> I tend to lean towards your opinion...100 watts is none
> sense.
> 10 watts wouldve been perfect, take the TIS/HAR radio
> service and make some changes to the rules and technical
> issues, then you wouldve had a LPAM service.
> Some of those stations have pretty decent coverage for being
> 10 watts.
> I could see it becomming a reality if they followed that
> model , but not
> the way its currently being proposed now.
>
>
> > > > NAB = National Association of Bullsh*t or Nasty Ass> >
>
> > Bastereds.> > This is nothing new for this whacked group.>
> >
> > > > > > > Just recieved my copy of Radio Magazine and on
> > page 14> is> > an> > > article by Harry Martin
> > communications attorney and his> > > column 'FCC Update'
> and
> > there in black and white is the> > > article about LPAM,
> > it's merits and obstacles, and how> > it's> > > a long
> > fought road to get proposed by the FCC and NAB.> > > > > >
>
> > Quote "A difficult task" and another is the "exempt from>
> >
> > > > auction" but that would require an "amendment to the>
> >
> > > Communications Act" in order for the frequencies to be>
> > had> > > > > by 'mom & pop' operations. > > > > > > Looks
> > like the NAB is going to fight this one harder> than> > >
> > they did for LPFM.> > > > > > Radiopilot> > > > > > > > >
> > Found the link at Radio Mag> > > > > >
> > http://beradio.com/fcc/radio_fcc_considers_lowpower/> > >>
> >
> > > > Quote from the article : "Interference calculations
> > would be> made under existing AM allocation rules, but
> with
> > a 100W> application treated as one for 1kW."> > How is
> this
> > considered low-power?> I happened to be re-reading on this
>
> > subject last night, and the concerns layed out in the
> > article are some of my very same concerns.........The LPAM
>
> > proposal (I believe) was made simply because the LPFM
> rules
> > left out everyone but organizations, while owning a
> > full-power station (am OR fm) leaves out 99.9% of ordinary
>
> > citizens.......but their proposal automatically became a
> > problem when it included powers (wattage) up to 100
> > watts....that is where the NAB would certainly step in and
>
> > here is why:......excluding the clear channels, there are
> > way too many former class D (and even class B and C!!)
> > stations that are now allowed on the air at night with
> > powers between 1 and 99 watts....the majority of them have
>
> > 20-30 watts of night time power.....if you owned a station
>
> > in that situation, you would most certainly be concerned
> > about a potential LPAM station popping up in your
> > neighborhood!....While the current proposal includes
> > ownership by non-community clubs and businesses, allows
> time
> > sales, and in other words looks like a part 15am station
> > gone powerful, the chances of that proposal being passed
> > seems close to nil....The clincher, in my opinion should
> > have been power.......as a part 15er, I myself realize
> that
> > if I had 3 or 4 watts of power, I could cut through what
> > little interference I have here and be heard clearly, for
> a
> > little more cost than what a current part 15am tx costs
> > now.....but 100 watts?....that is an expensive piece of
> > equipment, the tower would set most part 15'ers back, and
> in
> > short, again, only the richest people could afford to be
> on
> > the air under this proposal. Perhaps a better proposal
> > would be to limit the power to 5 watts, with the
> limitation
> > for the current 3 meter antenna gone...allowing for a
> longer
> > antenna....this would make a lpam more effiecient overall,
>
> > yet would keep transmissions low to the point where
> > heavy-duty regulations were unnesasary. Im not being
> > technical here on purpose; my feeling is that the
> proposals
> > almost negate themselves because of the high-power
> > "requirement"....had the power been kept low (higher than
> > part 15~~ lower than most class D nighttime allotments)
> the
> > chances to be seriously considered would have been
> > raised....unfortunately I don't see a chance, due to my
> > reasoning above, for these proposals to pass.
> >
>
I know that in Britain the LPAM service is limited to 50 watts. Maybe the petition should have followed the British model.
But as the article indicated there is enough in the petition for the FCC to kick it back and proclaim it unworkable. As much as I detest the FCC's auction process, the suggestion that it not be used for LPAM probably should have been left out.
Ain't hindsight grand?
db
