PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO STOP OVERPROTECTING STATIONS

[w9wi]

FWIW, the Canadians made precisely this change at the beginning of this year:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08999.html

 

[TheBigA]

Lots of differences between Canada and the US.

 

[davideduardo]

At the heart of the PRM: the FCC Notice in 1987 clearly stated that applicants need to protect the contours of other facilities based on the presumption that any sub-maximum class station would need the opportunity to build out full facilities in the future. The future, from 1987's perspective, has arrived. The PRM says that any operator intent on building out full facilities would have done so by now, hence, the argument that applicants are over-protecting those sub-maximum class facilities for no technical reason.

The problem is that your proposal not only locks in a protected station's height and power, but also its location. Protecting the facility vs protecting the allocation will allow a station to be "ringed" with upgrades and, in the event that a tower / site move is required, the station may have no way of preserving its actual facility.

I would support some kind of protection that allows for a zone around the current site, perhaps with the radius determined by the class of station, so that the station is not locked by changed rules.

On the other hand, many countries employ 400 kHz separation in the same market, with no apparent adverse effects. I've been in many places where this is the standard, and can say that the current protection requirements are exaggerated.

It would be better to clear the ban of HD radio and allow a modified version of your proposal.

 

[Ai4i]

DE is 100% correct. We do not listen on vacuum tube receivers with wide AFC's these days.
Does anybody remember what that god awfull AFC switch even was?
Problem is protectionism. How does one get words to outperform dollars?
Remember, a 250 watt translator at any hight will not QRM a full power broadcaster on a second adjacent channel, but an LPFM with 100 watts at 100 feet will QRM a full power broadcaster on a third adjacent channel.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Yup... That's some of that great FCC political engineering and new math for sure! I'm all for the proposal to make things the same from 88-108 with no difference on the protection stuff. I also agree with DE that radios are for the most part good enough now to change up some of the adjacent channel rules. As more great radios like what are put out on the GM vehicles these days (DSP RADIOS) it would make further relaxation of spacing a happy reality.

 

[TheBigA]

Quantity does not equal quality. More stations crammed into the same tight spectrum space is like more cars crammed on the same 50 year old freeway. What does that get you?

 

[TomT]

Gridlock?

 

[Ai4i]

Sorry, I need to take issue here.
The purpose of the broadcaster is to serve the public, not the other way around.
The more competition there is, the better.
Is someone going to suggest that things would be better if I were deprived of thousands of www streams from which to choose?
I will have all of them in my car in the not to distant future.

 

[TheBigA]

Sorry, I need to take issue here.
The purpose of the broadcaster is to serve the public, not the other way around.

Sorry but that's not true. No one has ever lost a broadcast license for not serving the public.

The FCC has been selling off spectrum space to the highest bidder. It's the same spectrum that used to be for public service. That means they view broadcasting in the same way.

 

[kenglish]

.......Is someone going to suggest that things would be better if I were deprived of thousands of www streams from which to choose?
I will have all of them in my car in the not to distant future.

Unfortunately, the broadband industry will have to completely take over the entire spectrum, before there's enough bandwidth for every driver to have his own stream. God help us all if they decide that each occupant will want something different to listen to, too. ;D