On January 27, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission issued rules for the creation of a low-power FM broadcasting service. The FCC's goal in creating this service was "to create a class of radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or underrepresented groups within communities." Another goal expressed by the FCC was to "specifically include the voices of community based schools, churches and civic organizations." I believe that this creates an exciting opportunity for SeAM, perhaps in conjunction with other groups, to serve a group which is currently underrepresented in Twin Cities broadcasting-the Southeast Asian Community.

While there is a large Southeast Asian population in the Twin Cities, there is currently very little programming serving this community. (I would like to quantify both the populations and the existing amount of programming, but was unable to secure those figures prior to Friday’s meeting.)

Since many Asian cultures have a strong tradition of presenting information orally, the possibility of establishing a radio station to serve this community presents an exciting opportunity to those, such as SeAM, who are interested in reaching out to this large community.

The licenses available will be for 100-watt FM stations. (I believe this is the power level currently used by community radio stations KFAI and KMOJ.) This would provide a high-quality signal within a radius of approximately 3.5 miles from the transmitter site. I believe that Christ Lutheran Church would provide an excellent transmitter site. The following map shows a 3.5 mile radius from this site. I think we have a huge underserved audience within this circle.

Within several weeks, the FCC will give 30-days notice of the filing window for applications. Applications will only be accepted within a five-day filing window. Since it is expected that numerous applications will be filed for each available channel, it is necessary to begin planning immediately if we decide to do this.

Since we must assume that there will be competition for open channels, it is important to keep in mind the criteria employed by the FCC to decide between conflicting applications. The specific criteria to be employed are:

1) established community presence;
2) proposed operating hours; and
3) local program origination.

I believe that the first factor, as well as the general policies quoted above, weigh in SeAM's favor for establishing this type of service.

It is anticipated that the FCC will have multiple requests, some perhaps of dubious value, but probably many meritorious. In addition, as discussed further below, it is likely that existing broadcasters might intervene in the proceedings. For that reason, I believe that it will be important for SeAM's application to stand out as being clearly superior. And we can do so by anticipating the process before us and tailoring our application not only to the process, but toward the goal of establishing a high-quality broadcasting service.

As a starting point in anticipating the application process, it would be important to establish the second and third criteria above: We should aim at full-time operation, and at having significant locally produced programming.

But in addition to these factors spelled out in the FCC’s Report and Order, we should also keep in mind other factors which have traditionally been considered in broadcast applications. These include the overall technical quality of the operation, and most importantly, having financial commitments in place to guarantee that that the licensee can go on the air in a timely manner and stay there.

I believe that we can prepare an application that will stand out and be granted. But we can only do so by deliberately considering the competition, and by anticipating objections. To understand the process that lies ahead, it is necessary to consider the events leading up to the FCC’s recent actions.

There has been a great deal of interest in the FCC's proposal to adopt a low-power broadcasting service. Much of that interest was generated by persons aligned with "underground" or "pirate" broadcasters. Any many of those persons favored the creation of a broadcasting service with little or no regulatory oversight. Understandably, commercial broadcasters were terrified by the prospect of anarchy on the airwaves, and opposed the proposal.

Many of the proponents of low-power broadcasting will undoubtedly be sorely disappointed by the FCC's actions. For while this new service has been created, the FCC did not abandon its oversight role. I anticipate that the only licenses to be awarded will be to stations that meet the same or nearly the same requirements that have been imposed upon traditional broadcasters.

I personally think that this is a good thing. The low-power service originally envisioned by many could have easily turned into a cacophony of poor-quality signals carrying poor-quality programming. The rules as adopted, while they open up a few new frequencies, do not necessarily abandon the technical, programming, financial, and character requirements imposed upon FCC licensees.

The FCC has not yet published the application forms. Therefore, it is not yet known to what extent the application will inquire into those matters. But even if the application form is less rigorous than the current application for a commercial license, I strongly advise that we operate on the assumption that those same requirements will ultimately be imposed upon us.

I envision the licensing process to proceed along something like the following lines: Several applications will be filed for every available frequency. The majority of those applications will have been submitted as something of a whim, will be facially fail to meet some requirement, and will be dismissed early in the process. There will still be, however, multiple mutually exclusive valid applications for each available frequency, and the license will be granted to the prevailing party in a contested hearing. Given the concerns (most of them legitimate) expressed by commercial broadcasters, we should also expect that a commercial broadcaster might intervene and be a party to the hearing. These could include twin city broadcasters on a third-adjacent channel (frequencies adjacent or second-adjacent to local broadcasters will not be available) or broadcasters using the same channel in an outlying area.

To prevail at the competitive hearing, we need to do two things. First, we need to show that the service we propose is superior to that of other applicants. And second, we need to show that our station will be engineered in such a matter as to counter any legitimate concerns of current broadcasters.

And even if some requirements are not explicit in the rules for the low-power service, it is safe to assume that in deciding the issues in a contested proceeding, the FCC will apply the same general principles that it has applied in contested broadcasting proceedings in the past. In other words, we should submit an application that would meet the rigorous standards imposed upon current broadcast licensees, even if those standards are not explicit in the low-power rules.

When we prepare the application, we need to be mindful that the application will be considered in the context of a contested hearing. Our application must be the best.

In order to do so, we need to take a deliberate look at how our service will exceed the service proposed by competing applications. We are starting out in a position of advantage, in that we are offering a service to a presently underserved community. But we can add to that advantage. In addition, I believe that now is the time to set before us some guiding principles to achieve excellence. Here is a non-exclusive list of some of the principles that I believe are important as we plan:

Financial Ability Issues

Typically, the FCC will not issue a broadcast license unless the prospective licensee can establish its financial ability to build the station and keep it on the air. We should be prepared to show that we have adequate funding for capital costs as well as first-year operating expenses. A very preliminary budget is included at the end of this document. While many of these figures are still just rough estimates, I believe the overall budget is essentially accurate, and shows total capital costs of approximately $30,000, and total first-year operating expenses of approximately $80,000 (approximately $25,000 of which is currently expended as existing overhead).

It will be important to demonstrate that we have firm financial commitments to finance these amounts. It is anticipated that, once licensed, a service such as this could obtain funding. However, it is likely that because of the short time frame, firm commitments from the ultimate funders cannot be procured in time to include with the application. For this reason, we should consider the possibility of finding contingent backers, who would be willing to commit to covering all or part of the start-up costs.

Programming Issues

We should also demonstrate that we offer programming that is superior to other applicants, and that fully complies with FCC policies. In particular, we need to make sure that our proposed programming comes within the rather fluid FCC definition of "noncommercial educational" programming. Work should begin as soon as possible in assessing programming needs. A programming proposal should be in line with the following non-exclusive principles:

1. Prior to making decisions as to programming, we should identify community needs.

2. We should create programming designed to meet those needs.

3. We should be mindful of the FCC's definition of "non-commercial educational" programming, as our programming must comply with that definition.

4. Our programming should inform, educate, entertain, and inspire listeners.

5. We must create programming that people will actually want to listen to.

6. The majority of our programming should be locally produced.

7. We should plan for full-time (hopefully 24-hour) operation, and consider programming produced by others to fill part of the schedule.

8. Significant management should be in the hands of members of the Asian communities we plan to serve.

9. We should be prepared to explore time-sharing arrangements with meritorious competing applications.

10. We should be mindful of any other programming factors that are traditionally favorable in contested broadcast licensing hearings.

In addition to these concerns surrounding our programming, we should be committed to good engineering, not only because our getting a license depends upon it, but also because it will ensure that we deliver a high-quality service to our listeners. Here is a list of some of the principles that I believe should guide our engineering:

1. The application should be over-engineered. In other words, even if the FCC's application calls for no engineering data or minimal engineering data, we should be prepared to present the same type of data that is required of commercial broadcasters.

2. We should meet or exceed all technical requirements.

3. Our application should be designed to cause the least possible interference to local broadcasters and any outlying broadcasters. If any current broadcaster intervenes in the application process, we can gain an ally if, at least, our application represents a lesser evil than some competing application.

4. We should have facilities to produce programs with excellent production values.

5. We should offer a signal that is, to the listener, indistinguishable from a "real" radio station. For example, we should broadcast in stereo full-time, since that is the norm.

6. We should plan for any features that might be desirable in the future. For example, it might be desirable in the future to have available a subcarrier which can be leased to some other party. We should plan to be able to add any such features.

7. We should be mindful of other engineering factors that are traditionally favorable in contested broadcast licensing hearings. For example, provisions for back-up power in case of a power outage add a small advantage.

The time for filing an application will soon be upon us. Within the next several weeks, we will need to decide whether we can and should do this. And if we decide to do it, we will need to put together a credible plan for accomplishing our goals over a very short time. I propose appointing committees or individuals to start this planning in the following distinct areas. There is some overlap, but I believe breaking down this work into four parts would be the most efficient: 1. Financial; 2. Community Needs and Programming; and 3. Engineering and Regulatory.

Proposed Budget

As discussed above, prior to applying for a license, we should be able to make assurances that we are in a financial position to pay start-up costs and initial operating expenses. In order to do so, we obviously need to start considering how much this will cost.

The following budget is obviously very preliminary, and many figures are, at this point, "thin-air" numbers. But I hope the following can be a starting point, and will give us some idea as to the magnitude of this project. At the end, I've included my reasoning for most of these numbers.

Start-up Capital Expenditures:

Studio Equipment (See note 1) $10,682

Studio Construction Costs 5,000

Transmitter (see note 2) 6,150

Antenna (see note 3) 1,000

Antenna supporting structure, feed line, etc. 2,000

Facilities for reception of non-local programming 2,000

(see note 4)

Emergency Alert System decoder 700

Licensing expenses (see note 5) 2,000

Total start-up capital required: $29,532

Annual Operating Budget:

Salaries (see note 6) 40,000

Electric costs (see note 7) 300

Digital phone line or cable modem connection 1,200

Voice Telephone Line 1,000

Music licensing (see note 8) 500

Cost of outside programming (see note 9) 10,000

Studio and Office Space (see note 10) 5,000

Administrative overhead (see note 10) 20,000

Total 78,000

Notes:

While we definitely want to have high-quality equipment in the studio, this is probably one area where we could save a substantial amount of money and achieve the same quality with used equipment and home-made equipment.

Gentner SPH-10 Telephone Hybrid 499

The figure shown for construction costs is probably high, but obviously the operation of a radio station requires at least one relatively soundproof room. In addition to a fairly high-quality broadcast studio, life will be much simpler if we also plan on having at least a rudimentary production studio as well.

Note 2: This is the list price of a suitable transmitter from Bradley Broadcast (Crown 62CRFM100T). It is quite likely that the final expenditure would be less, but I would not expect it to be considerably less. Since the transmitter must be FCC type-accepted, because it does need to adhere to rather rigid technical specifications, and because a broadcast transmitter is not exactly a mass-produced commodity, I don't think we can expect to pay considerably less than this.

Note 3: The figure for the antenna and related structure is a very rough estimate. I was unable to find any pricing information on antennas. Also, final selection of an antenna cannot be made until the application stage. I do not believe that the antenna requires type acceptance, so it might be possible to fabricate it for less. On the other hand, use of a manufactured antenna would allow us to rely on the manufacturer's specifications in the application, which would probably be an advantage in the application process.

Note 4: This is an area I haven't explored much yet. But since we do want to strive for 24-hour programming, we will probably need to obtain some programming from non-local sources. I suspect this is one area where costs will be considerably lower than they would have been in previous years, since much of this content can be delivered via the internet through a cable modem or digital telephone line. Therefore, this area can probably be realized with a personal computer with a high-quality sound card.

Note 5: We should operate on the assumption that the application will be contested. While most legal and engineering services can be obtained from volunteers, some outside consulting might be required, and there will undoubtedly be some expense involved. I believe this is a reasonable amount to budget.

Note 6: Presumably, much of the on-air talent will be volunteers. However, to produce a consistent high-quality product, employing a general manager at least part-time will probably be advisable.

Note 7: 24-hour operation of a 100 watt transmitter and related equipment will not increase electric bills by a large amount, but there will be a measurable increase.

Note 8: This estimate is based upon ASCAP's blanket rate for the smallest commercial broadcasting station. Actual expense would probably be less for a non-commercial station.

Note 9: This is a number I essentially pulled out of thin air. Again, however, since a licensing preference is granted for hours of operation, the use of outside programming, even though most programming should be locally produced, is of critical importance.

Note 10: Even though many administrative costs would be non-incremental, because this would be such a large portion of SeAM's overall budget, I believe it would be appropriate to allocate some portion of general administrative overhead in this budget.