March 1999 Newsletter

News from the Offices of
MUNN-REESE, INC.
Broadcast Engineering Consultants 100 Airport Drive - PO Box 220 Coldwater, MI 49036-0220 Wayne S. Reese, President

Telephone: 517-278-7339

Internet: www.munn-reese.com

Fax: 517-278-6973

March 1999

Munn-Reese Matters

Perhaps you noticed that we did not send a February newsletter. No, we have not gone to a bi-monthly publishing schedule—at least not intentionally! February proved to be a busy month, so busy that our field service engineer, Ed Trombley, dragged our wacky editor, Thumbs Feebleman, out of the office to help tune a large AM directional system he has been helping a client construct. Thumbs kept complaining that the phasor knobs had a much different feel than his computer keyboard. However, Ed thought this exercise was so much fun, he’s threatening to drag Thumbs out again—by the "thumbs" if necessary!! For the present Thumbs has barricaded himself in his office and vows he won’t come out until he has the newsletter done for March!

In the January newsletter we had to explain why you may have had trouble contacting us by telephone. This month we need to explain why you may have had trouble contacting us by e-mail. (We hope the whole year doesn’t go this way!) Our local Internet Service Provider changed their e-mail software. One of the unexpected complications resulting from this change was the need to modify two of our e-mail addresses. Our president, Wayne Reese, had originally used <wayne.reese@munn-reese.com>. Some time ago we altered his account so that <wayne@munn-reese.com> would also work. Now only the latter address works. If your e-mail address book still contains the "wayne.reese" address, please delete the ".reese" portion. The other modification involved Ed Trombley’s e-mail address. Ed has been using <et&t@munn-reese.com>, but his address has now been shortened to <et@munn-reese.com>. In many cases his old address will still work, but we advise updating your e-mail address book. The one good thing to happen from all this is that we were able to add an e-mail address for Thumbs Feebleman. Your feedback regarding the newsletter is now welcome at <thumbs@munn-reese.com>. Who knows—if Ed isn’t holding Thumbs captive someplace, you might even get an answer!

About the time you receive this newsletter, our senior employee, Virgil Royer, will be celebrating his 70^th birthday! Virgil began working for our founder, Mr. Munn, at the local radio station in the early 1950’s. Gradually, he began to work for the consulting office as well, and eventually came to the office on a full-time basis. Although he’s officially retirement age, he continues to help us part-time. He is a valuable resource, friend, and teacher for all of us, and we greatly appreciate his many years of service. As we go to press, Virgil is out of the office doing battle with some of the all-too-prevalent "winter bugs" that have infiltrated our area. But if you would like to send a birthday card to the office, we will be happy to see that he gets it.

Commission Matters

The big news for radio people is the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Low Power FM stations. The Commission released MM Docket No. 99-25 on February 3, and set the closing date for comments on April 12. Reply comments will be due May 12. The NPRM proposes to establish at least two new classes of stations. The larger of these would be able to operate with a maximum effective radiated power (ERP) of 1,000 watts with the antenna placed at 60 meters height above average terrain (HAAT). These stations would be afforded primary protection status—meaning all other stations would have to protect such facilities when making changes in the future. These stations would have an average protected contour radius of about 14.2 km (8.8 miles). The second proposed class of stations would operate with no more than 100 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. The protected contour radius for these facilities would average 5.6 km (3.5 miles), and they would be protected on a secondary basis. This would mean other such stations and translators would be required to protect them, but full-service stations or the larger class of Low Power FM stations would not. The NPRM also asks for comments on establishing a third class of stations that would operate with an ERP of 1-10 watts at an HAAT of 30 meters. The Commission is proposing to protect other facilities by establishing minimum allowable distances between facilities.

The press releases announcing the NPRM for the Low Power FM (LPFM) proceeding is clear about some issues but vague about others. The proposal claims to afford protection to existing FM stations and asks for comments on any potential adverse effects from LPFM on future digital FM service, particularly if the digital system is In Band On Channel. However, the NPRM also proposes to eliminate 3^rd adjacent channel protections from the new LPFM stations to existing full-service stations and asks for comments on whether 2^nd adjacent channel protections should be required. The Commission seems uncertain whether the new stations should be supported by advertising or underwriting, whether they should be commercial or non-commercial, and whether the best potential LPFM licensees might be educational institutions. The Commission seems more certain about ownership guidelines for the new classes. Existing broadcasters would not be permitted to own or have any joint sales or marketing agreements with LPFM stations. An LPFM licensee would only be able to own one facility in a given community, and total ownership by a single licensee would probably have a national limit of 5 or 10 stations. Also, the Commission believes mutually exclusive applications will have to be settled by auction, however, it is asking for comments on other means to avoid and/or resolve mutually exclusive applications before they get to the auction stage.

The Commission believes the LPFM facilities "could provide a low-cost means of serving urban communities and neighborhoods, as well as populations living in smaller towns and communities." In fact, the FCC says it has received 13,000 inquiries about starting such facilities within the past year. However, not everyone shares the Commission’s enthusiasm for this project. Our office has received a copy of a very strongly worded letter from Representative W. J. "Billy" Tauzin to Chairman Kennard. The Congressman requests the FCC take no further action on this matter, and further requests Chairman Kennard’s appearance before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, which Congressman Tauzin chairs. This could get interesting!

In other matters, the Commission has adopted an Order addressing the issue of consumer reception of television network feeds on home satellite systems. Several of the satellite services had been offering network programming to their customers who claimed to be unable to receive an adequate off-air signal from local network affiliates. Following a court challenge and the resulting request from some direct-to-home satellite vendors, the Commission has made some revisions in the measurement methodology used to determine if an "adequate" signal is available. The new techniques will focus more on individual locations and less on the surrounding community. The Commission also approved a revised method of predicting signal strength at individual locations. The new model is called "Individual Location Longley-Rice" or "ILLR" for short. It establishes a standardized set of Longley-Rice parameters to be used in determining compliance with the Satellite Home Viewer Act.

Remember how the FCC issued a notice giving mutually exclusive TV translator and LPTV applicants a 90 day window in which to file minor amendments with engineering solutions to their conflicts? Remember how the Commission issued another one when that window came to an end? Well, they’ve done it again!! On February 26, the FCC announced yet another 90 window for the resolution of conflicts. Although the television spectrum in many parts of the country has become extremely crowded with the addition of the DTV allocations, our office has been able to find engineering solutions for a few clients. Such solutions are not available everywhere, but until the Commission actually comes up with a workable solution for mutually exclusive applications, it’s the "only game in town."

The "Parade to the Portals" continues. The temporary filing facility at the old FCC headquarters on 1919 M Street, N.W. has been closed. During the transition to the Portals II building the Secretary had been maintaining an office to accept paper filings at both locations. However, the increased workload of serving FCC staff at both locations was among the reasons cited for closing the office before all of the Commission’s offices had been moved. All hand delivered paper filings must now be made at the designated filing counter, TW-A325, in the 12^th Street Lobby of the Commission’s Portals II building located at 445 12^th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Those who plan to visit the Portals on a regular basis are being encouraged to obtain a "Frequent Visitor Pass." Having a pass will allow you to enter the building without having to stop and sign in at the Guard’s Desk. The pass provides access to all the public areas of the building, but even pass holders will have to call employees from the reception areas adjacent to the elevator on each floor and be escorted to an approved meeting area.

On February 8, the Commission issued announced that public access to its broadcast engineering files would be temporarily suspended while the Mass Media Bureau was moving to the Portals. During the transition period all access must be through the government’s duplicating contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS). Even though ITS can access the files, it cannot remove them from the Portals building, therefore, information requests should be as specific as possible. It was originally anticipated that public access would be resumed "on or about February 22." However, on March 1 the Commission announced the suspension of public access was being continued. The continuation is supposed to be temporary, and public notice is expected when public access is restored.

Commissioner Matters

As might be expected, the NPRM proposing Low Power FM stations produced statements from each of the Commissioners. The entire statements, as well as the text of the NPRM itself, are available on the Commission’s Internet site. Chairman William Kennard and Commissioner Gloria Tristani issued a joint statement supporting the proposal. "As consolidation in the broadcast industry closes the doors of opportunity for new entrants, we must find ways to use the broadcast spectrum more efficiently so that we can bring more voices to the airwaves. The Notice adopted today proposes several ways to do so." "As we consider the establishment of a low power radio service, we will be mindful of interference concerns. We will not undermine the technical integrity of the FM band. Our job is to be the guardian of the spectrum, not to degrade it." "However, we cannot deny opportunities to those who want to use the airwaves to speak to their communities simply because it might be inconvenient for those who already have these opportunities."

A statement of support was also issued by Commissioner Susan Ness, but she expressed concerns that the technical interference issues should be adequately assessed before establishing a low power FM service. "This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking describes three low power FM services that could provide a means to give a public voice to individuals and entities currently not able to participate in our broadcasting system. We are seeking comment on whether to authorize any or all of these new services. By doing so, we may enable students, community organizations, and those underrepresented in conventional broadcasting to provide programming of special interest to small and niche populations." "One of the primary reasons for the agency’s establishment was to avoid chaos on the airwaves. To me, there are three issues that will be in the forefront as we build a record: first, whether these services should be open only to noncommercial entities; second, whether and to what extent these services would adversely affect the potential transition of existing broadcasters from analog to digital through an "In Band On Channel" (IBOC) system; and third, whether the proposed services would create undue levels of interference to full power services." "Before I am to conclude that one or more new services are feasible, I must be satisfied that the technical issues have been adequately addressed."

A supporting statement was issued by Commissioner Michael Powell, in which he praised the goals of the NPRM but expressed concerns about the potential effect of the proposed services on existing stations at the present time and in the future. "…I want to make clear that I have some concerns about this proposal. I highlight two in particular and urge those who comment in this proceeding to focus on them. First, I urge the parties to develop a full objective record regarding potential interference problems that might result from creation of these new classes." "…I intend to consider interference questions very seriously before taking final action." "My second concern relates to the impact that creation of low power service may have on potential conversion to terrestrial digital radio service." "…I would be concerned if authorizing some or all of these low power radio services would make in band on channel conversion to digital radio unworkable for existing terrestrial services."

The lone dissenting statement was issued by Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth. Although the statement expresses a number of concerns about the proposal, we are limiting our excerpts to the matter of potential interference. "I am not opposed to the creation of a low power radio service. Whatever new service can be provided within the range of existing interference regulations would be something worth considering. I do not believe that we should create new stations at the expense of current interference protection standards, however. Were the NPRM limited to consideration of service based on the maintenance of the interference rules now set forth in our regulations, I could thus have supported its issuance." "But the NPRM is not so limited. As the appendix shows, under existing interference rules the Commission can authorize so few new stations that the results would hardly warrant the effort. In order to create any substantial amount of new service, protection standards have to be loosened so far as to eliminate third and even second adjacent channel safeguards. This is a severe incursion on the rights of current license holders, as well as on the value of their licenses, which will be drastically undercut in the market if these proposals are adopted. This proposal also potentially impairs the ability of current licensees to serve their listeners, who must not be forgotten; while new people may be able to broadcast, others may lose their ability to receive and listen to existing stations due to interference. It especially troubles me that the Commission has made no effort to assess, much less quantify, the effect on existing stations of eliminating these safeguards."

Miscellaneous Matters

A number of Pirates have "walked the plank" in recent weeks. Typically, the stations are found to be operating at several thousand times the power permitted for unlicensed operation. The Commission then builds a case against the illegal operation, and with the aid of the US Marshals Service, pays the facility a visit. The equipment is seized and the operator fined. Recent "visits" have taken place in: Oakland Park and Palm Beach Gardens, FL; Howell, MI; Bronx, NY; Greenwood, SC; Canyon Lake, TX; and Milwaukee, WI.

Meanwhile, a number of licensed stations have also been making "contributions" to the FCC. In addition to the usual assessments of television licensees for allowing too much commercial content in children’s programming, an AM station in Tennessee was recently fined $11,000. The forfeiture was assessed for failure to reduce power to nighttime levels at the required time, failure to produce a public inspection file for the FCC inspector, failure to have EAS equipment installed and operating, and failure to produce the required annual equipment performance measurements. An FM station in Indiana has also been fined $4,000 for operating with its antenna at a greater height than was authorized in its construction permit. The CP authorized a height of 25 meters, but the actual height was 53 meters. The station avoided an additional $7,000 fine because it said it reduced its ERP from the authorized 300 watts to 89 watts to compensate for the additional height.

The President has submitted the fiscal year 2000 budget to Congress. The budget for the FCC was set at $230,877,000 and 1,975 full-time equivalent employees. This represents a monetary increase of $38,887,000, but no increase in the number of employees. The public announcement of the FCC budget figure offered the following explanation for the increase: "The bulk of the increase in the funding level will cover mandatory increases in employees’ salaries and benefits, rent increases for the Portals, and inflationary increases to other contract services. The requested increase also includes funds to provide life cycle replacement, maintenance of electronic filing systems and productivity enhancements to the Commission’s information technology infrastructure. The remainder of the requested increase will be utilized to initiate repayment of the General Services Administration for the cost of relocating the FCC to the Portals."

Upcoming Matters

We continue to update the list of future FM allocations on our web site at <www.munn-reese.com>. Copies of our newsletters are also posted on the web site. Although applications for new commercial stations cannot be filed at the present time, existing stations can apply for "minor" changes. Applications can also be filed for new non-commercial educational FM stations, as well as petitions to amend the commercial Table of Allotments.

With the arrival of March, our thoughts begin to turn toward spring. However, we received a "reality check" in the form of a late winter storm that dropped significant amounts of snow, mixed with a bit of freezing rain and lots of wind. As we go to press, much of the snow is still with us although the main highways are all clear and dry. For now, spring will have to remain in our minds! Whatever the weather, we are continually thankful for the opportunity to serve as your technical consultant—and we really try to be more reliable than the weather!! We hope your spring is pleasant, once it actually arrives.

Updated E-Mail Addresses
Wayne Reese, President	wayne@munn-reese.com
Ed Trombley, Field Service Engineer	et@munn-reese.com
Don Baad, Staff Engineer	don@munn-reese.com
Thumbs Feebleman, Newsletter Editor	thumbs@munn-reese.com