• 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

LPFM in Buffalo

S

SirRoxalot

The FCC expects to open up a Low Power FM auction in October for a bunch of new not-for-profit 100w stations. They have a frequency search tool posted. Just for fun, I plugged in some Buffalo coordinates. Here are the frequencies reported as "available":

Channels Available for LPFM LP100 Stations
[Channels 201 to 300, corresponding to 88.1 to 107.9 MHz]

Channel 237 ---- 95.3 MHz
Channel 238 ---- 95.5 MHz
Channel 248 ---- 97.5 MHz
Channel 249 ---- 97.7 MHz
Channel 286 ---- 105.1 MHz
Channel 287 ---- 105.3 MHz
Channel 288 ---- 105.5 MHz

You can try the tool yourself here:

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-lpfm-channel-finder

There are a couple of Canadian stations, and a few translators who may be unhappy. Then again, the Canadians have pretty much shut Buffalo stations out of Toronto through the addition of LPFMs. 97.7 Htz FM out of St. Catharines and "Ed FM" (105.1) in Fort Erie could find themselves with even less coverage down here. According to FCC rules, any LP would simply have to accept interference.

I imagine it could get interesting in Rochester as well, with similar impact on Canadian signals.
 
The LPFM has to accept incoming interference - but it can't cause interference on Canadian soil, either, which means that many of these potential frequencies may not actually be available for use in Buffalo.

A wise would-be LPFM operator will have already engaged the services of a consultant to help navigate this complex process.

(Disclaimer: I am a consultant who can help navigate this complex process :) )
 
It's fair game, if it can be done.
97.7 for example, can perhaps go low power without touching Canadian soil, but 97,7 CHTZ FM does not have the right to fight back with a boosted signal.
In fact, I wonder, would they be ordered to turn down their signal?
I know for a fact that I can pick up CHTZ in Niagara falls USA. I also know a grocery store or two locked into 105.1 instead of Star 102.
Very interesting news indeed!!

***That's Niagara falls NY, not Buffalo NY, respectfully...
 
Let's try this again:

There is nothing a U.S.-based LPFM signal can legally do that would affect reception of a Canadian signal on Canadian soil. That reception is legally protected from interference. No U.S.-based LPFM signal can be authorized if it would interfere with a Canadian signal in Canada. There would be no reason, then, for a Canadian signal to "fight back with a boosted signal," nor any way in which a Canadian operator would be "ordered to turn down their signal."

(Furthermore, the congested nature of the FM dial on both sides of the lake means that there's no room available for a station like CHTZ to get a "boosted signal" without generating impermissible interference to other existing stations. If CHTZ could have had a bigger signal, they'd have done it already.)

No Canadian FM signal is protected from interference in the U.S. If a U.S. station is authorized in a way that interferes with a Canadian signal on U.S. soil (as the 102.1 in Albion does, for instance, to CFNY reception in the Rochester area), there's no recourse for the Canadian broadcaster. The same is true in the opposite direction: there was nothing WBLK could do when Canada authorized a 93.5 in Toronto that interferes with WBLK reception in Canada, or that WNED-FM could do about the 94.7 in Hamilton.

However:

Because 105.1 is so close to the border (and 97.7, too), it would be nearly technically impossible to authorize a Buffalo-area LPFM signal that could exist without interfering on Canadian soil. Even though those channels appear as "available" on the FCC's frequency finder, I'm pretty sure that frequency finder doesn't take Canadian protections into account.

Again, this is a complicated game that pretty much demands a good consultant to help navigate all the complexities of the rules, especially in a border zone.
 
We do, yes...but the FCC tool has already taken that into account, at least. The only potential cross-border issue I can see there, and it's an unlikely one, would be a Buffalo LP on 105.5 interfering on Canadian soil with CHRE on 105.7. I'd have to look more closely at the rules to see if that turns out to be an issue or not; my gut tells me no, especially given the example that already exists of WECK's 102.9 translator against CKLH.

(But, again, anyone who's really serious about doing anything with the October window, especially near the border, should absolutely be engaging the services of an expert at this point - though we can certainly have fun kicking it around here in the meantime.)
 
Several of them, yes. When the rules changed to eliminate the third-adjacent protection between LPFMs and full-power stations, it opened up room for at least one or two LPs in just about every market save for the very biggest.
 
Interesting -- how would this be treated on an international basis?

FCC regulations specify a LPFM will not be authorized if it can't meet distance separation minimums vs. full-power stations. If CING-95.3, CHTZ-97.7, and CJED-105.1 were U.S. stations, 95.3/97.7/105.1 would be off-limits for LPFMs anywhere near Buffalo. The stations are 83, 40, and 27km respectively from the border and the minimum distance specifications are 111, 112, and 112km respectively.

Do I remember properly that 54dBu is the interference-protected contour for *all* FM stations in Canada? (in the U.S. 54dBu applies only to commercial Class B stations, with most other stations only protected to 60dBu) All three of these stations provide 54dBu at the border - so any U.S. station on these frequencies that would put any signal at all across the border would cause prohibited interference. Whose definition of "interference-protected contour" applies when the interference would cross the border?

While you apparently couldn't use these three frequencies in downtown Buffalo, maybe you could elsewhere in the metropolitan area?

If you launched a full-facility LPFM on 105.1 at a site 18.6km in from the border, by my calculations its F(50,10) signal (50% of locations 10% of the time) would be 20dB below CJED's signal at the border. It would be too weak to cause any interference in Canada. The LPFM would be 80km too close to CJED if protected by distance separation only, but far enough away if protected by signal contours.

I guess my question is, when determining whether a LPFM is interfering with a foreign station, does the FCC strictly use the distance table in 73.807, or do they consider contour protection?
 
Unless you are in the middle of nowhere, LPFM is a cruel hoax. In my neck of the woods there is an LPFM at a high school. About 100 miles away there is a 97,000 watt Class C on the same frequency. I decided to check out the LPFM's coverage. The high school station was reasonably clear two miles from its transmitter. After that there was a zone of noisy interference where neither station was listenable , and the interference zone encompassed far more area than did the service area. Beyond the interference area, the big station was solidly on top. The result is a tiny island of service in an ocean of interference. The net effect is to give most people fewer listening choices.

Why invest in a station that covers next to nothing?

My impression is that the feds created LPFM to counter the effects of massive consolidation, with nearly all metro stations owned by companies that are halfway across the nation. A more rational approach would be to amend the Communications Act of 1996 in such a way as to roll back some of the consolidation and encourage local ownership of real stations.

LPFM is more of a problem than a solution. It takes an already congested band and makes the overcrowding even worse.
 
w9wi said:
I guess my question is, when determining whether a LPFM is interfering with a foreign station, does the FCC strictly use the distance table in 73.807, or do they consider contour protection?
Click to expand...

From the Canadian perspective, a U.S. LPFM is a class D signal, just like a translator. And if that's the case (which I'm 99% certain about), the relevant showing would be the 34 dBu contour of the LPFM against the 54 dBu of the Canadian full-power signal, on Canadian soil. If there's no overlap, the LPFM should be OK.
 
I'm chiming in...
1.
Can "anyone" apply and be awarded the LP FM,
or does one have to be a non profit organization...?

PS: I am a non profitting organization lol...
Yes, I am midding and YES a non profit
can make money*it is how they handle the surplus...
that defines them as such..

OK so can RB-Op Industries become a NonProfit agency lol...
which leads me to my next inquiry...

2.
Can one fill out a few forms, and qualify for the requirements
for the NON Profit requirements...

3.
or be tricky and use their alta mater from their
high school and say the station will "serve the community"
but rarely associate with the school...
 
It has to be a registered non profit in your state of residence. It is not required to be a 501C3.

I'd be very wary of applying using the auspices of any organization that's not on board with your plans and doesn't give you clear consent.

Registering an NPO is affordable and simple and the clearly legal way to go about an LPFM application.
 
Thanks steve on air, for the info...
also, if I have my numbers and letters correct,I am
currently employed by an 501C agency :)
and have been so for the last decade.

( does that help)?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom