R
robertsez
Guest
Why are they targeting frequencies occupied by LPFM stations, and is there anything they can do to stop the invasion?
-
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
Expanding the FM band down to 76 MHz would have prevented all of this, but those wheels should have been set in motion 20 years ago. Lack of foresight by the broadcast industry and the FCC.
Down to 76 MHz would work make it for low power unlicensed broadcast and like 2 or 3 LPFM and Translators
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
Except that 20 years ago the low VHF TV band was still in use.
P
purpledevil
Guest
Let's begin by asking you to stop helping build them, and see where we go from there.
Good to have you back, Robert. Have you read about KQBU-FM being targeted for a cover up here in Houston yet? Is that one with your prints on it, as well?
R
robertsez
Guest
Sorry. I'm not in the translator manufacturing business. Perhaps you have me confused with someone who is.
True, but plans for the future could have been put in place.
What should have happened in the early/mid 90's when the digital future of TV was being planned: Any TV stations with analog signals on Channels 5 and 6 should have had their UHF digital signals made permanent after the analog shutoff, and the 76-88 MHz range reallocated to FM once the digital TV transition was complete.
This would have allowed FM receivers capable of tuning 76-108 MHz to start being manufactured in the 1990's so plenty would be in place one stations started appearing in the expanded band (recall that expanded band AM receivers started appearing in the 1980's well before there were any stations in the 1620-1700 kHz range.) Such a plan would have allowed most existing AM stations to move to FM, much like what we are seeing in Mexico and Canada.
Perhaps a slice of the expanded band (maybe 76-78 MHz) could have been set aside for LPFMs. And with AMs moving to the expanded FM band there would be no need for cross service translators.
Nice idea. Missed opportunity.
I think it's too late to even talking about Expanding down to 76 MHz
FCC won't do it now anyways
FCC won't do it now anyways
Radios tune down to 76MHz because the FM band overseas is not the same as the US....As to the US expanding down, NOPE!! With ASTC 3 and repacking coming, lowband will light up again....so the thought of 76-88MHz is a lost cause...
Some Asian nations have that lower end to the FM band. As far as I know, in the rest of the world it is the same general band as in the US.
FM goes from 87-108 MHz in most of the rest of the world; the major exception is Japan where FM traditionally ran 76-90 MHz. However the Japanese are now expanding upward into the more familiar CCIR band.
There are a few countries with a "second" FM band, namely the OIRT band from 65.8 to 74 MHz.
Although there may not be as much pressure to repack as originally thought. The first round of the UHF spectrum auction was a bust, so additional rounds will be needed. We may wind up keeping more UHF TV channels if broadband/mobile demand remains less than anticipated.
But you are right, we've probably missed the window of opportunity for an expanded FM band.
But some are expanding to the CCIR Band, Like in Japan there expanded to 95 MHz a few years ago
Russia already abandoning the OIRT Band
Russia already abandoning the OIRT Band
"Translators" are not manufactured. Sure, transmitters and antennas are manufactured, but the translator itself is created via an FCC license. What was suggested by another poster is that you are responsible for creating some of those translators.
Expanding the dial to 76 mhz is really an idea for the most challenged and most handicapped radio service on the radio dial? Let's see: OK we know a third of you go off the air and turn in your license because it is so hard for you to make it as a 100 watt non-commercial FM, let's help things along by moving you to frequencies nobody can hear on an existing radio...yes that will work! You take the 76 to 88 mhz part of the band!
In reality, if this was attempted years back, it would have worked but with an increasing crowded FM dial and other ways to listen (that actually cost the station on top of broadcasting itself) means the 'new' part of the dial might just be less popular than HD is today.
Remember, to be heard on mobile devices, a station needs to stream. We all know the bad shape streaming radio is in paying for streaming, paying for bandwidth for all the listeners (if you can get more than 10 at a time) and Sound Exchange plus a tack on for ASCAP, BMI and SESAC on top of the actual broadcast station. Even the big stations lose money with the online side and barely get more than a few hundred at a time listening compared to maybe 30,000 or more over the air listeners at a time.
I have played with the numbers. I figure you need double to triple the dollar value per listener compared to over the air to break even. Everybody says streaming is overtaking on air listening...maybe cumulatively speaking but there are so many choices there are extremely few exceptions that attract a number that makes advertisers say they must buy. To make the numbers work you'd need to be double or triple the current radio commercial load and if you did that nobody would listen.
In reality, if this was attempted years back, it would have worked but with an increasing crowded FM dial and other ways to listen (that actually cost the station on top of broadcasting itself) means the 'new' part of the dial might just be less popular than HD is today.
Remember, to be heard on mobile devices, a station needs to stream. We all know the bad shape streaming radio is in paying for streaming, paying for bandwidth for all the listeners (if you can get more than 10 at a time) and Sound Exchange plus a tack on for ASCAP, BMI and SESAC on top of the actual broadcast station. Even the big stations lose money with the online side and barely get more than a few hundred at a time listening compared to maybe 30,000 or more over the air listeners at a time.
I have played with the numbers. I figure you need double to triple the dollar value per listener compared to over the air to break even. Everybody says streaming is overtaking on air listening...maybe cumulatively speaking but there are so many choices there are extremely few exceptions that attract a number that makes advertisers say they must buy. To make the numbers work you'd need to be double or triple the current radio commercial load and if you did that nobody would listen.
By the way, translators are equal to LPFMs. A translator can't knock off an existing LPFM and vice versa. If separation standards from the FCC are met both can co-exist. Too many DXers think stations are robbing them of distant radio stations being received but in reality they are heard in areas they don't have a right to (ie: their coverage extends beyond their guaranteed protected contours). No translator will wipe out a LPFM unless FCC Rules change. True, if you hear them 12 miles away, a translator might occupy some of that distance but they can't wipe out a LPFM.
R
robertsez
Guest
How do? I'm not a church that wishes to license a translator to repeat secular programming.
What is the issue of a church repeating secular programming? We have had secular stations owned by churches going back to the origins of KSL at least.
The issue is that most of these "churches" ask for donations to spread the word of God.
Especially the ones I have heard in Spanish. Brothers we are going through some hard economic times. We need your ofrenda to help keep the ministry up and going. The word says DAR Y SE OS DARA.
(I don't read the Bible in English to quote it exactly) but the churches preach about giving to the Church and God will bless you. I'm pretty sure if these churches were to say BROTHERS WE WANT TO BUY A NEW STATION BUT WE WANT PLAY SECULAR MUSIC ON IT AND MAKE IT A PROFIT STATION. COME DONATE!! I'm pretty sure none of the church congration members would donate.
R
robertsez
Guest
What about the origins of KSL?
P
purpledevil
Guest
He knows what I meant.
I suggest nothing, David.
Robert knows I know.
I know I know Robert.
I know you ought to know Robert, too.
I suddenly feel like I've channeled my own internal Night Hawk.
....SAVVY!
- Status