i say go for it. the fact that there aint be no listeners at the start of a new lower freq, will keep the riff-raff cookie cutter corporates out. this can open the band to more musical diversity, like FM outlets did to AM in the 60's, and early 70's. sure, if you are a station owner you dont want more competition. but, then again why worry. like you said "without significant audience". ear me up some merle, and i'll buy a new low band FM unit yesterday! i say go for it.
-
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
Where art thou? Smooth Jazz
- Thread starter discjockeyjohn64
- Start date
scott salvatori said:
From everything I have read it seems much of the debate centers around finding bandwidth for LPFM's and while that will be nearly impossible to sell and get accomplished I for one would like to see it happen.
I would love to be able to get my hands on an LPFM license in this area but unless there is one being sold the only shot at that would be if more bandwidth was allocated for LPFM or the FCC decides to allow LPFM's to operate 3 clicks from a major rather than 4 and I am guessing there would sufficient lobbying going on to prevent that from happening...
Actually, Congress, as I understand it, recently ruled (when the majority were governing, and not trying to end government as we know it, but I digress) that LPFM's can be located TWO clicks away from the major allocations, as long as interference is proven to not be a factor. Requires real engineers and studies, and a lot of patience for a new application window to open up, and to be able to better your competitors for the same freq, but you should be able to do it before long.
Keep in mind, often there is a fullpower station in an adjacent market that is on the fringe of its protected coverage on those frequencies - especially in places like Detroit and Los Angeles where the frequency allocations were regularly spaced apart across the commercial part of the dial. You will have to prove that an LPFM allocated to some of those in-between frequencies wouldn't cover up reception people already get from the station on that frequency 50 or 90 miles away, in areas that are considered their "protected" contour. But current policy seems to do a poor job, in my opinion, of accounting for real-life terrain factors.
Note that a handful of religious broadcasters have already set up a huge network of non-commercial "translator" stations on those very frequencies, since they didn't pitch them as low power FMs, tho' technically they're the same thing - but without a local studio. Perhaps the expanded dial could be a way to get them shut down, and just let them purchase spectrum for multiple markets on the same channel, now that they seem to have a lot of tax-free money in their treasuries.
I, too, favor an expanded FM band. As is too often the case, the industry apologists among us (see earlier posts) fail to see how it would benefit them, too, since it requires re-thinking the status quo. It would make room to move some of the already problematic squeezing of FM signals down into the new portion of the band, and allow for cleaner reception of existing allocations. It could let many AMs migrate to FM (altho I'd say many of them will still probably lack much of an audience, given their current programming). And it provides a technically well-ordered "safety valve" for new services, such as low power, additional public radio, perhaps to give some of the HD channels to a "standard" outlet, etc. Or, like some commercial guys would probably prefer, a place for some of their OWN national services to operate with standardized frequencies in multiple markets.
Keep in mind, often there is a fullpower station in an adjacent market that is on the fringe of its protected coverage on those frequencies - especially in places like Detroit and Los Angeles where the frequency allocations were regularly spaced apart across the commercial part of the dial. You will have to prove that an LPFM allocated to some of those in-between frequencies wouldn't cover up reception people already get from the station on that frequency 50 or 90 miles away, in areas that are considered their "protected" contour. But current policy seems to do a poor job, in my opinion, of accounting for real-life terrain factors.
Note that a handful of religious broadcasters have already set up a huge network of non-commercial "translator" stations on those very frequencies, since they didn't pitch them as low power FMs, tho' technically they're the same thing - but without a local studio. Perhaps the expanded dial could be a way to get them shut down, and just let them purchase spectrum for multiple markets on the same channel, now that they seem to have a lot of tax-free money in their treasuries.
I, too, favor an expanded FM band. As is too often the case, the industry apologists among us (see earlier posts) fail to see how it would benefit them, too, since it requires re-thinking the status quo. It would make room to move some of the already problematic squeezing of FM signals down into the new portion of the band, and allow for cleaner reception of existing allocations. It could let many AMs migrate to FM (altho I'd say many of them will still probably lack much of an audience, given their current programming). And it provides a technically well-ordered "safety valve" for new services, such as low power, additional public radio, perhaps to give some of the HD channels to a "standard" outlet, etc. Or, like some commercial guys would probably prefer, a place for some of their OWN national services to operate with standardized frequencies in multiple markets.
Then Goldi, as has been suggested before in many a thread here.. Why don't you go out and buy an AM station somewhere, operate it while maintaining enough cashflow to keep it on the air hoping that the commission will allow the expanded band someday. Then cough up the capital to build out an expanded band station and wait another ten years for listeners to arrive. Unless you are independently wealthy (and with your business sense I can't see how you would be) you would be pouring money into a black hole that you could never dig out of.
That being said, please one of you who claim to be the salvation of radio, put your money where your mouth is and prove us industry-types wrong.
That being said, please one of you who claim to be the salvation of radio, put your money where your mouth is and prove us industry-types wrong.
Goldilocks94941 said:
Just a few corrections regarding ther LPFM service. You cannot apply for a new LPFM station on a 2nd adjacent channel (2 clicks- 400 khz spacing). However, if you are an existing LPFM station forced out by an adjacent station modification, the FCC will allow you to be on a second adjacent channel if you can prove no interference to adjacent full-service stations.
Secondly, it is true that Congress recently dropped the 3rd adjacent channel restriction and so I believe there might be room for a new LPFM in this market but somebody would need to hire a P.E. to confirm this.
FMSteve said:
Thanks Steve that was the same assumption I was proceeding with and from what I have learned a new licensing window could open as soon as November from what I have read... There are a ton of hurdles to get over before we ever get that far but as I have said I a passionate person and one way or another we are going to make the dream a reality....
TVradioguru said:
I never claimed to be the "salvation" of radio - just an insider in another corner of the industry (who is too busy producing a radio show to jump on this board every day, like some out of town consultants!) who CARES about the RADIO INDUSTRY, not just the status quo. And I don't want to purchase a failing AM station either. Hence my earlier suggestion for an expanded FM band, with several benefits that I surmise could result from it.
Instead of the snarky, predictable put-downs, how about some open-minded DISCUSSION about some of the other stuff on this website, if you don't want to engage on any of the ideas that I pose from time to time. I think this story posted a few hours ago on this site is worth discussing for examples of similar leadership in the radio industry, and ideas that the next real leader in radio programming might try, even in Seattle! (excerpts below):
CRS keynoter Ken Lowe challenges radio to show "courage"
The head of Scripps Interactive - HGTV, the Food Network, and country network GAC - quotes former GE CEO Jack Welch, who preached "Change before you have to." Lowe told this morning's opening session of the Country Radio Seminar in Nashville that in a climate of "constant change," businesses need to show
#1, innovation,
#2, engagement (such as engaging listeners through social media) and
#3, leadership. Of the six qualities he associates with leadership, the one he dwelled on was courage.
"You don't have to be a leader to be courageous," he said, "but you do have to be courageous to be a leader . . . It takes courage on many levels to turn our vision into reality."
"Cookie Cutter" thinking won't do it: Ken Lowe said, "Maybe we need to rely a little less on research and a little more on gut instinct." He suggested there's been an "over-reliance on research in radio," affecting the way the product sounds. In the early 1990s, the former radio DJ and PD suggested to Scripps that they launch a 24-hour cable network named HGTV, and corporate commissioned a research project to check it out. Lowe says the focus group results came back highly negative, and one researcher even said "the name HGTV sucks." Nevertheless, Lowe and his associates believed there was a place for a lifestyle channel that focused on the home and garden, and he told the CRS crowd, "I put the research in the trash can." The rest, as he said, is history.
One of Lowe's final quotes was from management guru Peter Drucker: "The best way to predict the future is to create it." That was Lowe's challenge about "courage" to a crowded room full of country radio PDs and executives as well as record label staffers.
one of the best posts ive read in a long time re: CRS. CRS key note speaker ken lowe, and GE CEO jack welch's, progressive programming views, sound like they came from some of us so called "arm chairs", who agitate all the vanilla wafers, who control the centralized programming narrative, and cling to their stale paradigm in the industry. but hey, arm chair these boys aint, and big chair they is. in fact, these cats are actually on the same page as us so guru termed "arm chairs", "hobbyists", "disgruntled ex-radio", regarding programming!
yours truly attended the CRS in the 90's, and mostly kept his 'green horn' opinionated mouth zipped, as he rubbed shoulders with the radio programming industry elite. here in 2011, its nice to see a few of those big wheels talkin that "cookie cutter thinking wont do it" talk. "maybe we need to rely a little less on research, and a little more on gut instinct". ya think?? when one looks at some of the most innovative programming, and ideas, it came, and comes from those who think outside of the box, and not those insiders stuck inside the box, who are in fear of being blackballed by a system theyve become part of, and a victim of. at some point soon, you will see the programming paradigm start to change. some of the low rating country corporates may gamble with more innovative programming. if this sees effective results, you will see the consultants, and programmers jump on the bandwagon. this thinking applies especially to the pathetic state of country music radio, which sounds like one big infommercial for commercial countrypolitan music, programmed and dictated by the industry elite. if the restaraunt industry ran in the same centralized control mindset like that, all we'd have is mcdonalds and burger king for dinner.
"you dont have to be a leader to be courageous, but you do have to be courageous to be a leader....it takes courage on many levels to turn our vision into reality" Amen to that!
yours truly attended the CRS in the 90's, and mostly kept his 'green horn' opinionated mouth zipped, as he rubbed shoulders with the radio programming industry elite. here in 2011, its nice to see a few of those big wheels talkin that "cookie cutter thinking wont do it" talk. "maybe we need to rely a little less on research, and a little more on gut instinct". ya think?? when one looks at some of the most innovative programming, and ideas, it came, and comes from those who think outside of the box, and not those insiders stuck inside the box, who are in fear of being blackballed by a system theyve become part of, and a victim of. at some point soon, you will see the programming paradigm start to change. some of the low rating country corporates may gamble with more innovative programming. if this sees effective results, you will see the consultants, and programmers jump on the bandwagon. this thinking applies especially to the pathetic state of country music radio, which sounds like one big infommercial for commercial countrypolitan music, programmed and dictated by the industry elite. if the restaraunt industry ran in the same centralized control mindset like that, all we'd have is mcdonalds and burger king for dinner.
"you dont have to be a leader to be courageous, but you do have to be courageous to be a leader....it takes courage on many levels to turn our vision into reality" Amen to that!
Wow... WAY off topic. How about a new thread?
RR
RR
Intimating or making the connection that Jack Welch had anything to do with programming just because he was CEO of GE, parent of NBC at one time, is a complete shank into the woods. Not even close to the green. Jack had nothing to do with programming anything. In fact, Jack could be considered one of those evil corporate behemoths that SS and Golid frequently tries to demonize, yet after reading some quote on-line that has no connection with radio or broadcasting, Jack has suddenly becomes an example to forward their cause. Wow.. Snarky comment? Perhaps, but I'm sure some other industry veterans or the well read who visit this board will see it the same way. If your feelings are hurt because your claims are refuted, maybe (as someone in another board mentioned
it's time to put on your 'big-boy or big-girl pants' and be ready to debate your case.
You know, I find it amusing that the 'parrots' here sing the song of radio needing change, yet complain radio has changed into multiple niche' "cookie cutter" formats, unlike apparently the good old days in which there where four or five commonly used formats nationwide. It's easy to wave the flag of change, but only when you're struggling to make a point. If you can't site specific examples other than throwing around the term, then the point of debate rapidly becomes moot.
Radio has indeed evolved and as was pointed out in several threads, has always been mass-appeal, at least for the successful stations. It may not appeal to the tiny minority who feel a station has lost touch with their individual wants, but I submit if you go back and look at actual radio history, there are many more choices in radio today than have ever been.
That being said, RR is correct.. All these attempts to create smoke screens using quotes from former CEO's is way off topic. We now return to the thread already in progress..
it's time to put on your 'big-boy or big-girl pants' and be ready to debate your case. You know, I find it amusing that the 'parrots' here sing the song of radio needing change, yet complain radio has changed into multiple niche' "cookie cutter" formats, unlike apparently the good old days in which there where four or five commonly used formats nationwide. It's easy to wave the flag of change, but only when you're struggling to make a point. If you can't site specific examples other than throwing around the term, then the point of debate rapidly becomes moot.
Radio has indeed evolved and as was pointed out in several threads, has always been mass-appeal, at least for the successful stations. It may not appeal to the tiny minority who feel a station has lost touch with their individual wants, but I submit if you go back and look at actual radio history, there are many more choices in radio today than have ever been.
That being said, RR is correct.. All these attempts to create smoke screens using quotes from former CEO's is way off topic. We now return to the thread already in progress..
I
IndigoCoyote
Guest
I believe Jack Welch was called "Chainsaw" for all the cutting and slashing he did at GE back in the day. Stockholders loved him. People who worked for him...not so much.
"cookie cutter" is a term used to describe homogenized programming. say you got 50 markets, and 50 different oldie stations, and they all virtually 'parrot' the same playlist, and same jingles and slogans. some of us, including those who make a living in the business, point a finger at this, and blame large consolidated corporate media companies, and their consultants, who control the centralized programming paradigm. hence the term "cookie cutter".
yes, there are many more choices in radio today. thanks to satellite, and internet. otherwise, most music formats on the FM have not only not progressed, but have for the most part consolidated tighter. of course, this not counting the strange music choices one might find on the left side of the non-commercial FM dial, that most of us care little to figure out.
yes, there are many more choices in radio today. thanks to satellite, and internet. otherwise, most music formats on the FM have not only not progressed, but have for the most part consolidated tighter. of course, this not counting the strange music choices one might find on the left side of the non-commercial FM dial, that most of us care little to figure out.
Bongwater said:
Very true Bongwater!
You never know what you'll stumble on when you cruise the non-com frequencies. In my travels I find myself going there more and more. Another good thread might be the "Jesus-casters" and they way they have hijacked the non-com band. Now they're going after the commercial band through LPFMs and translators.
- Status