posted 10-26-2002 14:50
helllo everyone
A copy of the Motion For Rehearing is ATTACHED. However, you can also
see
it posted on the FCC's Web Site, on the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) document file for 99-325.
-----------------------------------
DON SCHELLHARDT
Government Relations & Family Law Attorney
45 Bracewood Road
Waterbury, Connecticut 06706
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
(203) 757-1790
October 25, 2002
Federal Communications Commission
C/o Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
The Portals -- 445 12th Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20554
RE: Motion For Rehearing, By THE AMHERST ALLIANCE And 33 Others,
Of The Commission’s Selection Of In Band On Channel (IBOC) Technology
For Radio Digitalization -- In FCC Docket MM 99-325
Dear Commissioners and Commission Staff:
On behalf of THE AMHERST ALLIANCE and 33 other parties, I hereby submit this Motion For Rehearing of the Commission’s October 11, 2002 Report & Order in Docket MM 99-325. In this Report & Order, the Commission has selected In Band On Channel (IBOC) technology as the only technology which may be used for Radio Digitalization.
We acknowledge the FCC’s announcement of a future rulemaking, designed to resolve the many details of IBOC implementation. However, this Motion For Rehearing appears to be our final non-judicial opportunity to challenge the selection of IBOC itself.
The 34 parties to this Motion For Rehearing are as follows:
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, Connecticut
VIRGINIA CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC PRESS (VCPP), Virginia
CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/ALLSTON-BRIGHTON FREE RADIO, Massachusetts
WILW, Connecticut
AURICLE COMMUNICATIONS (Licensee of WFMU and WXHD), New Jersey
KOL AMI HAVURAH (Licensee of WVJW-LP), West Virginia
SPRYEX COMMUNICATION, Ohio
JAMRAG MAGAZINE AND GREENHOUSE NEWS, Michigan
BEATRADIO, Minnesota
KPIB-LP, Texas
CHALK HILL EDUCATIONAL MEDIA, Texas
REC NETWORKS, Arizona
ROGUE COMMUNICATION, Washington State
JAMES JASON WENTWORTH, Alaska
MATTHEW HAYES, Oregon
FCC Docket MM 99-325
AMHERST ALLIANCE, VCPP Et Al.
Transmission of Petition For Reconsideration
October 25, 2002
JOHN DAVIDSON, California
ROD SEGO, Utah
KYLE DRAKE, Minnesota
JOHN ANDERSON, Wisconsin
WILLIAM G. HEBBERT, Wisconsin
JOHNATHAN GRANT, Indiana
ERICH LOEPKE, Texas
ROBERT CHANEY, Louisiana
STEPHEN C. BRINGHURST, Alabama
NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT, N3NL, Virginia
JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM H. BEYRER, Pennsylvania
W. REECE NEWTON, Pennsylvania
RICHARD H. SHIVERS, KB3FGJ, Pennsylvania
MIKE ERICKSON, New York
GERALD JOHN MEHRAB, WA2FNQ, New York
KEVIN JOHNSTON, New York
WESLE ANNEMARIE DYMOKE, Rhode Island
JACK FLANAGAN, Massachusetts
This Motion For Rehearing is being filed electronically, via the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at www.fcc.gov. In addition, a signed original and 11 hard copies are being sent to the Commission’s Capitol Heights facility.
Sincerely,
Don Schellhardt
Attorney For THE AMHERST ALLIANCE,
Acting On Behalf Of All Parties To This Motion
45 Bracewood Road
Waterbury, Connecticut 06706
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
(203) 757-1790
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems )
And Their Impact On Terrestrial ) FCC Docket MM 99-325
Radio Broadcast Service )
MOTION FOR REHEARING BY:
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, VIRGINIA CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC PRESS, CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/ALLSTON-BRIGHTON
FREE RADIO, WILW, KOL AMI HAVURAH (Licensee of WVJW-LP),
JAMRAG MAGAZINE AND GREENHOUSE NEWS, BEATRADIO,
REC NETWORKS, AURICLE COMMUNICATIONS (Licensee of WFMU and WXHD), ROGUE COMMUNICATION, SPRYEX COMMUNICATION, KPIB-LP, CHALK HILL EDUCATIONAL MEDIA,
MATTHEW HAYES, JOHN ANDERSON, NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT, JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN, WESLE ANNEMARIE DYMOKE,
JAMES JASON WENTWORTH, WILLIAM G. HEBBERT,
JOHN DAVIDSON, ROD SEGO, JOHNATHAN GRANT, KYLE DRAKE, ERICH LOEPKE, STEPHEN C. BRINGHURST, ROBERT CHANEY, WILLIAM H. BEYRER, W. REECE NEWTON, RICHARD H. SHIVERS, MIKE ERICKSON, GERALD JOHN MEHRAB, KEVIN JOHNSTON AND JACK FLANAGAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Identification of the Parties
To This Motion For Rehearing 2
-ii-
SUBSTANTIVE PORTIONS
OF THE MOTION FOR REHEARING
A. THE COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 11, 2002
DECISION TO APPROVE IBOC RADIO
DIGITALIZATION IS PROCEDURALLY
PREMATURE 6
1. The Commission Has Acted While A
July 18, 2002 Multi-Party Request
For Preparation Of An Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Is Still Pending 9
2. The Commission Has Acted While An
April 17, 2002 Multi-Party Petition For
Rulemaking, Which Seeks Comparative
Testing And Evaluation Of IBOC And
Competing Radio Digitalization
Technologies, Is Still Pending 11
3. The Commission Has Acted While An
October 25, 2001 Petition For Rulemaking
On Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Is
Still Pending 12
4. The Commission Has Acted While A
Commission-Proposed Rulemaking On
“Blanketing Interference” With Electronic
Equipment (Docket 96-62) Is Still Pending 13
-iii-
B. THE COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 11, 2002
DECISION IS BASED ON THE
“ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS”
APPLICATION OF CRITERIA 14
1. The Commission Sought Public
Comments On The National
Audubon Society’s December
19, 1998 Request For Preparation
Of An EIS On TV Digitalization,
While Failing To Solicit Public
Comments On The July 18, 2002
Multi-Party Request For An EIS
On IBOC Radio Digitalization 15
2. The Commission Has Severely
Restricted Low Power Radio
Licensing In Order To Minimize
Alleged Interference With Larger
Radio Stations, But The
Commission Did Not Restrict
IBOC Digitalization In Order To
Minimize Fully Acknowledged
Interference With Smaller Radio
Stations 16
C. iBIQUITY DIGITAL CORPORATION
HAS MIS-IDENTIFIED PARTIES TO
THE JULY 18, 2002 REQUEST FOR
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) 16
-iv-
F. CONCLUSION 19
Signatory Pages 20
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems )
And Their Impact On Terrestrial ) FCC Docket MM 99-325
Radio Broadcast Service )
_______________________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR REHEARING BY:
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, VIRGINIA CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC PRESS, CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/ALLSTON-BRIGHTON
FREE RADIO, WILW, KOL AMI HAVURAH,
JAMRAG MAGAZINE AND GREENHOUSE NEWS, BEATRADIO,
REC NETWORKS, ROGUE COMMUNICATION, AURICLE COMMUNICATIONS (Licensee of WFMU and WXHD), SPRYEX COMMUNICATIONS, KIBP-LP, CHALK HILL EDUCATIONAL MEDIA,
MATTHEW HAYES, JOHN ANDERSON, NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT,
JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN, WESLE ANNEMARIE DYMOKE,
JAMES JASON WENTWORTH, WILLIAM G. HEBBERT,
JOHN DAVIDSON, JOHNATHAN GRANT, ROD SEGO,
KYLE DRAKE, ERICH LOEPKE, STEPHEN C. BRINGHURST,
ROBERT CHANEY, WILLIAM H. BEYRER, W. REECE NEWTON, RICHARD H. SHIVERS, MIKE ERICKSON, GERALD JOHN MEHRAB, KEVIN JOHNSTON AND JACK FLANAGAN
We are a coalition of 13 organizations and 21 individuals.
We are united in urging the FCC to reconsider its decision to
select In Band On Channel (IBOC) technology for Radio
Digitalization. This decision was made in an October 11, 2002
Report & Order in FCC Docket MM 99-325.
-2-
Identification of the Parties To
This Motion For Rehearing
The 34 parties to this Motion For Hearing can be
classified into one of 4 sub-categories. In the case of each
sub-category, organizations and other institutions are listed first,
followed by individuals.
1. The following 9 parties to this Motion For Rehearing
are also parties to both the July 18, 2002 Request For
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the
April 17, 2002 Petition For Rulemaking (currently placed in
PRM02MB) on comparative evaluation of IBOC and other
Digitalization technologies:
THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, Waterbury, Connecticut
A Net-based, nationwide citizens’ advocacy group for media diversity
VIRGINIA CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC PRESS (VCPP), Richmond, Virginia
An information and advocacy center for media diversity,
whose Secretary is seeking a Low Power FM license for WRFR
-3-
CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/ALLSTON-BRIGHTON FREE RADIO,
Boston, Massachusetts
A Part 15 radio broadcaster
REC NETWORKS, Tempe, Arizona
An information and advocacy center for media diversity
and an aspiring Low Power FM broadcaster
ROGUE COMMUNICATION, Lake Forest Park, Washington
An information and advocacy center, and consulting firm,
on mass communications and media diversity
JAMRAG MAGAZINE AND GREEN HOUSE NEWS, Ferndale, Michigan
A magazine covering the music scene in metropolitan Detroit and
the official publication of the Green Party of Michigan
MATTHEW HAYES, Portland, Oregon
An aspiring Low Power FM broadcaster
NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT, N3NL, Reston, Virginia
A concerned citizen, Amateur Radio Service operator and author or co-author of several Petitions For Rulemaking to the FCC (including RM-9208, which triggered the FCC deliberations that ultimately led to the new Low Power Radio Service)
JOHN ANDERSON, Madison, Wisconsin
An established journalist on “mainstream” radio and
an Internet broadcaster
2. The following 2 parties to this Motion For Rehearing
are also parties to the July 18, 2002 Request for an EIS:
-4-
BEATRADIO, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Internet broadcaster and aspiring Low Power FM broadcaster
JOHN ROBERT BENJAMIN, Marienville, Pennsylvania
An aspiring Low Power FM broadcaster
3. The following 3 parties to this Motion For Rehearing
are also parties to the April 17, 2002 Petition For Rulemaking on
comparative evaluation of IBOC and other Digitalization
technologies:
KOL AMI HAVURAH, Benwood, West Virginia
Licensee of WVJW-LP,
a Low Power FM broadcaster
WILW, West Hartford, Connecticut
A Part 15 radio broadcaster,
owned by an expert on Low Power AM technology
WESLE ANNEMARIE DYMOKE, Providence, Rhode Island
Co-founder of PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY RADIO,
an aspiring Low Power FM broadcaster,
and former National Coordinator of THE AMHERST ALLIANCE
4. 20 parties to this Motion For Rehearing are not
parties to either the July 18, 2002 Request for an EIS or
the April 17, 2002 Petition For Rulemaking.
-5-
Nevertheless, they are asserting their rights and interests
at this time:
JAMES JASON WENTWORTH, Fairbanks, Alaska
Aspiring Part 15 broadcaster
JOHN DAVIDSON, La Jolla, California
Concerned citizen
ROD SEGO, Provo, Utah
Concerned citizen
KYLE DRAKE, Plymouth, Minnesota
Radio engineer and concerned citizen
WILLIAM G. HEBBERT, Bayside, Wisconsin
Concerned citizen
JOHNATHAN GRANT, Kokomo, Indiana
Aspiring Low Power FM broadcaster
ERICH LOEPKE, Fort Worth, Texas
Concerned citizen
ROBERT CHANEY, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Concerned citizen
STEPHEN C. BRINGHURST, Jacksonville, Alabama
Concerned citizen
WILLIAM H. BEYRER, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Concerned citizen
-6-
W. REECE NEWTON, Cleona, Pennsylvania
Concerned citizen
RICHARD H. SHIVERS, KB3FGJ, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Amateur Radio Service operator and concerned citizen
MIKE ERICKSON, North Babylon, New York
Concerned citizen
GERALD JOHN MEHRAB, WA2FNQ, Northport, New York
Radio/TV engineer, Amateur Radio Service operator and
concerned citizen
KEVIN JOHNSTON, Johnson City, New York
Part 15 broadcaster
JACK FLANAGAN, Acton, Massachusetts
Concerned citizen
A. THE COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 11, 2002
DECISION TO APPROVE IBOC RADIO DIGITALIZATION
IS PROCEDURALLY PREMATURE
The Commission made its decision to approve IBOC Radio
Digitalization while directly relevant Commission proceedings
were still pending. By making its selection of IBOC technology
before completing its work on several ongoing and relevant
proceedings, the Commission has undercut the Administrative
-7-
Procedure Act, as well as the “due process” clause of the
Constitution, in at least two fundamental respects.
First: To the extent that the approval of IBOC precludes or
erodes the Commission’s future ability to adopt policies
advocated by parties to the ongoing proceedings, the
Commission is functionally denying those parties their right to be
heard by the Commission. That is: The practical result of
approving IBOC Radio Digitalization, without first concluding
other proceedings that are related to and/or affected by that
decision, is a functional pre-judgment of some or all of the issues
raised in those other proceedings. Whatever the Commission’s
judgments in those proceedings may ultimately be, they must be
judgments, On The Record, rather than pre-judgments, achieved
indirectly and, from the public’s perspective, invisibly.
Those parties who have initiated and/or engaged in these
pending proceedings are legally entitled to responses from the
Commission, On The Record, which are detailed enough to
reflect careful consideration of the record and also official
-8-
enough to be appealable to a court, if one or more of the parties
deem it necessary. These are fundamental procedural rights,
which the decision on IBOC has indirectly, but tangibly, denied
to participants in these pending proceedings.
Second: The Commission’s effective pre-judgment of
other relevant proceedings also means that the Commission,
when reaching its decision on IBOC, acted in the absence of
relevant information that might have been generated by first
bringing those other proceedings to completion. In effect, the
Commission deliberately deprived itself of potentially available
information, when there was no compelling reason to do so.
The very process of processing the pending proceedings in
question, which are enumerated below, would have made
available to the Commission important new information on the
human health effects of Radio Frequency emissions; the effects
on electronic equipment of “blanketing interference”; other
possible environmental implications of IBOC Radio Digitalization
and also the merits of technological alternatives to IBOC,
-9-
including (but not limited to) the globally popular Eureka-147.
Instead, the Commission has approved IBOC in reliance on
an information base that the Commission itself has artificially
narrowed. Contrary to fundamental concepts of “due process of
law”, the Commission has blinded itself, by its own hand.
The specific pre-judged proceedings are discussed below.
1. The Commission Has Acted While A July 18, 2002
Multi-Party Request For Preparation Of An Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Is Still Pending
On July 18, 2002, many of the parties to this Motion For
Rehearing filed, in FCC Docket MM 99-325 (the IBOC Radio
Digitalization Docket), a Multi-Party Request for a programmatic
EIS on the overall consequences of the radio broadcasting
industry’s contemplated conversion to IBOC Digitalization.
This EIS Request was filed by a coalition of 13 parties: THE
AMHERST ALLIANCE, VIRGINIA CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC PRESS
(VCPP), CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/ALLSTON-BRIGHTON FREE
RADIO, WLYC-AM, BEATRADIO, REC NETWORKS, ROGUE
COMMUNICATION, JAMRAG MAGAZINE AND GREEN HOUSE
-10-
NEWS, MATTHEW HAYES, JOHN ANDERSON, JOHN ROBERT
BENJAMIN and NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT.
The Commission did address this Multi-Party EIS Request
in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the IBOC decision. For various
reasons, discussed in Section D of this Motion, the Commission
declined to act upon the EIS Request.
This rejection of the EIS Request was not an official denial
of the EIS Request. That is: No public comments on the EIS
Request were ever solicited, meaning that the Commission’s
rejection of the EIS Request was never based on a record of
input from interested parties and the general public, meaning in
turn that the Request rejection did not result from the kind of
publicly accessible deliberative process envisioned by the the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Administrative
Procedure Act and the “due process” clause of the Constitution.
The EIS Request, then, was not so much denied as it was
disregarded. The EIS Request is still pending, in the sense that
the parties to the EIS Request have never received a response
-11-
based on the Commission’s evaluation of views and information
received from interested parties and the general public.
2. The Commission Has Acted While An April 17, 2002
Multi-Party Petition For Rulemaking, Which Seeks
Comparative Testing And Evaluation Of IBOC
And Competing Radio Digitalization Technologies,
Is Still Pending
On April 17, 2002, many of the parties to this Motion For
Rehearing filed a Petition For Rulemaking that would mandate
more complete testing and evaluation of the IBOC technology
and also require comparable, comparative testing and evaluation
of competing Digitalization technologies, notably including the
Eureka-147 technology. The Petition For Rulemaking was filed
by a coalition of 12 parties: THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, VCPP,
CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/ALLSTON-BRIGHTON FREE RADIO, WILW,
KOL AMI HAVURAH, REC NETWORKS, ROGUE COMMUNICATION,
JAMRAG MAGAZINE AND GREEN HOUSE NEWS, MATTHEW
HAYES, JOHN ANDERSON, NICKOLAUS E. LEGGETT and WESLE
ANNEMARIE DYMOKE.
-12-
This Petition was placed in the PRM02MB section of the
FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). There it
remains, un-Docketed. No public comments have been sought.
3. The Commission Has Acted While An October 25,
2001 Petition For Rulemaking On Electromagnetic
Radiation (EMR) Is Still Pending
On October 25, 2001, a Petition For Rulemaking on EMR
was filed by THE EMR NETWORK. THE EMR NETWORK is a
nationwide citizens’ advocacy group, whose goal is more
stringent safety standards to limit maximum exposure to EMR
emissions, including Radio Frequency (RF) emissions.
THE EMR NETWORK’S October 25, 2001 Petition for more
stringent standards was denied by the Commission’s Engineering
and Technology Office on December 11, 2001. THE EMR
NETWORK then filed a Petition For Reconsideration (which, for
some reason, is not recorded in the PRM01ET section of the
FCC’s ECFS), seeking review of the staff’s decision by the full
Commission. Since then, no apparent action has been taken by
the full Commission on this matter.
-13-
However, in paragraph 40 of its IBOC decision, while
discussing its decision to disregard the EIS Request made by
many of the parties to this Motion For Rehearing, the Commission
declared flatly that “existing RF safeguards are adequate”.
This declaration constitutes a functional pre-judgment of
THE EMR NETWORK’S Petition For Reconsideration of the FCC
staff’s denial of the Petition For Rulemaking.
4. The Commission Has Acted While A
Commission-Proposed Rulemaking On
“Blanketing Interference” With Electronic
Equipment (Docket 96-92) Is Still Pending
The Commission has already acknowledged that IBOC
will create significant radio interference, and precedents with
other EMR emissions indicate that some of this interference may
also affect appliances, computers and other electronic
equipment in areas near the station. Therefore, it is puzzling
that the Commission has authorized immediate commencement
of “interim” IBOC broadcasts without first concluding its own
pending deliberations on such “blanketing interference”.
-14-
In 1996, the Commission was concerned enough about
“blanketing interference” to initiate a rulemaking, on its own
motion, in Docket 96-92. That was 6 years ago, the final
comment deadline has long since come and gone, a substantial
body of input from interested parties is now On The Record in
this Docket, but no action has ever been taken to either abandon
the proposed rule or proceed with a final rule.
Surely, the Commission should first review the collected
evidence on “blanketing interference” before it authorizes
immediate use of a technology which may create more of it.
B. THE COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 11, 2002
DECISION IS BASED ON THE
“ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS”
APPLICATION OF CRITERIA
Just as the right of parties to be heard, and not pre-
judged, lies at the foundation of the law, so does the principle
that the law should be impartial. While there are endless
-15-
exceptions to the law’s general rules, and while even a
uniform rule may sometimes be tailored to particular
circumstances, those who shape the law are accountable
for explaining why different parties are treated differently.
Further, if different treatment and/or impact appears to
be attributable to race or gender, or even --- as in this case
---- to differences in wealth and/or class, the differing
treatment and/or impact becomes “suspect” under the “equal
protection” clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth
Amendment.
1. The FCC Sought Public Comments On The
National Audubon Society’s December 11, 1998 Request
Request For An EIS On TV Digitalization, While Failing To
Solicit Public Comments On The July 18, 2002 Multi-Party
Request For An EIS On IBOC Radio Digitalization
The Report & Order does not explain, or even
acknowledge, the different treatment.
-16-
2. In Its January 28, 2000 Final Rule On Establishment Of A Low Power Radio Service, The Commission Withdrew The Proposed Rule’s Full Liberalization Of Adjacent Channel Spacing, Citing Concerns About Alleged Radio Interference By 100-Watt Low Power FM Broadcasters ---
But Now The Commission Is Permitting Virtually Unrestricted IBOC Transmissions, By 50,000-Watt and 100,000-Watt Full Power Broadcasters, Even In The Face Of Fully Acknowledged Radio Interference That This Will Cause
The Report & Order does not explain, or even
acknowledge, this different treatment. Why must extreme
caution be exercised when a 100-watt station might interfere
with a 100,000-watt station --- but not when it is fully
acknowledged that a 100,000-watt station will interfere with a
100-watt station?
C. iBIQUITY DIGITAL CORPORATION HAS
MIS-IDENTIFIED PARTIES TO THE JULY 18, 2002 REQUEST FOR
PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
We take this opportunity to correct, On The Record, a
minor factual error with major legal implications.
-17-
In its August 6, 2002 Supplemental Response to the July
18, 2002 Multi-Party EIS Request, iBiquity Digital Corporation
incorrectly identifies the parties to the EIS Request. These
parties are mis-identified as “Don Schellhardt Et Al.”, rather than
correctly described as “THE AMHERST ALLIANCE Et Al.”
We presume that this error was unintentional, but it is
nevertheless more than merely a semantic point. Potentially,
the error in identification poses serious legal implications. It
implies, in effect, that Don Schellhardt and THE AMHERST
ALLIANCE are one and the same.
However, Don Schellhardt only represents THE AMHERST
ALLIANCE, as its current attorney. Although he was one of 2
co-founders of THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, at a 1998 meeting in
Amherst, Massachusetts, and although he also served as
Amherst’s first National Coordinator from 1998 into 2000, he is
still only one Member of a nationwide organization.
With or without Don Schellhardt, Amherst is a collective
and independent entity, governed through Internet consultations
-18-
among its active Members across the United States.
Whether or not Don Schellhardt continues to serve as the
attorney for THE AMHERST ALLIANCE, Amherst as an institution
retains the right to prepare and submit future regulatory filings
on IBOC Radio Digitalization, on other Radio Digitalization
technologies and, indeed, on any matters which could expand
or contract the number of independent voices in America’s mass
media. Amherst, as an institution, also retains the right to seek
injunctive relief in court, when and if such action is timely and
appropriate, regardless of who its counsel might be at the time.
By the same token, each and every one of the 14 (??) other
parties to this Motion For Rehearing reserves, expressly, its own
independent rights to prepare and submit future regulatory
filings, and/or to seek timely and appropriate injunctive relief in
court, either individually or in concert with others, regardless of
whether or not THE AMHERST ALLIANCE chooses to join in one
or more of these activities.
-19-
F. CONCLUSION
For the reasons we have set forth herein, THE AMHERST
ALLIANCE, and the 33 other undersigned parties, strongly urge
the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider its
October 11, 2002 Report & Order in FCC Docket MM 99-325,
selecting IBOC technology as the technology for Radio
Digitalization.
We reserve the right to file supplemental documents
with respect to this Motion For Rehearing.
-20-
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Don Schellhardt
Attorney for THE AMHERST ALLIANCE
45 Bracewood Road
Waterbury, Connecticut 06706
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
(203) 757-1790
_________________________
Christopher Maxwell
Secretary
VIRGINIA CENTER FOR
THE PUBLIC PRESS
1621 Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23220
WRFR@aol.com
(804) 649-9737
____________________________
Stephen Provizer
For CITIZENS MEDIA CORP/
ALLSTON-BRIGHTON
FREE RADIO
451 Cambridge Road
Boston, Massachusetts 02134
improv@speakeasy.net
-21-
___________________________
Michelle Eyre
For REC NETWORKS
P.O. Box 2408
Tempe, Arizona 85280-2408
michelleeyre@qwest.net
____________________________
Ted M. Coopman
For ROGUE COMMUNICATION
19551 38th Avenue
Lake Forest Park, Washington 98155
rogue@roguecom.com
(206/361-0501)
__________________________
William C. Walker III
For WILW
225 Brighthurst Lane
West Hartford, Connecticut
wilw@wilw.com
-22-
_________________________
Rabbi Bryan K. French
For KOL AMI HAVURAH,
Licensee of WJVW-LP
489 Benwood Hill Drive
Benwood, West Virginia 26031
bryan27@yahoo.com
________________________
Alan Freed
For BEATRADIO
P.O. Box 3333
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403
beatradio@beatworld.com
________________________
Tom and Susan Ness
Co-Publishers,
JAMRAG MAGAZINE
Co-Administrators,
GREEN HOUSE NEWS
P.O. Box 70006
Ferndale, Michigan 48220
jamrag@glis.net
-23-
____________________________
Ken Freedman
For AURICLE COMMUNICATIONS,
Licensee of WFMU and WXHD
P.O. Box 2011
Jersey City, New Jersey 07303-2011
Freedman.Ken@wfmu.org
____________________________
William C. Doerner
For KIBP-LP, Padre Island
P.O. Box 18400
Corpus Christi, Texas
wdoerner@stx.rr.com
____________________________
Charles Conrad
For CHALK HILL EDUCATIONAL
MEDIA
P.O. Box 1008
Kilgore, Texas 75663
(903) 643-7711
-24-
_____________________________
William Spry
For SPRYEX COMMUNICATIONS,
Applicant for Class A
Non-Commercial Educational
Station License
Hamilton, Ohio
raduga@raduga.net
______________________
Matthew Hayes
7756 Southeast 17th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 02906
matthewhades@hotmail.com
____________________________
John Anderson
Radio and Internet Journalist
5227 Spaanem Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53716-2076
phlegm@tds.net
____________________________
John Robert Benjamin
P.O. Box 47
Marienville, Pennsylvania 16239
Garfield25@gay.com
-25-
___________________________
Nickolaus E. Leggett
N3NL
1432 Northgate Square
#2A
Reston, Virginia 20190
nleggett@earthlink.net
(703) 709-0752
____________________________
Wesle AnneMarie Dymoke
P.O. Box 2346
East Side
Providence, Rhode Island 02906
procomrad@as220.org
_____________________________
James Jason Wentworth
213 2nd Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4810
gida@chugach.net
(907) 457-6682
_____________________________
John Davidson
1425 Deer Hill Court
La Jolla, California 92037
(858) 459-4200
-26-
___________________________
Rod Sego
P.O. Box 2074
Provo, Utah 84603
___________________________
Kyle Drake
12810 37th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
vmalloc@usinternet.com
____________________________
William G. Hebbert
8965 North Fielding Road
Bayside, Wisconsin 53217
(414) 352-5236
________________________________
Johnathan Grant
1407 Schuler Drive
Kokomo, Indiana 46901
me@johnathangrant.com
-27-
____________________________
Erich Loepke
1833 Canyon Ridge Street
Fort Worth, Texas
(817) 306-7610
radioTV72@aol.com
____________________________
Robert Chaney
6888 Menlo Drive
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
farverger@cox.net
(225) 767-3014
___________________________
Stephen C. Bringhurst
205 Clark Road N.E.
Jacksonville, Alabama 36265-6177
sbc@hiwaay.net
___________________________
William H. Beyrer
P.O. Box 382
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201
bbeyrer@comcast.net
(717) 264-7161
-28-
__________________________
W. Reece Newton
408 Wilshire Drive
Cleona, Pennsylvania 17042
wrnewton@joust.net
(717) 272-8071
_________________________
Richard H. Shivers, KB3FGJ
9029 Eastview Road
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19152
KB3FGJ@aol.com
___________________________
Mike Erickson
653 Windmill Avenue
North Babylon, New York 11703
wirelessmedia@simpsons.com
___________________________
Gerald John Mehrab, WA2FNQ
6 Ambrose Lane
Northport, New York 11768-3205
WA2FNG@optonline.com
____________________________
-29-
____________________________
Kevin Johnston
15 Endicott Avenue
Johnson City, New York 13790
(607) 644-1046
_____________________________
Jack Flanagan
32 Duggan Road
Acton, Massachusetts 01720
docflan@attbi.com
I hereby certify that copies of this document have been sent, via First Class USPS Mail, postage pre-paid, on this 25thday of October, to the following parties:
Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Eric J. Menge
Assistant Chief Counsel for
Telecommunications
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd Street S.W.
Suite 7800
Washington, DC 20416
-30-
Robert A. Mazer and R. Edward Price
Counsel for iBiquity Digital Corporation
Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P.
1455 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Albert Shuldiner
Vice President & General Counsel for
iBiquity Digital Corporation
8865 Stanford Boulevard
Suite 202
Columbia, Maryland 21045
______________________________ Dated: _________________
Don Schellhardt October 25, 2002
Attorney For THE AMHERST ALLIANCE,
Acting On Behalf Of All Parties To
This Motion For Rehearing
-------------------------------------------
thanks
-Joanne Lynn
Vine-a-Friend: Email This Page to Someone!
The FRN Grapevines
posted 10-26-2002 14:50
posted 10-28-2002 03:59
