• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

250 watts at (almost) 200 feet HAAT on an LPFM... Done deal!

M

MonsterFM-KBKH

You all will probably best know to whom this should be forwarded. I'm not sure about posting it but, as it's now a "done deal", I'd like to see it get into the hands of anyone who is anyone who can study and research and help us in preparing a "show cause" argument that (in effect) says, "If we can do this in an emergency and show NO interference, why can we not do this ANYTIME if we can show NO interference?" (Basically, an NPRM to introduce at a later date and we need substantiating evidence in support thereof. Yes, it's backwards but, it's a valid argument when you don't think "within the box".)

I honestly KNOW that there will be no interference. (Unless Comstudy is a lot less able to work with RF than Radiosoft lets on and I've NEVER had reason to believe this to be true...) The point of all of this is that Baton Rouge is a frequency congested area and, if this will work there, it SHOULD work anywhere. I only wish that the tower had been taller. I would've LOVED to have gone for a full DOUBLING of height instead of 50 meters!

Note: The commission only granted a single month of high-powered operation at additional height. We've already discussed this and there WILL be extensions required.
<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>
 
> Note: The commission only granted a single month of
> high-powered operation at additional height. We've already
> discussed this and there WILL be extensions required.

I would not get my hopes up. The FCC granted a whole slew of STA grants, including the experimental evacuation radio in Houston. These were allowed, in violation of the rules, for the emergency. Even in the rules, the FCC allows stations such as AM daytime only stations to stay on the air at night.
So, while your example may be prove a point, it is not likely going to happen.
 
> So, while your example may be prove a point, it is not
> likely going to happen.


Ahhh but, a new NPRM must have substantiating evidence! And, I can think of none better than "real world" studies. (What you also do not know is that there was some VERY high political work done in this one instance. I've had to work with the director of FEMA, the White House and several other entities. This *can* be done and, if there's enough interest, we'll continue to persue the issue. If there's not enough interest, it will be forgotten and left to die like an unwanted grape on a vine...

In other words, it's an experiment. And, it *can* happen *if* we choose to persue the matter. I've had a hand in much more "impossible" happenings that have come to be.
<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>
 
It's a good idea, Keith.
We'll be signatories to a petition lobbying for this...

DE

> In other words, it's an experiment. And, it *can* happen
> *if* we choose to persue the matter. I've had a hand in much
> more "impossible" happenings that have come to be.
 
>> Ahhh but, a new NPRM must have substantiating evidence! And,
> I can think of none better than "real world" studies.

The FCC has not even slogged through the current NPRM on LPFM. I am not sure what traction you will get on a new LPFM rulemaking, when the current one has not even concluded yet. The Commission will likely do one of two things...Nothing, or possibly issue a FNPRM, to include your data in the project. However, other than the 3rd adjacent comments pro and con, nothing was mentioned about a raise in power or height, at least not in the comments I have read. I think this is the case of getting off the ground, before attempting to fly higher. The LPFM service, as a whole, is being hindered in part due to the translator satellator issue, and also the protection requirements( 3rd adjacent)which likely do not need to be kept, except in certain cases. I have issues with the Commission allowing 2nd adjacent translators, and and 1st is out of the question. Throw in IBOC, and you get a whole 'nother level of things that need to be solved, not to mention the MX situation of pending non-commercial full authorizations, and the pool of MX'd lpfm applications that are still being handled.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom