• 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

Revised LPAM Petition

D

dbdigital

Guest
As most of you know, the LPAM petition was revised last week scrapping the petition's earlier power and spacing requirements in favor of following the same FCC requirements for TIS stations as well as making some minor adjustments on ownership qualifications.Any thoughts?db
 
I've always favored this "Commercial TIS/HAR" model for the LPAM service. The equipment is readily available, the antenna/ground systems are reasonably efficient, and their range is sufficient to cover small communities (and then some, in many cases).Allowing either mono or C-QUAM AM Stereo on the LPAM stations would be nice. The only caveat I'd insist on is a reasonable local programming content requirement to prevent the churches from snapping up the LPAM licenses as they did with satellite-fed FM translators. I have nothing against religious programming, but other formats deserve a chance to serve their communities as well.Another provision that could be useful to small "crossroads" communities in areas with many existing TISs or an otherwise crowded AM band would be the use of buried RF induction cable along the main road(s). Its signal would locally over-power the more distant adjacent-channel stations while not adding to the skywave noise problem. Walt Disney World has at least one AM TIS that uses roadside buried RF induction cable for the antenna. -- Jason
 
dbdigital said:
As most of you know, the LPAM petition was revised last week scrapping the petition's earlier power and spacing requirements in favor of following the same FCC requirements for TIS stations as well as making some minor adjustments on ownership qualifications.Any thoughts?db
Click to expand...
How 'bout helping a guy out with a link: which petition is it? REC's, a major one, is still dated August 2005.
 
How 'bout helping a guy out with a link: which petition is it? REC's, a major one, is still dated August 2005.[/quote]Sorry, ironbear. I wasn't in my office today so I could not accommodate your request right away. Here is where I read about it: http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0506.htm#050106Of course, thanks to
ec, the LPAM.WS site has a link to a pdf of the revised petition as well as a copy of a letter from Frank Hansche to the FCC.My only wish is that the petition removed any restriction as to where on the AM band an LPAM can be placed. The service should be allowed access to any open channel, not just the X-band. After all, TIS and LPFM stations can do this, LPAM stations should be given this freedom as well.And, yes, C-Quam would be very nice.db
 
<And, yes, C-Quam would be very nice.>Thank you. From what I read, the new LPAM plan only initially restricts stations to the Expanded AM band.Allowing operation down to 520 kHz (most AM receivers can tune this low, and so do the Talking House a.k.a. InfoMAX Part 15 AM transmitters) would open up many more frequency slots around the country. Even at this low frequency the standard TIS coil-loaded whip antennas are adequately efficient, and taking care to provide good RF grounds also helps. -- Jason
 
Re: Revised LPAM Petition-VERY BAD IDEA-Using TIS certified transmitters!

The mandatory severe audio filter required on all certified TIS transmitters limits frequency response to about telephone quality!Music sounds TERRIBLE.This was required by the NAB and broadcasters to be included in the TIS rules. Check them.It was an extremely bad idea to include the TIS transmitter approval in the specification.(I worked with Radio Systems and LPB on these systems, so I know).
 
Re: Revised LPAM Petition-VERY BAD IDEA-Using TIS certified transmitters!

SUPERCASTER said:
The mandatory severe audio filter required on all certified TIS transmitters limits frequency response to about telephone quality!Music sounds TERRIBLE.This was required by the NAB and broadcasters to be included in the TIS rules. Check them.It was an extremely bad idea to include the TIS transmitter approval in the specification.(I worked with Radio Systems and LPB on these systems, so I know).
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the Arizona Department of Transportation doesn't know this. Their TIS' musical PSA's by Randy Travis sound great!Seriously, I think the revision is a good thing, and that a minor change regarding frequency response may not be all that huge.
 
Re: Revised LPAM Petition-VERY BAD IDEA-Using TIS certified transmitters!

<Interestingly, the Arizona Department of Transportation doesn't know this. Their TIS' musical PSA's by Randy Travis sound great!Seriously, I think the revision is a good thing, and that a minor change regarding frequency response may not be all that huge.>I'd wager that even if an FCC field agent heard these musical PSAs on that TIS, s/he would do nothing. When the broadcasting of music was prohibited in the TIS rules, I think they had in mind copyrighted songs that were/are available for sale to the general public on LP records, 8-track tapes, CDs, or cassette tapes.I don't doubt your description of the TIS's audio quality. Even a 3 kHz telephone circuit can sound very good if both the load and source ends are properly equalized. If the revised LPAM rules are accepted, TIS transmitter manufacturers such as ISS and LPB can simply remove the severe audio filters from their units or replace them with wider-bandwidth ones for LPAM service.This does raise one question, though: since the TIS antennas may have been designed with the narrow, restricted audio bandwidth in mind, can the existing TIS antenna designs pass a 5 kHz or 10 kHz bandwidth AM signal? If they can't, it's not a show-stopper for the LPAM service. Using a fatter antenna (either metal tubing or a vertical "wire cage") would increase its bandwidth. -- Jason
 
Re: Revised LPAM Petition-VERY BAD IDEA-Using TIS certified transmitters!

JasonW said:
I don't doubt your description of the TIS's audio quality. Even a 3 kHz telephone circuit can sound very good if both the load and source ends are properly equalized.
Click to expand...
Nope, definitely better than 3 kHz., a sound familiar to me from years of listening to poor quality network telco and WU feeds (sub 5 kHz.) in ancient times. Expect to hear little in the way of voice sibilance in that bandwidth. Note that use of music under 30 seconds is still considered 'fair use', and obviously it's with Randy's blessing in this case.
 
As a matter of curiousity, I wonder if the FCC would require every LPAM station to have an EAS system if the TIS specifications were used?db
 
Interesting petition. As I understand it, I can own LPAM's in as many different markets as I want, as long as I live within 25 miles of all of them. I smell network
 
dbdigital said:
As a matter of curiousity, I wonder if the FCC would require every LPAM station to have an EAS system if the TIS specifications were used?db
Click to expand...
I don't know, but that is a good question.If EAS equipment is prohibitively expensive for most LPAM stations (it may not be, but I just don't know), using NOAA Weather Radio receivers with SAME (Specific-Area-Message-Encoding, see: www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/nwrsame.htm ) capability would be a low-cost alternative.NOAA SAME warnings aren't just weather-related, but also include other emergencies such as earthquakes and wildfires. In fact, SAME is NOAA's part of the EAS and uses the same digital coding as the EAS. -- Jason
 
It was broadcasters, not the music interests, that insisted on the mandated audio filter, the restrictions on commercials, programming, and restricted ownership rules for TIS.Unfortunately, the same may happen to the LPAM proposal.Yes, small AM antennas with sufficient bandwidth to pass an AM signal with reasonable fidelity can, and have been made.
 
It was broadcasters, not the music interests, that insisted on the mandated audio filter, the restrictions on commercials, programming, and restricted ownership rules for TIS.Unfortunately, the same may happen to the LPAM proposal.Yes, small AM antennas with sufficient bandwidth to pass an AM signal with reasonable fidelity can, and have been made.
 
JasonW said:
dbdigital said:
As a matter of curiousity, I wonder if the FCC would require every LPAM station to have an EAS system if the TIS specifications were used?db
Click to expand...
I don't know, but that is a good question.If EAS equipment is prohibitively expensive for most LPAM stations (it may not be, but I just don't know), using NOAA Weather Radio receivers with SAME (Specific-Area-Message-Encoding, see: www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/nwrsame.htm ) capability would be a low-cost alternative.NOAA SAME warnings aren't just weather-related, but also include other emergencies such as earthquakes and wildfires. In fact, SAME is NOAA's part of the EAS and uses the same digital coding as the EAS. -- Jason
Click to expand...
I know that all LPFM stations are required to have an EAS and many use the system from Gorman-Redlick, Inc. It costs about $2000.00.That sounds like a very good, cost effective alternative, Jason. If the FCC would allow it.db
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom