New LPFM hope as Waxman replaces Dingell

Last week House of Representative Democrats voted 137-122 to replace John Dingell (D-MI 15th District) with Henry Waxman (D-CA 30th District, pictured at right) as the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell, the longest-serving member of the U.S. House, was considered by many progressive Democrats as standing in the way of key legislation, most notably auto industry reform. The Commerce Committee also oversees the telecommunications industry, and Dingell had stalled the Local Community Radio Act of 2007, which would have created thousands of new Low-Power FM stations around the country. Dingell was not one of the 99 co-sponsors in the House, and had kept the bill stuck in Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Maybe that's because Dingell regularly takes large contributions from LPFM's biggest enemy -- the National Association of Broadcasters. Waxman, on the other hand, did co-sponsor the LPFM bill, and back in 2000, was the main opposition to the limits on the first LPFM bill Congress passed, while Dingell believed the since-disproved fake CD of alleged LPFM interference the NAB produced. Waxman's appointment as chair doesn't guarantee anything, but his past record indicates he is an LPFM supporter.

NAB responds to FCC LPFM announcement

From Friday Morning Quarteback:

The National Association of Broadcasters has responded to the FCC's announcement of a number of rules and policies relating to Low Power FM (LPFM), which took place late Tuesday. NAB EVP Dennis Wharton said in a statement, "We look forward to reviewing the final text of the Commission's action, which will provide broadcasters with a better understanding of the rules going forward. However, in general, NAB is pleased the Commission clarified that LPFM stations must indeed be locally-owned with locally-originated programming, and limits ownership to one station per licensee."

In reference to the FCC considering giving LPFM stations "enhanced stature," Wharton said, "We share the concerns expressed by Commissioners Tate and McDowell about the Commission's decision to adopt interim processing guidelines without full notice and opportunity for comment, but we look forward to working with the Commission to find a solution that works for all."

And speaking about the recommendation by the FCC to Congress to eliminate third adjacent channel protections, Wharton said, "Though this is a recommendation identical to one made several years ago by the FCC, NAB continues to believe that statutory third-adjacent channel protections are critically important to protect listeners against interference. The idea that hundreds, if not thousands, of
additional LPFM stations can be shoe-horned into an overcrowded radio dial without causing considerable interference simply defies the laws of physics."

Of course, that last quote is ridiculous. When LPFM was first approved, the NAB made a fake CD for Congress of what they said that interference would sound like if LPFM stations were allowed on third-adjacent frequencies. Congress bought their nonsense, but mandated a study to see if the interference existed. The eventual MITRE study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that tiny LPFM stations would not interfere with giant full-power stations (but you didn't need a study to figure that out, did you?). The third part of the MITRE study was to find out the cost of this suppossed interference. They said, in effect, we can't study the cost of nothing, because we have found no interference. "Our principal finding is that LPFM stations can safely operate three channels away from existing FPFM [full-power] stations," the MITRE study said.
--Tom Roe

National Association of Broadcasters knifes NPR and PBS at the United Nations anti-podcasting treaty negotiation

From Cory Doctorow in Boing Boing:

The National Association of Broadcasters of America has broken its own by-laws and trampled the position of NPR and PBS, endorsing a controversial policy at the United Nations.

This week, the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization is holding a critical debate on the "Broadcast Treaty." This treaty would establish a new copyright-like right, but whereas copyright goes to people who make creative works, Broadcast Rights go to companies that broadcast other people's copyrighted works. The Broadcast Right isn't subject to the same fair use limits as copyright, which means that even if copyright lets you record a broadcast for criticism or parody, you will need to separately get an exemption under the Broadcast Right. More gravely, if means that if you license your work under Creative Commons, the people who distribute the files or air the program can overrule your generosity and insist that your fans not copy your work.

This treaty threatens the Internet as we know it. Novel services like YouTube and novel practice like podcasting would not exist today if this treaty was already implemented.

The General Assembly of WIPO has ordered Jukka Liedes, the chairman of the relevant committee to cut this out, instructing him to oversee a much narrower treaty that will block "theft of signals" (hacking free cable or satellite), while leaving all this other business off. The chairman has gone rogue, ignoring the direction of the Assembly and producing a draft that's even worse than the previous draft.

The Chairman isn't the only one who's gone rogue, though: the National Association of Broadcasters of America has been lobbying hard all week for the treaty. One problem: PBS and NPR -- members of NABA -- oppose the treaty and have not authorized the association to lobby for this measure.

"National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service do not support a Diplomatic Conference to adopt a treaty based on the April 20, 2007 non-paper because they do not believe the treaty provides adequate protection for the fair use of broadcast and cablecast matter for newsgathering and other purposes. Bell ExpressVu does not support a Diplomatic Conference because it believes the proposed exclusive retransmission right exceeds what is necessary to prevent signal piracy or protect investment and does not contain a reservation that would permit a signatory to limit or not apply the application of the retransmission right."