public access to the airwaves??
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10352/1111734-56.stm
Has anyone seen this yet? I will keep my opinion short here,
public access to the airwaves??
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10352/1111734-56.stm
Has anyone seen this yet? I will keep my opinion short here,
i think its a good idea ….but it won’t work everywhere.
Some towns like mine have some interference caused by many different sources but the main culprit is high powered “responsible” FM stations.
Three station’s converge on 95.7 fm when i am not transmitting.
I have tried to used different radios but still had the same results.
Comments Welcomed and Seasons Greetings to all!
Probably Bad Journalsim
Thanks for the item, Rock95seven
I think there’s a missing fact from the story, typical of journalists who do not understand their subject.
I believe the close spacing that’s being proposed only applies in the non-commercial FM portion from 88 to 91.9mHz.
New LPFM Law
Carl,
This new legislation (Local Community Radio Act) out of Congress, about to be signed into law, will affect all new and pending LPFM applications as soon as the FCC writes a policy or set of rules that involves THE ENTIRE FM BAND. LPFM stations are not restricted to the “reserved non-commercial educational” portion of the band (88-91.9). In fact they can be, and are, licensed everywhere on the FM band. The new law establishes 2nd adjacent interference contour standards and also establishes the process by which stations already licensed can ameliorate interference problems from newly licensed LPFMs. In urban areas this will, in fact, increase the number of possible LPFM licenses. A side benefit is that the FCC freeze on LPFM applications will be lifted and new educational, government and non-profit organizations will be able to apply for new stations soon.
As a side note, the 3rd adjacent interference law passed by Congress (and lobbied hard by the NAB) some years ago was on LPFM licenses only. The FCC, since the passing of that law, has maintained that the supposed LPFM 2nd adjacent interference problem did not exist. Science and real world experience supports the FCC’s stance on the issue. The NAB finally relented and the new law passed.
New commercial and non-reserve NCE’s (above 91.9 FM) have only been required to pass the 2nd adjacent interference limits for some years now. Many believe the the 3rd adjacent interference argument was a way to freeze new LPFM applications while the FCC tried to fix the mess created with FM translator applications in 2003. Some of the issues between LPFM and FM translators have supposedly been addressed in the new law.
Finally, the FCC has not made any substantial rule requirements of FM receiver sensitivity or bandwidth ever. FM receiver bandwidth has been controlled by marketplace pressures. Listeners in large metro areas have high-power FM stations that use every bit of the band space, or channel space, allocated to them. That puts the edge of each signal right up shoulder to shoulder with the next station on the dial. The 2nd adjacent interference standards are to help high power stations that “super modulate” their signals legally, to provide some measure of protection to the little guy next door on the band. That is the primary reason for nine separate classes of FM licenses issued by the FCC ( Classes C, C0, C1, C2, C3, B, A, Super A and D). There are 60dbu/1m/v contour separation standards for all of these classes. This process is all part and parcel to the long standing frequency allocation rules. Information is available on the FCC web site under the Audio Division-FM.
By limiting power through classifications and minimum separation distances between classes most of the interference issues have been dealt with over the years. These standards also finally allowed FM stations the use of directional antennas to protect some areas while expanding signal strength in others. The 3rd adjacent interference rule (for LPFM only) was just a smoke screen, and political cover, for the NAB and opponents to LPFM.