NY Times says LPFM to increase

[TheBigA]

No new information in this article. Just a nice feature piece on LPFM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/arts/25radio.html?_r=1&src=dayp

 

[whitakermk]

Great Story! I wish they had listed more stations from other parts of the country. Many of my affiliates are Low Power / Part 15 or just small hometown Mom and Pops. Always great to work with. I bet an article like this in the New York Times made people who had no idea ask... "Wonder if a station like that is near me?"

 

[TheBigA]

Exactly, especially when there aren't many LPFMs in the NYC area.

 

[RadioMan203]

Now the question is how many LPFMs will become translators for existing AMs as opposed to "real" LPFM facilities?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Now the question is how many LPFMs will become translators for existing AMs as opposed to "real" LPFM facilities?

Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The minute they do that they become PIRATE radio.

Somebody will try it. And those of us who have begrudgingly accepted, yeah, even embraced LPFM as a concept will show up on the FCC doorstep with recordings and transcripts and witnesses and raise holy hell!

If the FCC wants AMs to have abundant translators.... write rules that will make that happen, allow that to happen. If the FCC want LPFMs doing stand-alone community service with "home-cooked"... enforce the rules that are being developed to allow that to happen.

I personally would join a movement to "neuter" the LPFMs that are being operated as translators or satellators for national religious networks with some local person pretending to be a community broadcaster. I don't read anywhere in the FCC rules and regs where that was an intended use of LPFM.

 

[TheBigA]

Seems to me the rules prohibit the use of LPFM for any form of satellite service. I know it must be non-commercial, so that eliminates its use for commercial-AMs.

 

[ncfradio]

I wouldn't be so quick with "Zero. Nada. Zilch."

I have been thinking the same thing about LPFM becoming AM translators.

Three things happened very quickly:

1. Dropping the adjacency issues.
2. Giving LPFM's the same protections as translators.
3. The biggie......NAB endorsement all of the sudden.

Please don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of LPFM's, but something has happened too quickly for this eventual translator idea not to be considered.

NAB doesn't endorse anything that is not in their best interest.

What is the best interest for NAB and LPFM?

I sincerely hope this never becomes a reality, but I don't trust anything the NAB endorses when it comes to LPFM. That organization spent too many years fighting LPFM to just turn around and encourage these changes. Something is lurking out there that we just don't know about.....yet.

 

[TheBigA]

What is the best interest for NAB and LPFM?

The current head of the NAB has a view that you can compromise on small points and still do it on your terms, rather than be obstinant and refuse to compromise, and have something worse imposed on you. I think that was the case with LPFM.