• 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

NAB opposes FM contour rule change

While I am strongly in favor of all of the proposed rule changes regarding spacing and contours, it certainly makes sense that the NAB is taking the position they are. They are simply doing their best to protect their primary source of income - the large group operators. See the 80 / 20 rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_20_rule
 
Why should this surprise anyone?

The NAB has been in the pocket of the 'big boys' for the past 30 plus years! They no longer represent radio/broadcasting at all. I dumped the NAB in the early 1980s when I was manager at a 10 watter (that was an NAB member) and they came out AGAINST 10 watt stations! Here was an organization that we were dues paying members of-and who was throwing us under the bus for bigger stations!

Clear Channel, Cumulus, Beasley and the other status quo stations also filed against this as a group-again no surprise!

I not only support this, but filed comments in which I stated that it did not go nearly far enough-and provided my own opinions as to where things should start. The irony is that Clear Channel would likely be helped by my suggestions more then they would be hurt-but when you can't buy a clue with a million dollars (as it is there) again, what should we expect?
 
What did the NAB say against ten watt stations? Was this the whole concept of increasing power to at least 100 watts or no longer being protected?
 
Yup. Time and time again the NAB proves it only represents #1 TV, #2 big chain radio operators, in that order. To hell with us little guys. They could care less.
 
Opportunity and time was given each Class D, to increase power to at least 100 watts. Such a station would then be protected as a Class A. I think that's very reasonable and I believe, the NAB merely supported the idea.
 
Yeah. A perfect example of the NAB only looking out for themselves. They swore it would create major interference all over the dial. While in the meantime, they admitted that IBOC would cause interference, but that was OK.
 
We dropped NAB a few years ago. We remain committed to the state association.
 
RockNuts! said:
Yeah. A perfect example of the NAB only looking out for themselves. They swore it would create major interference all over the dial. While in the meantime, they admitted that IBOC would cause interference, but that was OK.
Click to expand...

Was speaking of LPFM in 3rd sentence above. Sorry.
 
semoochie said:
Opportunity and time was given each Class D, to increase power to at least 100 watts. Such a station would then be protected as a Class A. I think that's very reasonable and I believe, the NAB merely supported the idea.
Click to expand...

I was too new in radio when this happened to follow it. Was every class D given the chance to upgrade regardless of spectrum availability?

I recall that the FCC considered the FM band still largely undeveloped and considered the class D stations as an inefficient use of spectrum. I think they were once referred to as "oceans of interference for little islands of service". I think the rub was that class D stations were fully protected and a class D might pop up in an urban center and preclude a much higher class of station from serving the same area. Indeed, this is inefficient when the band is still developing. Of course, things are different now. The band is far more developed. Because most high powered slots are used, filling in the remaining spectrum with something like class D stations goes from being the least efficient to being the MOST efficient use of spectrum. The times do change....
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom