
harm to full-power broadcasters. Finally, the Commission estimates that
an additional $800,000 would be required to complete Phase II testing
and analysis. In light of these reasons, we recommend that Congress
re-assess the need for listening tests and economic analyses.

Attachments:
Appendix A: List of Commentors on Mitre Report
Mitre Technical Report, Experimental Measurements of the
Third-Adjacent-Channel Impacts of Low-Power FM Stations (Volumes One and
Two)

APPENDIX A
LIST OF COMMENTORS ON MITRE REPORT
1. Tim West
2. Gary W. Barnett
3. Fred E. and Ramona J. Morgan
4. Lois Crowe
5. Crystal McGarry
6. Fred Compton
7. David D. Petherbridge
8. John R. Smith
9. Will Satak
10. Richard Bennett
11. REC Networks
12. Stephen G. Toner
13. Richard M. Wolcott
14. Paul Pfnister
15. JT Communications
16. Kyle Magrill & Barry Magrill
17. National Public Radio, Inc.
18. National Association of Broadcasters
19. Livingston Radio Company
20. Cox Radio, Inc.
21. Prometheus Radio Project; Media Access Project, National Lawyers
Guild Committee on Democratic Communications; Office of Communication,
Inc., United Church of Christ; National Federation of Community
Broadcasters; Future of Music Coalition; and Free Press 22. Midwest
Christian Media, Inc. and Three Sisters Wireless, Inc.
23. The Amherst Alliance
24. International Association of Audio Information Services (Late
filing)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-244128A1.pdf
--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/