Perhaps an injection of facts might be appropriate in this issue.......
Basically......after wading through all the FCC boilerplate, the essence of this is that :
1. It is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is the beginning of a long process that will/will not ultimately end up in a modification of FCC regs. Hearings, public comment periods, and ultimate court challenges will all come into play before this proposal becomes a rule, which can take YEARS, if ever.
2. The vast bulk of the rules change involves "translators", which ARE NOT new radio stations. A translator is merely a receiver/transmitter that takes a signal from a distant existing (high-power) radio station and rebroadcasts it unchanged into an area where due to distance, or topography, listeners cannot receive this station normally. They are broadly employed in all emission types (AM and FM radio, television, two-way radio, as well as emergency services)......largely in mountainous areas where communities are located that have difficulty receiving signals from metro areas, where major broadcasters are typically found. The proposal loosens the spectrum interference and separation requirements for translators, allowing more of them to be licensed, adding nothing to the diffusion of "content" if anything it could potentially allow shows like Rush Limaugh to be heard in even more remote areas.
3. It proposes fifty (50) new LPFM (low power FM) licenses (out of 6300 applications), giving priority to Indian reservations and other areas where radio stations (due to advertising revenue potential) are not economically feasible. Since the notice mentions absolutely nothing about programming content , the maximum downside for conservative listeners would expansion of "public radio" services like NPR, which nobody listens to in the first place.
It should be further noted that although the investment required to establish a low-power "community" radio station is small (compared to high-power) it is NOT nonexistant, therefore they too, have to make a profit to stay on the air. The only way that those profits are earned is by the station owners offering programming that is popular to listeners, and progrmming that advertisers are willing to sponsor.......since prior attempts at "liberal radio" have all failed miserably, there is no reason to expect these additional licenses to appeal (economically) to any different audience.