-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NPR Claims LPTV Broadcasting On Ch. 6 Is Illegal; LPTV Owner Says It's Hogwash
- Thread starter DToTheJ
- Start date
Re: Turf Protection vs Technology: Stoning The Innovators
I guess I look at the "Franken FM" name as overly dramatic. All these stations are is LPTVers with jacked up audio and an FM stereo carrier. From the high level view of technical parameters and spectrum, they just don't seem to warrant such a dire monicker. Maybe it's just me.
Read the thread. The FCC actively addressed a Channel 6 LPTV in Alaska, ruling that LPTVs must supply a video carrier. No other violation was cited. NPR is apparently trying to suggest that interference might be caused by these compliant stations presumably because they are operating with optimized audio processing. If they've provided any actual evidence of interference, I haven't seen it.
WBEZ in Chicago engaged its lawyers in a turf war, apparently employing the bizarre allegation that local Channel 6 LPTV operator Venture is "effectively expanding the reserved noncommercial educational FM band, violating its fundamental restriction by marketing the spectrum for profit and commercial gain."
I wonder how many poor rural NPR affiliates WBEZ could have helped out in lieu of those billable hours to wage a political fight over an LPTV that's supposedly going away in a few years? And Chicago Public Radio makes the peremptory assumption that the noncomm band already includes the Channel 6 spectrum, which Venture is violating by operating an already-licensed commercial station!
Whew. Maybe I'm wrong about defunding public radio. At least in Chicago, they're gonna need those tax dollars so they can reserve their other funds to hire better lawyers. Well, maybe not. An intellectually challenged argument like that will probably make perfect sense to the lawyers at the FCC. Maybe we need to spend more tax money hiring better lawyers for the FCC.
Come pledge time why doesn't everybody help out poor l'il WBEZ and Chicago Public Radio. They have lawyer fees to pay after all. For really important stuff.
Meanwhile, Channel 6 LPTVs are trying to hold on to their analog operations as long as possible, even though it appears there will be a sunset requiring a conversion to digital TV. The digital conversion will render the LPTVs near-useless since they will then be unavailable to analog FM receivers and uncarried by most cable systems. LPTV operators knew that going in, but how does it maximize service to consumers?
Radio is likely looking to the future when they might annex the adjacent TV channel 5 and 6 bandwidth for additional stations. NPR is likely looking toward maximizing access to any new spectrum for their member stations (except in Chicago of course, where they think half of it is already their spectrum).
There are several ways to go about this. One is to submit a request to the FCC to reallocate Channels 5 and 6 to noncomm FM. I believe that's already been done. Another is to claim imaginary interference, call out the lawyers and start the bureaucracy rolling.
As for HD interference, have there been any documented claims of interference to protected contours that the FCC can act on?
I guess I look at the "Franken FM" name as overly dramatic. All these stations are is LPTVers with jacked up audio and an FM stereo carrier. From the high level view of technical parameters and spectrum, they just don't seem to warrant such a dire monicker. Maybe it's just me.
TheBigA said:musichead1029 said:The FCC has already defacto decided that as long as these FMs-on-TV provide a video carrier and adhere to their assigned technical parameters, they are compliant.
"Defacto decided?" In other words, they put it on ignore. Like they have for interference complaints about IBOC. That's no reason not to bring it up.
Read the thread. The FCC actively addressed a Channel 6 LPTV in Alaska, ruling that LPTVs must supply a video carrier. No other violation was cited. NPR is apparently trying to suggest that interference might be caused by these compliant stations presumably because they are operating with optimized audio processing. If they've provided any actual evidence of interference, I haven't seen it.
WBEZ in Chicago engaged its lawyers in a turf war, apparently employing the bizarre allegation that local Channel 6 LPTV operator Venture is "effectively expanding the reserved noncommercial educational FM band, violating its fundamental restriction by marketing the spectrum for profit and commercial gain."
I wonder how many poor rural NPR affiliates WBEZ could have helped out in lieu of those billable hours to wage a political fight over an LPTV that's supposedly going away in a few years? And Chicago Public Radio makes the peremptory assumption that the noncomm band already includes the Channel 6 spectrum, which Venture is violating by operating an already-licensed commercial station!
Whew. Maybe I'm wrong about defunding public radio. At least in Chicago, they're gonna need those tax dollars so they can reserve their other funds to hire better lawyers. Well, maybe not. An intellectually challenged argument like that will probably make perfect sense to the lawyers at the FCC. Maybe we need to spend more tax money hiring better lawyers for the FCC.
Come pledge time why doesn't everybody help out poor l'il WBEZ and Chicago Public Radio. They have lawyer fees to pay after all. For really important stuff.
Meanwhile, Channel 6 LPTVs are trying to hold on to their analog operations as long as possible, even though it appears there will be a sunset requiring a conversion to digital TV. The digital conversion will render the LPTVs near-useless since they will then be unavailable to analog FM receivers and uncarried by most cable systems. LPTV operators knew that going in, but how does it maximize service to consumers?
Radio is likely looking to the future when they might annex the adjacent TV channel 5 and 6 bandwidth for additional stations. NPR is likely looking toward maximizing access to any new spectrum for their member stations (except in Chicago of course, where they think half of it is already their spectrum).
There are several ways to go about this. One is to submit a request to the FCC to reallocate Channels 5 and 6 to noncomm FM. I believe that's already been done. Another is to claim imaginary interference, call out the lawyers and start the bureaucracy rolling.
As for HD interference, have there been any documented claims of interference to protected contours that the FCC can act on?
Re: Turf Protection vs Technology: Stoning The Innovators
I read the thread. Nothing in it addresses my point. Just because NPR asks for clarification doesn't mean it will win. In the law, you need to keep advocating your point, or it could lead to "abandonment." As I suggested, the FCC hasn't addressed any of the interference claims made by opponants of IBOC. Are those IBOC opponants "stoning the innovators?" And is NPR, as an advocate of IBOC, in the same role as these Franken FMs? Just in a different way? It's not as simple as you seem to think it is. Everyone has their point of view, and they all demand to be heard, as is their right.
I don't know...Bob Savage of WYSL is the leader of that group. He holds court on the HD Radio board. He told me the FCC has put him on ignore.
There is a long line of groups who feel equally qualified for that spectrum. If it's up to the FCC to decide, I expect they'll give it to minority broadcasters. They have no reason to turn over valuable spectrum to broadcasters when they could sell it at a good price.
musichead1029 said:Read the thread. The FCC actively addressed a Channel 6 LPTV in Alaska, ruling that LPTVs must supply a video carrier.
I read the thread. Nothing in it addresses my point. Just because NPR asks for clarification doesn't mean it will win. In the law, you need to keep advocating your point, or it could lead to "abandonment." As I suggested, the FCC hasn't addressed any of the interference claims made by opponants of IBOC. Are those IBOC opponants "stoning the innovators?" And is NPR, as an advocate of IBOC, in the same role as these Franken FMs? Just in a different way? It's not as simple as you seem to think it is. Everyone has their point of view, and they all demand to be heard, as is their right.
musichead1029 said:As for HD interference, have there been any documented claims of interference to protected contours that the FCC can act on?
I don't know...Bob Savage of WYSL is the leader of that group. He holds court on the HD Radio board. He told me the FCC has put him on ignore.
musichead1029 said:Radio is likely looking to the future when they might annex the adjacent TV channel 5 and 6 bandwidth for additional stations.
There is a long line of groups who feel equally qualified for that spectrum. If it's up to the FCC to decide, I expect they'll give it to minority broadcasters. They have no reason to turn over valuable spectrum to broadcasters when they could sell it at a good price.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.