FCC opening new "filing window"?

[BarneyPip]

Flying-Dutchman...

Are you the famous morning man Flying Dutchman aka Pete?

 

[audio4tv]

So you don't know the exact 'day or hour'. So what? You have enough of a heads up to know about when the FCC NCE window will open (March-May) and that you have to get started NOW.

I agree with Mr. Brown. The FCC needs to see certain engineering exhibits with the form and, unless you have the software and expertise to do it, a consulting engineer is about the only one who can generate the exhibits the FCC will accept. The agency is very picky about these applications and if there is even just a little thing wrong with it, will reject it. I know from experience.

The cost for such a service, including filing, can run as much as $4500.00.

db

I respect Michael Brown and all the work he has done on getting ready should there be a window. However, your post said it all. Up to $4500 is a lot of money to be spending by many small community groups or lpfm upgrades, with a good chance they could not get the frequency. This is something they have to consider, and that $4500 could end up costing a lot more, if it is MX'd. Take a look at http://www.ccbroadcasters.com/. Other entities are already mobilizing, and if you found a frequency, you can be pretty sure they have found it. Even Michael Brown states that some of the MX apps. go back 10 years (actually, I think even farther back then that, as one of the MX applications has a file date of 1989!), and the Commission will dispose of these prior to the window. Before one gets their hopes up too high, it might be worth contacting him or another firm to see if it is even worth it, as there are many areas where there will be no applications possible. One quote indicates that if you are within 20 miles of the top 50 miles, or 30 miles of the top 100, forget about it. The entire state of Florida was mentioned as not likely having any room for applications.

 

[dbdigital]

So you don't know the exact 'day or hour'. So what? You have enough of a heads up to know about when the FCC NCE window will open (March-May) and that you have to get started NOW.

I agree with Mr. Brown. The FCC needs to see certain engineering exhibits with the form and, unless you have the software and expertise to do it, a consulting engineer is about the only one who can generate the exhibits the FCC will accept. The agency is very picky about these applications and if there is even just a little thing wrong with it, will reject it. I know from experience.

The cost for such a service, including filing, can run as much as $4500.00.

db

I respect Michael Brown and all the work he has done on getting ready should there be a window. However, your post said it all. Up to $4500 is a lot of money to be spending by many small community groups or lpfm upgrades, with a good chance they could not get the frequency. This is something they have to consider, and that $4500 could end up costing a lot more, if it is MX'd. Take a look at http://www.ccbroadcasters.com/. Other entities are already mobilizing, and if you found a frequency, you can be pretty sure they have found it. Even Michael Brown states that some of the MX apps. go back 10 years (actually, I think even farther back then that, as one of the MX applications has a file date of 1989!), and the Commission will dispose of these prior to the window. Before one gets their hopes up too high, it might be worth contacting him or another firm to see if it is even worth it, as there are many areas where there will be no applications possible. One quote indicates that if you are within 20 miles of the top 50 miles, or 30 miles of the top 100, forget about it. The entire state of Florida was mentioned as not likely having any room for applications.

It appears that Sterling Communications will do a frequency search for free if your a 'friend of Christian Community Broadcasters' (whatever that involves). If they find one you pay $500.00 and if not you owe nothing.

Doing that as a first step would answer a big question about your endeavor.

db

 

[dbdigital]

In case you haven’t heard, from October 12th-19th this fall, the FCC will be accepting applications for new full power non-commercial educational radio station licenses.

db

 

[Black_Shire]

In case you haven’t heard, from October 12th-19th this fall, the FCC will be accepting applications for new full power non-commercial educational radio station licenses.

db

...Which would seem to leave less spectrum real estate available for the LP-10 licensees, assuming that there ever is a filing window for them. :-(


-- Black Shire

 

[dbdigital]

In case you haven’t heard, from October 12th-19th this fall, the FCC will be accepting applications for new full power non-commercial educational radio station licenses.

db

...Which would seem to leave less spectrum real estate available for the LP-10 licensees, assuming that there ever is a filing window for them. :-(


-- Black Shire

Indeed so. Although I assumed that the nail in the coffin for LP-10 was the Great Translator Invasion (or is that thousands of nails in the coffin). I mean, what's left?

One thing I'm not clear on is the kind of protection a translator has verses an LPFM? Is it less, more or about the same?

db

 

[gunterm]

The "Great translator invasion" basically put nails both LPFM coffins. If you search in Topeka for example, for an LPFM frequency there is nothing until excluding the translators...

 

[dbdigital]

The "Great translator invasion" basically put nails both LPFM coffins. If you search in Topeka for example, for an LPFM frequency there is nothing until excluding the translators...

This is true in Los Angeles too. There is a frequency that would be a possible choice, 104.7, and indeed for years it was a favorite of "pirates" throughout the L.A. area. The FCC has licensed a few LPFM's in neighboring Orange County the use of this channel. But I notice that several translator apps for L.A. County list 104.7 as the channel applied for.

I was hoping that 104.7 could be an available channel for several LP-10s in the L.A. area.

db

 

[rec]

I have not posted on this board for quite awhile but just to address some of the issues on here.

Q. How reliable is the RECnet site around NCE searches?
A. As the designer of the site, the specific NCE functionality is somewhat reliable for one application of NCE-FM and that is for non-directional facilities. Honestly, the NCE search tool was originally designed to test field strength alogrithms. Some of which had eventually went into the FMFIND application. I have it on my plate to make some enhancements to the tool, that may add SOME directional antenna functionality (just field strength to specific radials) and some of the references to power may be replaced by field strength distances (e.g. 60dBu at 14.5 km, etc.). Bottom line, if the NCE tool gives you a result of the possibility of a station at the reference coordinates, I would look further at doing additional searches. As usual, REC's search results are not guaranteed and we do not offer any warranty for the results of the site.

Q. Is the NCE Filing Window the nail in the coffin for LP-10?
A. The NCE filing window will have little to no impact on LPFM (either LP-100 or LP-10). This is because in LPFM rules all stations of a particular class are created equal. The LPFM rules protect a 6kw NCE non-directional station the same as a 150 watt directional station. Therefore, there are not many opportunities for LPFM stations below 92. There are currently a very small number of LP-100 stations on the air between 88.1-91.9. The window would also impact the potential use of 92.1, 92.3 and 92.5.

Q. One thing I'm not clear on is the kind of protection a translator has verses an LPFM? Is it less, more or about the same?
TRANSLATOR PROTECTING A TRANSLATOR: Prohibited overlap applies.
TRANSLATOR PROTECTING A LPFM: Before LPFM the station is licensed, the LPFM is protected to full facilities (0.1kW at 30m, non directional). Once the LPFM station is licensed, translators must protect using the prohibited overlap model like to all other stations.
LPFM PROTECTING A TRANSLATOR: Distance spacing model based on the predicted service contour of the translator at the farthest lobe (the 3 sub-classes). See 73.807 of the rules.


Hope this information helps.

Michelle A. Eyre
REC Networks
http://www.recnet.com
http://www.lpfm.ws