Hmm...

[dbdigital]

Well, having just read RecNet's comments on RM-11287, I'm actually starting to come back to Keith Hamilton's comments against LPAM and agreeing with them.

Given the proposed spacing requirements of the petition and the presence of TIS stations strategically placed around the basin, LPAM is pretty much out of the question for Los Angeles County. Also, if RecNet's reading of the Communications Act of 1934 is correct and commercial LPAM is not possible without a major Congressional amendment to that Act and therefore LPAM must be non-commercial, then we face a repeat of same mess that has been afflicting LPFM.

Therefore, Keith may have it right. Instead of an LPAM service, petitioning the FCC to increase the power and antenna height requirements for Part-15 AM broadcasting may be a better solution.

RecNet does make a good point about keeping 1610 available and opening 1710 up for Part-15 use.

db

 

[WCWalker]

***If it literally is going to take an act of Congress to create a commercial, licensed LPAM service then yes, I'd be in favor of scrapping the idea altogether too.

LPFM is a joke and it will become far WORSE if it is implemented on the AM dial. Non commercial LPAM will be such a boondoggle for independent groups that only the largest religious groups and schools with deep pockets will be able to afford to keep these stations afloat. Obviously, that is not the intent of such a service and the concept is to give individuals and entrepreneurs an opportunity to own a station and possibly earn a modest living while serving the community. Non commercial LPAM will result in a lot of people losing their shirts.

If any attempt is made to "sweeten the part 15 AM pot" then it must be done prudently so as not to result in the loss of what we already have.



> Well, having just read RecNet's comments on RM-11287, I'm
> actually starting to come back to Keith Hamilton's comments
> against LPAM and agreeing with them.
>
> Given the proposed spacing requirements of the petition and
> the presence of TIS stations strategically placed around the
> basin, LPAM is pretty much out of the question for Los
> Angeles County. Also, if RecNet's reading of the
> Communications Act of 1934 is correct and commercial LPAM is
> not possible without a major Congressional amendment to that
> Act and therefore LPAM must be non-commercial, then we face
> a repeat of same mess that has been afflicting LPFM.
>
> Therefore, Keith may have it right. Instead of an LPAM
> service, petitioning the FCC to increase the power and
> antenna height requirements for Part-15 AM broadcasting may
> be a better solution.
>
> RecNet does make a good point about keeping 1610 available
> and opening 1710 up for Part-15 use.
>
> db
>

 

[dbdigital]

> ***If it literally is going to take an act of Congress to
> create a commercial, licensed LPAM service then yes, I'd be
> in favor of scrapping the idea altogether too.
>
> LPFM is a joke and it will become far WORSE if it is
> implemented on the AM dial. Non commercial LPAM will be
> such a boondoggle for independent groups that only the
> largest religious groups and schools with deep pockets will
> be able to afford to keep these stations afloat. Obviously,
> that is not the intent of such a service and the concept is
> to give individuals and entrepreneurs an opportunity to own
> a station and possibly earn a modest living while serving
> the community. Non commercial LPAM will result in a lot of
> people losing their shirts.
>
> If any attempt is made to "sweeten the part 15 AM pot" then
> it must be done prudently so as not to result in the loss
> of what we already have.
>
>
>
> > Well, having just read RecNet's comments on RM-11287, I'm
> > actually starting to come back to Keith Hamilton's
> comments
> > against LPAM and agreeing with them.
> >
> > Given the proposed spacing requirements of the petition
> and
> > the presence of TIS stations strategically placed around
> the
> > basin, LPAM is pretty much out of the question for Los
> > Angeles County. Also, if RecNet's reading of the
> > Communications Act of 1934 is correct and commercial LPAM
> is
> > not possible without a major Congressional amendment to
> that
> > Act and therefore LPAM must be non-commercial, then we
> face
> > a repeat of same mess that has been afflicting LPFM.
> >
> > Therefore, Keith may have it right. Instead of an LPAM
> > service, petitioning the FCC to increase the power and
> > antenna height requirements for Part-15 AM broadcasting
> may
> > be a better solution.
> >
> > RecNet does make a good point about keeping 1610 available
>
> > and opening 1710 up for Part-15 use.
> >
> > db
> >
>

Actually, to clarify RecNet's comments, it stated that a commercial LPAM service would not be possible while keeping the prohibition against an auction process without a major amendment to the Communications Act. But the conclusion is the same and RecNet recommended noncom status for LPAM.

I agree LPFM has become,for the most part, a perverse joke. The "godcasters" have pretty much taken over and would do more of the same with LPAM if it were to be a noncom service. Of course, it could be argued that the whole process of obtaining a commercial radio license is a perverse joke with only those with unlimited revenue being able to afford one (imagine a dying AM station in LA with only modest coverage having a 35M price tag. Outrageous!).

I too agree that asking the FCC for more for Part-15 radio must be done carefully, if at all.

db

 

[radioboy]

> >>
> Actually, to clarify RecNet's comments, it stated that a
> commercial LPAM service would not be possible while keeping
> the prohibition against an auction process without a major
> amendment to the Communications Act. But the conclusion is
> the same and RecNet recommended noncom status for LPAM.
>
> I agree LPFM has become,for the most part, a perverse joke.
> The "godcasters" have pretty much taken over and would do
> more of the same with LPAM if it were to be a noncom
> service. Of course, it could be argued that the whole
> process of obtaining a commercial radio license is a
> perverse joke with only those with unlimited revenue being
> able to afford one (imagine a dying AM station in LA with
> only modest coverage having a 35M price tag. Outrageous!).

This is exactly the point that I brought up in my written comments to the FCC, which I filed with the FCC on November 9. I said, in part,

"..I have attempted to buy licensed AM stations twice, only to watch the price
soar to absolutely unreachable amounts, for small facilities in physically poor
condition that could never earn back a fraction of the asking price."

The only LPFM our market is getting is to a church. Their "local content" will involve a computer automation system.

Our AM market is pathetic. Having seen the *real* Arbitron numbers, AM listenership is just under a 5-share. Out of 5 local AMs, three have shares too
small to show at all..but then, an automated legal ID at the top of the hour
in otherwise all satellite programming is not very compelling local content!
>
> I too agree that asking the FCC for more for Part-15 radio
> must be done carefully, if at all.
>
> db
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Proudly remembering the days of the hometown "country giant" radio stations now at
http://www.live365.com/stations/alanmccall</P>

 

[xmusicmatt]

> The only LPFM our market is getting is to a church. Their
> "local content" will involve a computer automation system.
>


The biggest problem is, even the LPFM's not owned by churches are nothing more than a computer in a closet, most LPFM's dont have the budgets to pay people to do live shows, so they usually load up whatever format (classical, jazz, freeform, Christian etc.. onto a PC and let it roll -- at least most of the LPFMs ive seen)

If the big named broadcasters who could budget live and local radio are not going to do it (and their more likely to have the cash to do so) I dont think your going to find many LPFM licenses, who are going to attempt to do live and local radio (unless they have the cash to do so), sad yes it may be but that's reality unfortually. <P ID="signature">______________
Lenks
Program Director/Music Director
X Music Online
The X
Today's Best Music
http://www.xmusiconline.com/</P>

 

[WCWalker]

***Non commercial LPAM will never be able to survive on sponsorships. Perhaps in some of the markets where roughly 20% or more of the radios are tuned into AM they could get some support but it is not likely it will be enough to keep afloat. As it is most of the independent LPFM stations are swimming in debt and only a handful are even close to breaking even or turning a "profit".

I do have a friend in Ohio that runs a "Full Service" style LPFM and that does pretty well. It is in a rural area with no local radio station except in a town about 10 miles away. His is the exception rather than the rule though as most of the LPFM people I talk to tell me stories of woe.

Thankfully, if we can get commercial LPAM through it will not cost a ton of money to build and stay on the air. Yes, it will cost a little more than a comparable LPFM station but most of the added cost will be in the actual engineering studies and installation of the 30 to 40 foot tower and ground system. Aside from that, the cost to assemble a studio should be more or less the same but with montly eletricity costs to be higher with the LPAM.


> > The only LPFM our market is getting is to a church. Their
> > "local content" will involve a computer automation system.
>
> >
>
>
> The biggest problem is, even the LPFM's not owned by
> churches are nothing more than a computer in a closet, most
> LPFM's dont have the budgets to pay people to do live shows,
> so they usually load up whatever format (classical, jazz,
> freeform, Christian etc.. onto a PC and let it roll -- at
> least most of the LPFMs ive seen)
>
> If the big named broadcasters who could budget live and
> local radio are not going to do it (and their more likely to
> have the cash to do so) I dont think your going to find many
> LPFM licenses, who are going to attempt to do live and local
> radio (unless they have the cash to do so), sad yes it may
> be but that's reality unfortually.
>