LPFM's to be regulated by states, not the FCC?

[Flying-Dutchman]

GRC
I was not going to go here. But, I will. Thirty Years ago, I operated a pirate radio station called
Jolly Roger Radio. We had 20 live jocks and 80 more volunteers. We had thousands of fans and
were on AM, FM, and short Wave. We were closed by the FCC in November 1980.

I made the argument that those guys half way across the country in Washington, D.C. had no
right to come to Indiana and shut me down. And, this made for good publicity. The media loved this story.
I was saying this on NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, The NY Times and across the AP. I also
told how the FCC had given me an operators license that discriminated against my handicap. I was
angry with them.

My case took an unexpected direction. I was contacted by Senator Edward Kennedy. He told me the
FCC would give me a license. All I had to do was apply. The FCC agent from Chicago who shut me
down became my friend. He spent hours showing me how to do FCC paperwork. The FCC in
Washington let me hang out on M Street. The Chief of the Allocations Branch taught me how to find channels and change allotments.

I"ve had licenses from the FCC for more than 20 years now. The FCC is a much better choice to
regulate radio than local or state government. Over the years my stations have reported wrongdoing
by some local power players. Do you think it might have effected my ability to report the news
if I thought they could yank my license.

Also, the FCC will keep regulations uniform across our nation. I consider my friends who are
lawyers, judges, and politicians to be my peers. Give the local government authority in licensing
and you've made these guys my superiors.

We all are entitled to be wrong sometimes and I was wrong way back then in my arguments
in the news against the FCC. We are better off with the FCC.

 

[gr8oldies]

I can't see our bankrupt states even wanting to bother setting up a beauracracy to deal with LPFM

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I can't see our bankrupt states even wanting to bother setting up a beauracracy to deal with LPFM

As a practical matter, states cannot financially consider taking on such a regulatory issue until the economy fully returns to a robust mode. Here is a war story I picked up from a family member today. Our nation needs to get back to it's financial knitting. Federal funds have been made available for various kinds of construction. The hospital industry is ready to build, build, build. Architects are ready to design and spec out projects (my family member) but the hospitals cannot give them the go-ahead until state regulators approve the projects. State employees are being laid off, required to use up vacation, and take un-paid furloughs... so the hospitals find state governments unable to approve the beginning of building projects.

So adding another task like regulating some parts of broadcasting is not practical for state government in this decade.

Going back to the logic just posted by the Flying Dutchman: I can't envision the broadcast industry having any great affection for getting state government involved in regulating their industry.... even if they dislike LPFM and would like to throw roadblocks in the way of new, small stations. They know that once the trend begins, they are likely to see state government expand it's role into other forms of broadcasting. I suspect the broadcast industry can loudly influence the public to oppose such a move.

 

[TheBigA]

There are many who have no voice or any station that cares about them.

Sorry, but I have no reason to believe the opportunity to start a low power station will change that situation.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

I'm sure the community radio movement would be happy to start community radio stations on
AM in cities where they cannot have FM. AM could also be used for minority, ethnic, or religious
programing where FM is not a choice. AM can be nice to bring oldies or classic country for the
over 50 year olds.

No, I would never put something on AM that goes up against an FM competitor.

I do not know the fine details of your market, location, format, etc. So, I won't 2nd guess
your situation.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sure the community radio movement would be happy to start community radio stations on
AM in cities where they cannot have FM.

In my opinion (and I was once a follower of Lorenzo Milam), the "community radio movement" has taken on more of a political agenda than one of social improvement. A lot of these so-called community stations run leftist syndicated shows like Democracy Now to fill up their schedule. I don't see how that's an improvement over corporate radio. The others have a religious agenda, and there's not much I can say about that.

AM could also be used for minority, ethnic, or religious programing where FM is not a choice.

If we're to believe what they say, the primary agenda for the FCC now is the encourage minority and ethnic ownership and programming. So if they figure out how to do that, there should be a lot of Class C frequencies available for that kind of stuff. There's no need to create a new classification when we have actual licensees looking to get out of the business and turn over their frequencies to new owners.

I'd really like to see "Over-65" become a certified minority, so owners and programmers could target them and gain minority advantage, whatever that is.

 

[gr8oldies]

If there is a need or desire for municipalities or other interested groups to run community based public service programming I'll suggest an Enhanced TIS. There is a TIS station locally that runs local play by play even though it's not allowed to. But what if it was? How bout this...slightly more power but all spoken word. News, sports local weather and traffic. Underwriting announcements OK, "automated" time just a loop of community and road info.

 

[Flying-Dutchman]

I'm sure the community radio movement would be happy to start community radio stations on
AM in cities where they cannot have FM.

In my opinion (and I was once a follower of Lorenzo Milam), the "community radio movement" has taken on more of a political agenda than one of social improvement. A lot of these so-called community stations run leftist syndicated shows like Democracy Now to fill up their schedule. I don't see how that's an improvement over corporate radio. The others have a religious agenda, and there's not much I can say about that.

AM could also be used for minority, ethnic, or religious programing where FM is not a choice.

If we're to believe what they say, the primary agenda for the FCC now is the encourage minority and ethnic ownership and programming. So if they figure out how to do that, there should be a lot of Class C frequencies available for that kind of stuff. There's no need to create a new classification when we have actual licensees looking to get out of the business and turn over their frequencies to new owners.

I'd really like to see "Over-65" become a certified minority, so owners and programmers could target them and gain minority advantage, whatever that is.

I respect the community radio movement and I feel the dial is more complete where we have them.
I don't have to agree with everything they have to say.

There was also a guy named Chuck Harder. He was an advocate of the unlicensed LPAM micro-
radio cause. He also thought we should all go green and generate our own electricity.

I really enjoy a variety of differing opinions. This is how we as Americans can settle on middle
ground.

There are some who love radio so much that they will build station even if they are told there
is little profit in it.

 

[Carmine5]

Things have gotten awfully quiet here. So I'll feature an interesting little type-accepted Part-15 rig here.

http://www.theradiosource.com/products-infospot.htm

It's pricey at 2800.00 and only claims 1/4 mile. But notice how they have it set up.

According to the website:

(It's)"the only system of its kind to allow for separation of the transmitter and antenna/tuner by way of standard coaxial cable. This permits the antenna to be mounted in an optimum location for transmission, while the control cabinet containing the transmitter and digital message player remains conveniently located for control and maintenance."

c5

 

[edarmsttrong]

Sure looks like a Talking House TX on steroids...

 

[WCWalker]

Looks like the old ISS Infomax. I hope they made some improvements to it because it is not worth the price they are asking. Installed a couple of those in the late 90's for a customer in Boston and the audio quality was poor. And the range, when compared to the Rangemaster and Trans AM 100 was mediocre.

 

[edarmsttrong]

The brochure says it can use up to 300ft. of RG6. And still be compliant? Could an end-user put the ATU on a 250 ft grounded tower and still be compliant?

 

[WCWalker]

The brochure says it can use up to 300ft. of RG6. And still be compliant? Could an end-user put the ATU on a 250 ft grounded tower and still be compliant?

We mounted the units in Boston on top of a house and then on a five story office building. The ATU's were on top of a 15 foot mast on the building and I think a five foot mast on the house. We ran coax for probably a few feet though and not a long run obviously.

There is nothing in the rules that prevents mounting any kind of part 15 device up in the air. There is some debate about the use of coax going to the tuning unit of this transmitter. Some people seem to interpret it as a part of the antenna and others do not. I look at it this way. This unit has been on the market a long time with thousands of units in use around the country. If you check the FCC Enforcement page on their website you'll note that note that only the Rangemaster has seen an NOUO issued against it in the last decade or so. And that is because the owners of the units don't have the units grounded properly.