2000/2001 LPFM data in the Window Tool
For historical purposes, REC has loaded the window result data from the original LPFM filing window opportunity from back in 2000 and 2001. For those who remember the 2013 LPFM Window, the 2000/2001 LPFM window was handled totally different.
Multiple filing windows
There was a lot of attention and awareness given to the period of time prior to the establishment of the LPFM service in the late 1990s since the enactment of the Telecom Act and the attention that was given on "big radio" getting bigger. The FCC took a bold move by creating the LPFM service, which included something very controversial and taboo at the time, creating a new radio service that would not have to protect stations on third adjacent channels. The FCC was expecting to get a ton of applications filed during this window. This was 2000, and the CDBS filing system was still fairly new. Broadcast applications at that time were starting to transition from paper to electronic filing. Many of the LPFM applications filed during these windows were on paper (by 2001, all applications were electronically filed).
In anticipation of the potential burden on staff from all of those paper applications as well as the Commission's anticipated growing pains with the new fangled electronic filing system, the FCC decided to conduct five filing windows where certain states and territories would be represented in each window.
Filing Window I was held May 30 through June 5, 2000 and included Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah.
Filing Window II was held August 28 through September 1, 2000 and included Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000
Through the deception of Congress by the National Association of Broadcasters and the overall paranoia of the National Public Radio leadership at the time, Congress passed the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000. The key part of the legislation was the imposition of third-adjacent channel protection requirements and the revocation of any construction permits or licenses issued prior to the legislation that did not meet those requirements. This legislation was signed by President Clinton on December 21, 2000.
Filing window III was held January 16 through January 22,2001 and included American Samoa, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Since the RPBA was enacted after when the FCC announced this window, the FCC did expect that applicants follow the third-adjacent channel protection requirements using the distance separations for second-adjacent channels.
On March 22, 2001, the FCC would adopt the Second Report and Order, which codified the RBPA mandates into the FCC Rules.
Because of the reduced opportunities available and the requirement for electronic filing of applications, the FCC combined filing windows IV and V into a single window on June 11 through 15, 2001, which included the remaining states and territories including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Guam, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. In this filing window, the new third-adjacent channel protection rules were in effect and applicants were required to afford those protections.
From August 28 through September 1, 2002, the FCC had a major change filing window to permit those who filed in Windows I & II to make remedial changes in order to make their applications compliant with the new legislation. On March 17, 2003, over 400 pending applications that were unable to find an alternate channel or location had their applications dismissed.
How this window series is handled in the REC Window Tool
After the dust settled from the scurry of filing windows and legislation, the FCC decided to process applications as if only two filing windows took place. The FCC would combine filing windows I, II and III for processing purposes and have the fourth window (which included the states in Groups IV and V) be a separate window. Therefore, there was a list of mutually exclusive (MX) applications released for the combined Group I/II/III windows and a separate list (with its own numbering system) released for the combined Group IV/V window.
Because of this, the REC systems treat Groups I/II/III and Groups IV/V as separate "windows" in our system. This means that if you wish to view the other window's data, you will have to use the "Change Window" option and select the window you want to view.
Unlike in the 2013 LPFM and 2021 NCE windows, REC Networks did not keep "notes" or tracked the MX Groups. Instead, we imported all of the 2000/2001 LPFM applications into our system and used the score claims on those applications based on CDBS raw data. Then, using the various FCC release documents and CDBS public notice comments, were able to identify MX groups, adjust total points and determine the winners of MX groups.
It is important to remember that the data in this tool is based on the original applications filed in 2000 and 2001 and their subsequent amendments. This means that the original names of applicants are used as well as their original technical facilities. Many applications shown as "granted" in this window would subsequently be cancelled.
We did our best to include notes where appropriate and in many cases, we were able to extract the public notice comments from CDBS, which you will see in the individual station comments.
Dismissal reasons for applications are shown where information is available such as if the applicant requested a dismissal or if the application was dismissed in connection with a settlement agreement. We have also identified the applications that were dismissed on March 17, 2003 as a result of the RBPA. We were not able to get much detail on dismissal reasons because CDBS would not start publishing staff letters to applicants until around 2007. Therefore, in many cases, even though the dismissal reason shows "No reason given - No FCC letter", it is very likely the applicant did receive a letter, but since CDBS did not publish these import letters back in the early 2000s, we were unable to view them.
Currently, in the 2000/2001 window data, we are not supporting the functionality to "link" conflicting applications together or to represent applicants on the MX maps. We may add that in the future.
Also, keep in mind, the older applications, especially those that were originally filed on paper, may not have all of the technical information (such as HAAT) available. This is just the general nature of the CDBS raw data from that time. We have done our best to restore the data that still exists.
We hope you enjoy this tool as a monument to the history of the LPFM service.
How the FCC handled MX applications in the 2000/2001 LPFM Windows
The rules for LPFM were different at the time. The point system was a lot less granular than the 2013 Window was. Back at that time, there were only three possible points available:
- Established local applicant - headquarters or 75% of board within 10 miles of transmitter, regardless of market size (1 point).
- Minimum operating hours - applicant pledges to operate at least 12 hours per day (1 point).
- Local origination pledge - applicant pledges to carry 8 hours a day of local programming (1 point).
The 2000/2001 Window Series did not have any main studio provisions, so main studio addresses were not entered on applications.
In the event of a tie, the FCC allowed equally qualified applicants to reach time share agreements. Applicants who proposed time sharing could aggregate their points and win the group. If there were no settlements, the FCC imposed "successive" license terms, in what would become one of the FCC's biggest regulatory mistakes, ever. Under "successive" license terms, the 8 year license would be "split" based on the number of winning groups (for example, if there were two winners, the license would be split into two 4-year licenses). Both applicants would get a granted construction permit, the first applicant to complete construction would be granted program test authority and the remaining applicant(s) would have to wait (up to 4 years) for their turn. Also, the licenses were non-renewable. Very few applicants that were granted in this manner actually constructed and eventually, they would find themselves with unlimited operation because the other granted applicants would throw in the towel.
