• 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

Chairman Martin's Opening Remarks & LPFM

D

dbdigital

Guest
I don't if any of you have read Chairman Martin's opening remarks to the Committee on Small Business today but I found what he said about LPFM to be puzzling if not a little misleading.

"The Commission has taken some important steps to provide more opportunity for small
businesses in radio with the advent of the Low Power FM service. Low Power FM
provides a lower-cost opportunity for more new voices to get into the local radio market."

Given the NCE status of LPFM, hasn't the Commission effectively hamstrung this class of station from becoming a viable business?

Then he pairs that statement with this one:

"The Commission currently is considering an Order that would ensure that LPFM stations
have reasonable access to limited radio spectrum."

In view of the fact that the FCC has basically given away most remaining FM spectrum to translators (and, apparently, AM stations can now use FM translators under an STA), how is the FCC going to ensure that LPFM going forward will have 'reasonable access to limited radio spectrum?' If they're thinking using the extra channels on HD Radio, they need to think again.

The speech sounds like a bamboozle to those who don't know any better, such as the people who make up the Committee on Small Business.

db
 
From http://www.insideradio.com/

Well, NAB is back at it again... David Rehr is asking Congress to keep third-adjacent protection rules in place. In a letter to lawmakers, Rehr says broadcasters "do not oppose the licensing of LPFM stations" but they do oppose "the introduction of thousands of micro-radio stations that would cause significant harmful interference." Bills are pending in the House and Senate that would remove third-adjacent protections and allow hundreds more LPFMs.

How about the interference from IBOC?? That doesn't seem to concern the NAB nor does licensing translators to AM stations>
 
tjm_pro said:
From http://www.insideradio.com/

Well, NAB is back at it again... David Rehr is asking Congress to keep third-adjacent protection rules in place. In a letter to lawmakers, Rehr says broadcasters "do not oppose the licensing of LPFM stations" but they do oppose "the introduction of thousands of micro-radio stations that would cause significant harmful interference." Bills are pending in the House and Senate that would remove third-adjacent protections and allow hundreds more LPFMs.

How about the interference from IBOC?? That doesn't seem to concern the NAB nor does licensing translators to AM stations>
Click to expand...

What again!?

After the FCC and Congress acknowledged the legitimacy of the findings of the Mitre study?
After the NAB disgraced themselves by sending out to a select group of Congressmen a phony mp3 file of "alleged" adjacent channel interference from an LPFM and being condemned because of it?
After Chairman Martin has been spouting off on how LPFM's were a great way for small businesses to get into broadcasting? (http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/ Check out the article: "Martin Wants To Apply LPFM Model To Digital TV, Promote Ownership Diversity")

This is the NAB at their most desperate. If they really want to be useful they need to stick to the issue of performance royalties for radio. They've already won the battle on allowing AM stations to have FM translators. The FCC is definitely on board for that.

The NAB needs to leave LPFM's alone.

db
 
Right on.. And I work at a Class "B" Giant in my market.... My friend's Church put up a first class 60 grand LPFM that did the Way format here for two years, wonderfully... Then a Class "C2" downgraded to "A" and moved in 20 miles closer and moved from first adjacent to co-channel and you can't even get it clean out to the 'so called' protected 60dbu... Way is moving a translator with more protection in, and the Church doesn't know what to do with it, as they are on the edge of city and county.. Not in the heart of the poplulation... My LPFM get atmospheric/inversion alot in the am from 6 to 9:am, but my audience is an after 3 to 2:am alternative group of kids... We did it with tower and all for about 20K... We used to envy our friends, but now feel very lucky as we are so tight with the left and right flank of our allocation, that we are in the clear... Our full power neighbors are locked in, at this point (against each other and not us)... Drop the third and my other ENG project 25 miles up the road can move formats and not have a CP on the co-channel staring at it from 12 miles west....It's in a town with no other media outlet and sports/news coverage for three small towns.... ???
 
It's not feasible for a business to utilize LPFM when it is still a non commercial only service. How on earth can Martin make such a statement?
 
I smell-eth a person that is appointed in the Gov't. Mass that really doesn't know the legal aspects of the rules.... Just the spirit, thereof.... Shouldn't they ask these appointments if they KNOW FCC rules they are supposed to enforce??? Hey! I'd love to let LPFM's sell time... Come on Commish! Grant us that luxury.... Ha! ;D
 
William C. Walker said:
It's not feasible for a business to utilize LPFM when it is still a non commercial only service. How on earth can Martin make such a statement?
Click to expand...

Exactly. An LPFM is basically a charity, owned by a non-profit and run by volunteers. The only LPFM stations under that scenario that are doing well are those owned by powerful, wealthy religious organizations.

Chairman Martin has either been misinformed by his advisors, is clueless about LPFM or lying. With him, it's hard to tell.

db
 
When it comes to the Commissioners, Demo or Rep..It's all about the big guys who can get them the soap box.. The little guys suffer... No respector of partylines... :'(
 
OK! Convert your LPFM to commercial and you owe the US Treasury one million dollars just like the
commercial guys do at the auction. Yes, non-commercial status has some drawbacks. No call
to action or prices in the spots. But the FCC gave you your license for FREE
 
You've got a "GREAT" point on that... Of course, the question would be, what would be fair dollar value on the license with a 3.5 mile (supposed) protected signal???
 
Timewarp said:
OK! Convert your LPFM to commercial and you owe the US Treasury one million dollars just like the
commercial guys do at the auction. Yes, non-commercial status has some drawbacks. No call
to action or prices in the spots. But the FCC gave you your license for FREE
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Chairman Martin has been touting LPFM as a small business opportunity when it is nothing of the kind. He has misrepresented LPFM's to a House Subcommittee on small businesses and has, therefore, mislead that committee.

Why? Only Kevin Martin knows. But if he has dreams of being the future Governor of Maryland (and it's reported that he does) he'd better not list his tenure as FCC Chairman on his resume. Martin's performance, so far, has been less than stellar.

Hey come to think of it, wasn't Spiro T. Agnew once Gov. of Maryland?


db
 
Sir, If all you've got is a single stick? It doesn't matter if it's commercial or non-commercial.
It's a ticket to bankrupcy. Just the fact. The deck is stacked against you by the big corporates.
There are many mom and pop commercial stations losing their butts as we talk.

By the way I know the guy who wrote the NCE status on LPFM into the FCC rules. He did it
so the big operaters wouldn't gobble up all the LPFMs. So, little guys could have a station too!!!!
 
If LPFM's were commercial, Congress (not the FCC) would require you to go through a bidding process to get one. The person who will pay the most for the license is the one who gets it. It has been a long time since commercial stations were licensed to "the most qualified applicant." That concept went away when Congress learned that they could auction off spectrum to the highest bidder. It's quite a money maker.

The only way legal way to avoid the bidding process for LPFM is to have it noncommercial. Of course, Congress could grant an exemption, but the chances of that happening are very slim.
 
dbdigital said:
tjm_pro said:
From http://www.insideradio.com/

Well, NAB is back at it again... David Rehr is asking Congress to keep third-adjacent protection rules in place. In a letter to lawmakers, Rehr says broadcasters "do not oppose the licensing of LPFM stations" but they do oppose "the introduction of thousands of micro-radio stations that would cause significant harmful interference." Bills are pending in the House and Senate that would remove third-adjacent protections and allow hundreds more LPFMs.

How about the interference from IBOC?? That doesn't seem to concern the NAB nor does licensing translators to AM stations>
Click to expand...

What again!?

After the FCC and Congress acknowledged the legitimacy of the findings of the Mitre study?
After the NAB disgraced themselves by sending out to a select group of Congressmen a phony mp3 file of "alleged" adjacent channel interference from an LPFM and being condemned because of it?
After Chairman Martin has been spouting off on how LPFM's were a great way for small businesses to get into broadcasting? (http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/ Check out the article: "Martin Wants To Apply LPFM Model To Digital TV, Promote Ownership Diversity")

This is the NAB at their most desperate. If they really want to be useful they need to stick to the issue of performance royalties for radio. They've already won the battle on allowing AM stations to have FM translators. The FCC is definitely on board for that.

The NAB needs to leave LPFM's alone.

db
Click to expand...

The NAB and FCC are hypocrites.....They dont allow LPFMs at 100watts on 2nd adjacents but yet they allow 250watt/100meter high TRANSLATORS on those same "protected" channels....What a joke!!

I have a LPFM in my area....owned by a community group....they don't run stereo and are SINGLE channel away from a Class C that is 75+ miles away....I can listen to the full service C on a table top at home and I live less than 5 miles from the LPFM site...When in the car, I can get within EYESIGHT of the LPFM tower before my GM factory radio starts to desense, etc...
YET just up the road, there is a 250watt religious translator on a 300ft tower across the river from a 100kwC1 at 500ft two channels over (the C1 is a local country station)!!! WHY couldnt that community get a LPFM with LOCAL programming but because of NAB and FCC rules, nope...the out of the area religious broadcaster can plop a translator there (AND it retransmits a LOCAL NCE C2 15 miles to the west...the translator is within the CITY grade coverage of the C2! What a crock!)

Dont get me started on AMs using FM translators.........WHEW!!!!

NAB can kiss my shiny metal a$$....(as Bender would say)...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom