There seem to be no LPFM stations in or near Buffalo NY. There are several in Rochester NY, just down the Thruway. Any particular engineering reasons that preclude LPFM in Buffalo?
-
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
Why are there no LP stations in the Buffalo NY area
- Thread starter RadioGuy1864
- Start date
Calling Scott Fybush!
However, your question brings up one I have... are there any specific conditions that apply to and / or limit translators near international borders?
Radio-Locator indicates several LPFMs in or near Detroit, which also sits on the Canadian border. Same for El Paso, across the river from Mexico.
Good observation. Of course we are many... 8 in fact... decades away from the old NARBA international accords and I believe the "rules" with Canada and Mexico are each a bit different.
Buffalo has always been an issue for LPFM. We had issues finding places in the 2013 window. The LPFM station in Detroit (WNUC-LP) was granted on a waiver through the use of a directional antenna. One of the things I worked on for MB Docket 19-193 was to allow for LPFM stations near international borders to use directional antennas in order to meet international agreements. We were able to get that codified. The biggest beneficiary on this though are the stations located within 125 km of the Mexican border, which are limited to 50 watts ERP towards Mexico. So far, one station (KRLY-LP) has been granted a directional facility under this rule. We are also currently working with a station in Texas to get them a full 100w ERP using a directional antenna.
LPFM stations near international borders, by rule, must not only meet distance separation on co-channel, first and second adjacent, but also on third-adjacent and intermediate frequency. This narrows the field even further.
Even in the full service, each country has different agreements. For example, Canada will tolerate a US station placing an interfering contour over the service contour of a Canadian station as long as the interfering contour remains entirely within US soil. Mexico, on the other hand expects their service contour to be protected on US soil.
The El Paso extended area has four LPFM stations (KUEH-LP, KPJU-LP, KELP-LP and KAWU-LP).
The Brownsville/Lower Rio Grande Valley area has far more.
It all depends on allotments on the Mexican side. Over the past decade, Mexico has been adding FM allotments as part of their effort to transition AM stations to FM.
Canada, on the other hand, just has a lot of allotments. One thing about Canada though, and we found this out when working with Buffalo prospects, is that while some of their FM stations near the border are Canada Class A1 (which is a lower power than Class A), they are notified to the United States as Class A. The FCC will use the station class in the notification, not what is in Industry Canada's records for the station.
It may be possible with the new directional antenna rules that came out of 19-193, we may be able to work some magic in some border cities the next time a filing window rolls along.
LPFM stations near international borders, by rule, must not only meet distance separation on co-channel, first and second adjacent, but also on third-adjacent and intermediate frequency. This narrows the field even further.
Even in the full service, each country has different agreements. For example, Canada will tolerate a US station placing an interfering contour over the service contour of a Canadian station as long as the interfering contour remains entirely within US soil. Mexico, on the other hand expects their service contour to be protected on US soil.
The El Paso extended area has four LPFM stations (KUEH-LP, KPJU-LP, KELP-LP and KAWU-LP).
The Brownsville/Lower Rio Grande Valley area has far more.
It all depends on allotments on the Mexican side. Over the past decade, Mexico has been adding FM allotments as part of their effort to transition AM stations to FM.
Canada, on the other hand, just has a lot of allotments. One thing about Canada though, and we found this out when working with Buffalo prospects, is that while some of their FM stations near the border are Canada Class A1 (which is a lower power than Class A), they are notified to the United States as Class A. The FCC will use the station class in the notification, not what is in Industry Canada's records for the station.
It may be possible with the new directional antenna rules that came out of 19-193, we may be able to work some magic in some border cities the next time a filing window rolls along.
Great explanation. Thanks.
Currently in Buffalo, at where Google considers as the geographic center of the city, there is one potential LPFM channel available with a second adjacent waiver to a Buffalo Class B station, but with potential interference from a Class A station 68 km (just over the minimum required of 67 km) away.
Thank you for the explanation, it kind of makes sense now.
- Status