With Analog TV gone,, Why cant we have 87.7 and 87.9 for Experimental LP broadca

[Mid West Clubber]

Why cant we use these frequencys in area's with no LP ch 6 to broadcast with, lets say up to 20 watts,, this could be useful for community non for profit stations for both Hobbiest's and schools,, the only thing would be,, we have to accept ny interference as it will be a citizen owned freq, and we cant cause interference... We need to get the FCC to consider this,, even if its only like half a watt...

 

[Neil E.]

This is not a bad idea and some good could come from it. Rather than discuss watts and technical stuff, I wish to point out a potential problem with any such band plan for unlicensed use. Suppose you choose a quiet permitted frequency and go on the air. Down your street someone else chooses the same frequency and goes on the air and assume for now that the "other" frequency is occupied. Both of you are hurt in terms of coverage. How would this be resolved. Neither are licensed and have no protection from interference.

Citizen's Band stations used to be licensed but due to the sheer number of stations on the air in the early seventies enforcement became impossible and licensing was dropped. What an adventure that was and there were 40 some channels to choose from.

A similar thing happened to ham radio repeaters. First one on a frequency pair wins. As more and more "clubs" went on the air the available frequencies in many metro areas were all taken locking out new stations. The FCC opened a 2 meter repeater sub-band and empowered statewide "co-ordination" groups to assign frequencies. Despite the gentlemanly demeanor hams brag about it turned ugly when some large clubs grabbed the newly coordinated frequencies. One I am aware of had 9 repeaters on the air. New clubs or anyone else soon found all available frequencies were taken again.

That is the nature of "shared" resources such as RF spectrum and something to consider.

Neil

 

[Mid West Clubber]

Re: With Analog TV gone,, Why cant we have 87.7 and 87.9 for Experimental LP bro

Well, thats unlikely to happen since as of now, not many people are interested in broadcasting. I would be willing to share a frequency and alternate days and hours with a neighbor if this was the case. And still, you could both broadcast on 87.5-to 87.9, and as long as your power was legal their would be little interference on car radios.

 

[RadioMan203]

Re: With Analog TV gone,, Why cant we have 87.7 and 87.9 for Experimental LP bro

It would be a great idea, especially since New Zealand has something similar with a 1/2 watt legal transmit power, but I think the NAB would try to ruin any attempt to have this come to light.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: With Analog TV gone,, Why cant we have 87.7 and 87.9 for Experimental LP bro

Well, thats unlikely to happen since as of now, not many people are interested in broadcasting. I would be willing to share a frequency and alternate days and hours with a neighbor if this was the case. And still, you could both broadcast on 87.5-to 87.9, and as long as your power was legal their would be little interference on car radios.

The last time the FCC opened an application window for Translators, they were swamped with applications and they finally stopped processing them while they decide on some new direction policies.

Large number of applications the last window for NCE-FMs. I think they are still working their way through that bunch.

There is talk of having an Application Window again for LPFMs. If they go ahead with the proposal to remove the Third Adjacent Frequency protection requirment, hold onto your hat for the number of LPFM apps that will be filed!!! It will boggle the mind.

 

[Chad-Stevens]

Perhaps a more reasonable use of 87.5-87.9 is as overflow channels for displaced LPFMs and Class D's rather than create a whole new class of licensee.

One station KSFH-87.9 is already licensed on one of these stations.

 

[Sgt Preston]

Perhaps a more reasonable use of 87.5-87.9 is as overflow channels for displaced LPFMs and Class D's rather than create a whole new class of licensee.One station KSFH-87.9 is already licensed on one of these stations.

I think this is a GREAT idea!
87.9FM for LPFMs & hold the 87.5 & 87.7 FM for "community" 10-watt stations

Is KSFH a LPFM?

 

[Bongwater]

I think we should expand the FM dial down to 76 MHz, like in Japan. The FM dial in some major markets (as well as smaller cities between two major markets) are just PACKED. It probably won't happen, but it makes sense.....

 

[mbatchelor]

I think that would be a great idea, but I think a local frequency coordinator would probably be necessary to keep all the stations from steeping on another - Allow a power of 5-10 Watts, which at the right height can cover a reasonable sized municipality. Even allow special event, temporary, and mobile broadcasting upon these frequencies. That would be interesting, but if there is a station at 88.1 in your area, or an analog LPTV Channel 6 like in NYC & Chicago, it would keep it from working in those areas.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

- Allow a power of 5-10 Watts, which at the right height can cover a reasonable sized municipality.

It appears that the LPFM folks are finding that 100 watts at 100 feet has rather limited coverage. What is your vision when you speak of "cover a reasonable sized municipality". Are you talking about a village with 250 people, or are you talking about a county seat town with maybe 16,000 residents? Or are you thinking even larger?

 

[LibertyNT]

100 watts at 100 feet covers roughly 5-10 miles. Which, if placed right, could cover a small to medium sized town. Which could house hundreds of thousands of people.

Car Radios Could make It Go 15 miles at most.

 

[w9wi]

100 watts at 100 feet covers roughly 5-10 miles. Which, if placed right, could cover a small to medium sized town. Which could house hundreds of thousands of people.

Car Radios Could make It Go 15 miles at most.

The 54dBu contour* of a 100w/30m station extends 8km (5 miles). At 25km (15mi.) it would deliver about 34dBu. The LPFM may or may not be listenable at that range in the absence of interference. But the FCC is going to have a very hard time protecting the 34dBu contour from interference. It would be difficult to provide LPFMs that kind of protection without commercial stations demanding the same protection -- which ironically would probably preclude the licensing of the LPFM.

(34dBu is the same as a 100kw/400m Class C0 station at 100 miles. I can certainly hear, understand, and identify C0 stations at 100 miles but I'm not so sure any ordinary listener would listen. It's pretty noisy and often clobbered by DX.)

*I realize LPFMs are only protected to the 60dBu. The FCC obviously feels FM stations are capable of providing service, in the absence of interference, to the 54dBu - or they wouldn't be protecting Class B's to that contour.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

*I realize LPFMs are only protected to the 60dBu. The FCC obviously feels FM stations are capable of providing service, in the absence of interference, to the 54dBu - or they wouldn't be protecting Class B's to that contour.

w9wi: you seem to have a pretty good handle on converting the numbers we find on engineering studies into practical "real world" of the listeners.

I have received some advice that for planning purposes, project the 80dBu coverage area and in selecting a transmitter site chose a location assuming that people with portable radios and in-home desk-top radios can expect solid reception out to 80 dBu. Is that advice being TOO conservative?

 

[w9wi]

w9wi: you seem to have a pretty good handle on converting the numbers we find on engineering studies into practical "real world" of the listeners.

I have received some advice that for planning purposes, project the 80dBu coverage area and in selecting a transmitter site chose a location assuming that people with portable radios and in-home desk-top radios can expect solid reception out to 80 dBu. Is that advice being TOO conservative?

I'm cheating: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/curves.html . That is a bit dangerous: for those of us who aren't in Kansas, projections from the propagation curves probably don't match practice that often. But without more details than can be practically posted here, it's the best we've got...

I think it depends on your audience. Yep, 80dBu is probably pretty reasonable if you expect to reach portable stereos, radios on people's desks at work, and the set on my desk next to the computer & under the modem... Let's see, that's a 34km radius for WSIX... I'm almost exactly 34km from their tower... dunno, that might be a bit pessimistic. But I suppose it gives you a bit of fade factor -- and I am in a bit better than normal location -- so maybe yes, if you need to reach the radio sitting next to a computer & under a modem down in the gulch next to the creek, you probably *do* need 80dBu. You definitely need it for that cheap little see-through radio hanging from the earpieces.

Car radios obviously do a LOT better. I get a perfectly good entertainment-quality signal from WBKR, whose predicted field here is only 38dBu. Not much chance of hearing it on the clock radio though!

I might suggest it's possible non-commercial and LPFM stations could find a useful audience at a lower field. Their programming is less likely to be partially duplicated on other stations -- listeners may be more willing to put up with noise and interference because they can't get the programming they want from a stronger signal.

 

[Tom Wells]

In my neighborhood, 100 watts at 100 feet would cover many 10's of thousands of people.
(North side of Chicago near a University), in a VERY dense neighborhood.

 

[w9wi]

In my neighborhood, 100 watts at 100 feet would cover many 10's of thousands of people.
(North side of Chicago near a University), in a VERY dense neighborhood.

Absolutely. AM operators are climbing all over each other to get at smaller FM signals than that -- it can certainly cover a smaller standalone community or a special-interest community within a large city. (like a Chicago university)

 

[TheBigA]

Before anyone gets too excited, there's a proposal to turn these frequencies over to minority-owned LPFMs. One of the primary agendas of the FCC is to increase minority ownership in broadcasting. If anyone has a shot at any new licenses, it's someone from a minority group.

Based on what I've been reading, the FCC is pretty picky about who they consider to be qualified for these LPFM licenses. You really have to prove you represent the community, and you're not just an out-of-work former commercial broadcaster with an ax to grind.

The other thing to know is a group attempted to put a dance radio station on 87.7 in New York and went bankrupt.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Based on what I've been reading, the FCC is pretty picky about who they consider to be qualified for these LPFM licenses. You really have to prove you represent the community, and you're not just an out-of-work former commercial broadcaster with an ax to grind.

Are you saying that in the previous application windows the FCC excercised "picky" and that the currently existing LPFMs represent this "high standard"...... or are you saying that in the NEXT application cycle the FCC will hold NEW applicants to a standard that exceeds what they did in the past?