Some groups backing low-power FM have concerns that an FCC rulemaking notice...

in certain markets. “We are concerned that a ‘market based’ approach would be unfair to markets that have a large amount of land mass as those areas could be taken into consideration as having LPFM availability while continuing to disadvantage the metropolitan areas,” REC Networks founder Michi Eyre wrote on the group’s website. Using “population coverage instead of county/market boundaries would better fairly distribute frequencies for LPFM while continuing to make them available for translators,” she wrote. Some members of the Amherst Alliance, which itself is “neutral” on the commission’s proposed market-by-market approach, see that tack as a “bird in the hand” to LPFM but one that offers them “less security” because translator applications will be processed first, President Don Schellhardt told us. “Now that the option of processing LPFMs before translators seems to be clearly ‘off the table’ at the FCC, the option of supporting a ’super window'” for both types of stations to have their license requests considered “may become more attractive” to some at Amherst, he said. Common Frequency said the rulemaking addresses its concerns that licensing all translator requests the agency received in 2003 would leave little room for new LPFM stations in urban areas. The nonprofit said the approach the commission proposes “will lead to the proliferation of LPFM service in cities nationwide.” The rulemaking is at http://xrl.us/bkzwvn.