• 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

3rd Adjacent Protection in NJ

D

dbdigital

Guest
Well, it was great news to read that the Senate Commerce Committee passed an amendment to drop third-channel protections of full-power FMs in order to fit more low-power stations into markets. They were not duped by the pathetic attempts of the NAB to stop its passage with their MP3 file of interference noise.

But why was New Jersey exempted?

db
 
The New Jersey Broadcasters Association (NJBA) is a very vocal organization with what appears to be a lot of influence.

Their primary argument that because of the fact that there are two major metro areas outside of the state (NYC to the north, Philly to the south), that there are currently not many opportunities for higher powered stations (higher than A) in the state.

The NJBA filed a Petiton for Rulemaking (RM-11099), which would, in part, extend the size of the protected service contour [in respect to LPFM stations] to 44 dBu (F50,50) for all New Jersey stations (regardless of class A, B, B1), which would in turn, increase the distance spacing requirements for LPFM applications in relation to New Jersey full power stations. Their petition would also have imposed additional restrictions on translators.

REC filed comments at the time showing that currently the LPFM service is already substantially overprotecting New Jersey FM stations since very few stations are running at or near full power and are running directional facilities that LPFM treats as non-directional facilities. We also argued that in New Jersey that the problem is not LPFM stations (this is because, even with today's rules, there's not many opportunities for LPFM stations in the state.

While New Jersey is a very unique situation because of the very high concentration of stations both inside the state and nearby (which is evidenced by the very low LPFM availability), any passage of rulemaking or legislation could have hazardous impacts as other states may try to use that presidence to impose similar restrictions in their state.

To read our comments on this matter: http://www.recnet.com/fcc/RM-11099.pdf
 
rec said:
The New Jersey Broadcasters Association (NJBA) is a very vocal organization with what appears to be a lot of influence.

While New Jersey is a very unique situation because of the very high concentration of stations both inside the state and nearby (which is evidenced by the very low LPFM availability), any passage of rulemaking or legislation could have hazardous impacts as other states may try to use that presidence to impose similar restrictions in their state.

To read our comments on this matter: http://www.recnet.com/fcc/RM-11099.pdf
Click to expand...

I suspected as much. The counter-arguments you made in your comments were great and should state legislators, either through ignorance or undue influence, try to impose similar restrictions, a copy of your arguments should be given to them.

On a different matter, I have a request for the RecNet website. You've done incredible work with the LPFM, LPAM finder feature. Would it be possible to offer an open channel search for the entire AM band?

I think it might be very useful, if for no other purpose, in serving as a means of comparison in doing LPAM channel searches.

db
 
The LPAM Channel Search that we have is consistent with the distance spacing proposals that were in ours and other comments. Distance spacing can only be supported on the extended band because of the primary reason that an extremely large majority of all x-band stations fall into one of the following two categories:
(1) 10 kW day/1kW night non-directional
(2) TIS station

Because of this, it's more practical to look at a distance spacing model for the x-band than the rest of the band. REC supported LPAM only in the x-band. The current application that is on-line does not currently support the revised Joint Petition.

=m
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom