Every good transmitter, tube transmitters in particular, require harmonic filtering. The last thing any good engineer or broadcaster wants is to cause interference, especially out of band interference to public safety or aviation frequencies. All modern transmitters are required to have spurious emissions attenuated by 80 dB or greater >75 Khz from carrier frequency. In reality, 80 dB is still quite high these days, especially in the VHF/UHF band, where receivers are much more sensitive than they used to be. A good receiver noise floor can be -110 dB depending on local conditions.
The principle behind a low pass filter is pretty easy to understand. The desired frequency is passed to the antenna, while anything above the cut off frequency is restricted and shunted to ground via a capacitor.
Low pass RC filter
In this case, the resistor is actually an inductor with high reactance above the cut off frequency. Often, these filters are lumped together to give better performance. This is a picture of an RVR three stage low pass filter:
RVR three stage low pass filter
RVR is an Italian transmitter maker that sells many transmitters and exciters in this country under names like Bext, Armstrong, etc. The inductors are obvious, the capacitors consist of a copper strip sandwiched between teflon insulators held down by the dividers in between the inductors.
Schematically, it looks like this:
Low pass filter schematic diagram
For the FM broadcast band, a good design cutoff frequency would be about 160 MHz. This will give the filter a steep skirt at the first possible harmonic frequency of 176 MHz (88.1 x 2 = 176.2).
Values for components:
Capacitors
Value
Inductors
Value
C1
20 pf
L1
74.7 nf
C2
54 pf
L2
75.1 nf
C3
54 pf
L3
73.9 nf
C4
20 pf
The inductors are wire, or in this case copper strap, with an air core. It is important to keep the transmitter power output in mind when designing and building these things. Higher carrier powers require greater spacing between coil windings and larger coil diameters. This particular filter is rated for 1 KW at 100 MHz.
The long awaited report, required by the NAB as a part of the Local Community Radio Act has concluded that LPFMs have little or no impact on commercial FM stations. No kidding?
The executive summary states that:
LPFM stations serve primarily small and rural markets and have geographic and population reaches that are many magnitudes smaller than those of full-service commercial FM stations. In addition, LPFM stations generally have not been in operation as long as full-service commercial FM stations, have less of an Internet presence, and offer different programming formats. We also found that the average LPFM station located in an Arbitron Radio Metro Market (“Arbitron Metro”) has negligible ratings by all available measures and has an audience size that lags far behind those of most full-service stations in the same market.
Followed by:
Although each of the stations differs considerably in its individual characteristics, the results of the case studies show that the selected LPFM stations generally broadcast a variety of programming continuously throughout the day, operate with very small budgets, rely on mostly part-time and volunteer staff, do not have measurable ratings, have limited population reach, and do not generate significant underwriting earnings. All but one of the station managers that we interviewed stated that the LPFM station is not competing directly for listeners with any specific full-service stations.
And:
We conclude that, given their regulatory and operational constraints, LPFM stations are unlikely to have more than a negligible economic impact on full-service commercial FM stations.
I read a very interesting article from John Anderson regarding the Occupy Wall Street movements use of media, specifically low powered radio. Being a native New Yorker, the demonstrations are of some interest to me. To date, the demonstrators have placed a wide variety of grievances at the feet of “Wall Street,” some justly and some not. What I found interesting about it is this:
Last week, the Occupy Wall Street encampment established a microradio station at 107.1 FM. The station simulcasts the 24/7 live stream which provides coverage of life inside Zuccotti Park, as well as street-level reportage of daily protest actions in New York City’s financial district.
One of the reasons for this is the City’s ban on use of amplified speakers and or public address systems. By using a micro radio station, persons in the crowd too far away to hear orator can use a small FM radio or even their smartphones to listen to the speech. Another reason is the idea that large corporate media has been controlling the narrative for far too long, to the detriment of the average citizen.
Zuccotti Park is in lower Manhattan, about two blocks away from Wall Street itself. It is described as 33,000 square feet, which makes it about 3/4 of an acre. A part 15 FM radio station (47CFR 15.239) can easily cover this area and more. Even with the station limited to 250 µV field at 3 meters from the radiating element, generally though to be 100 mW TPO, the reliable coverage area would be a radius of approximately 200 feet, depending on local interference. That makes the coverage area approximately 125,600 square feet or more. There are several other stations licensed to 107.1 in the greater NYC area; WXPK, WWZY are the closest and most likely to cause problems.
I am not sure how they are generating their live stream, but when listening to it for several hours over the weekend, I found it interesting and technically well done. They seem to be running circles around others, who are only grudgingly admitting that there might be something going on in some forty odd cities across the US.
Micro Radio is a creative way to use the available technology and keep the public and protesters informed.
Alternate title: “I love Stupidity,” somebody else’s, usually not my own. It’s a bit hard to reconcile the NAB’s desire for translators against the need and strong community support for local radio. The original intent of translators was to fill in coverage areas of existing FM licenses within the parent stations protected contour. Very few translators are actually used for that purpose today. They have, instead, morphed into vast over the air relay networks for NPR and religious stations or are relaying programming of HD-2 channels which would otherwise not be heard. Why we would need more of that, I don’t know.
The unfortunate part of all that stupidity is the side effects. Think of the stupid driver who cuts of a tractor trailer on the interstate and causes a big pile up. There are the potential injuries to those involved in the accident but also the inconvenience to all those stuck in miles of backed up traffic. That is a fairly minor occurrence.
With big corporate government, the size and scale of stupidity can reach epic proportions. To wit: During the natural disasters that overtook the northeast, indeed other areas of the country as well, local radio was proven to be a reliable, sometimes life saving means of communications time and time again. Yet, in spite of all that, the NAB seems to think that LPFM stations (community radio) should be second to cross band translators broadcasting AM stations and HD-2 channels. Regarding FM translators on AM stations, the NAB says:
NAB first commends and supports the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the restriction on the use of FM translators by AM stations to translators that were authorized as of May 1, 2009. FM translators enable AM stations to overcome inherent technical disadvantages that limit audio quality compared to other services, thus limiting their service to the public and even threatening their economic viability.
Oh where to begin. First of all, AM stations do not have inherent technical disadvantages, that is a myth. Off the shelf AM receivers are of inferior quality and make a well designed, well executed AM station sound like a telephone. If one were to listen an older AM radio or AM on a receiver with variable bandwidth IF, you would find that it can sound quite good, if not very good. The problem is that the receiver manufactures never carried through with the promise to open up the bandwidth following the implementation of NRSC-2 in 1991. One should wonder why.
Second, there are many AM stations out there that are economically viable. Those stations that have local programming and serve the community of license and have not been neglected or turned into a automated syndicated radio repeater. Now, could a class C or class D AM station benefit from a translator at night, sure. That may not be a bad distinction to draw, especially for those class D stations with no night time operating authority.
Regarding more translators in general, it is difficult to imagine what all those new signals will be used for, other than more of the same (relaying distant, out of market religious stations, NPR stations or HD-2 programming which nobody cares about). The FM band is already full of such things and could actually use less, not more.
While unfortunate, the NAB’s position is not surprising. They do the bidding of their dues paying members, after all. The anti-competition we are a monopoly stance of the NAB members is not new either. Remember the required economic impact study required by the LCRA on the LPFM vs full power commercial FM stations. To think that a 100 watt LPFM could significantly impact the business of a class A, B or C FM station is laughable. Yet, it was a requirement stuck into the bill at the behest of the NAB.
It is up to the broadband minded FCC to see how to slice the remaining FM spectrum up and whether the corporitist NAB’s argument holds water, or the rising call of the people who want a return of local radio and local community service will be heard.
This is a video of what happened during Tropical Storm Irene in Ulster County, where I live:
We are truly fortunate that no one here was killed. In the mean time, the waters around here are still receding, we had some additional flooding Wednesday (9/7) with another 6 inches of rain from Tropical Storm Lee with flood warnings still in effect for several local creeks.
In my neck of the woods, we have nine radio stations licensed within about a 16 mile radius. One is religious, one is a college station, the other is a classical music format programmed from Albany, 90 miles away, one is a LPFM run by a local high school and two are commercial AM or FM station. The commercial stations used to be located in downtown Ellenville but moved to Poughkeepsie, about 30 miles away in 1999. The religious, college, and classical stations are small and have no backup systems or interest in emergency programming. That leaves the high school LPFM, WELV-LP.
In the height of the storm, 11.53 inches of rain had fallen in the previous 8 hours, the power was out, cable was out, the internet unavailable, the Verizon telephone company office in town was almost underwater, we had two sources of local Ulster county information; WDST (100.1 MHz, class A) in Woodstock and WELV-LP in Ellenville. WDST studios are located in Bearsville, which is about 25 miles north of here. They are a locally owned, locally programmed station with a good record of community support. They did a good job updating emergency information, flooded roadways, emergency shelter information, power restoration information, dry ice, alternate emergency numbers in case 911 went out, rallying points for local fire departments, etc. Ellenville Central School district’s WELV-LP also did a good job, although much more confined to the local area around Ellenville and have a much smaller coverage area. Still, they were live on the air with up to date information. Thankfully.
While I was away, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (11-105) regarding LPFM and translators. There are several issues with backlog of translator applications and the possible LPFM window that looms out in the future somewhere. The current FCC translator rules bear little or no resemblance to the reality of FM translator use today.
The basic translator rules are found in FCC 74.1206 through 74.1290 with the programming and permissible service outlined in FCC 74.1231:
Sec. 74.1231 Purpose and permissible service.
(a) FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of AM or FM broadcast stations may be retransmitted to areas in which direct reception of such AM or FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers, and a means for AM Class D stations to continue operating at night.
(b) An FM translator may be used for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of a primary AM or FM radio broadcast station or another translator station the signal of which is received directly through space, converted, and suitably amplified, and originating programming to the extent authorized in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section. However, an FM translator providing fill-in service may use any terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being rebroadcast. An FM booster station or a noncommercial educational FM translator station that is operating on a reserved channel (Channels 201-220) and is owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational station it rebroadcasts may use alternative signal delivery means, including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. Provided, however, that an applicant for a noncommercial educational translator operating on a reserved channel (Channel 201-220) and owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational AM or FM station it rebroadcasts complies with either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section:
(1) The applicant demonstrates that:
(i) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is within 80 kilometers of the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast; or,
(ii) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 160 kilometers from the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station; or,
(iii) The application is mutually exclusive with an application containing the showing as required by paragraph 74.1231(b)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section; or,
(iv) The application is filed after October 1, 1992.
(2) If the transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 80 kilometers from the predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast or is within 160 kilometers of the transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station, the applicant must show that:
(i) An alternative frequency can be used at the same site as the proposed FM translator’s transmitter location and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant’s proposed 1 mV/m contour; or,
(ii) An alternative frequency can be used at a different site and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant’s proposed 1 mV/m contour.
(c) The transmissions of each FM translator or booster station shall be intended only for direct reception by the general public. An FM translator or booster shall not be operated solely for the purpose of relaying signals to one or more fixed received points for retransmission, distribution, or further relaying in order to establish a point-to-point FM radio relay system.
(d) The technical characteristics of the retransmitted signals shall not be deliberately altered so as to hinder reception on conventional FM broadcast receivers.
(e) An FM translator shall not deliberately retransmit the signals of any station other than the station it is authorized to retransmit. Precautions shall be taken to avoid unintentional retransmission of such other signals.
(f) A locally generated radio frequency signal similar to that of an FM broadcast station and modulated with aural information may be connected to the input terminals of an FM translator for the purpose of transmitting voice announcements. The radio frequency signals shall be on the same channel as the normally used off-the-air signal being rebroadcast. Connection of the locally generated signals shall be made by any automatic means when transmitting originations concerning
financial support. The connections for emergency transmissions may be made manually. The apparatus used to generate the local signal that is used to modulate the FM translator must be capable of producing an aural signal which will provide acceptable reception on FM receivers designed for the transmission standards employed by FM broadcast stations.
(g) The aural material transmitted as permitted in paragraph (f) of this section shall be limited to emergency warnings of imminent danger and to seeking or acknowledging financial support deemed necessary to the continued operation of the translator. Originations concerning financial support are limited to a total of 30 seconds an hour. Within this limitation the length of any particular announcement will be left to the discretion of the translator station licensee. Solicitations of contributions shall be limited to the defrayal of the costs of installation, operation and maintenance of the translator or acknowledgements of financial support for those purposes. Such acknowledgements may include identification of the contributors, the size or nature of the contributions and advertising messages of contributors. Emergency transmissions shall be no longer or more frequent than necessary to protect life and property.
(h) An FM translator station that rebroadcasts a Class D AM radio broadcast station as its primary station may originate programming during the hours the primary station is not operating, subject to the provisions of Sec. 74.1263(b) of this part.
(i) FM broadcast booster stations provide a means whereby the licensee of an FM broadcast station may provide service to areas in any region within the primary station’s predicted, authorized service contours. An FM broadcast booster station is authorized to retransmit only the signals of its primary station which have been received directly through space and suitably amplified, or received by alternative signal delivery means including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave facilities. The FM booster station shall not retransmit the signals of any other station nor make independent transmissions, except that locally generated signals may be used to excite the booster apparatus for the purpose of conducting tests and measurements essential to the proper installation and maintenance of the apparatus.
With a possible exception for use by Class D AM stations, the translator service has gone far away from what it was intended to be and even, in some cases, contradicts the current rules. DIY Media goes more into this in: Unholy Alliance.
Consolidators are using translators to get around market ownership caps by using them to re-broadcast HD-2 and HD-3 channels, which would otherwise go unheard. Others are using translators to establish large networks of over the air relays to greatly extend their coverage far beyond any natural signal contour. Religious and public radio stations rely extensively on translators to establish radio signals that are several times the size of the original station. In one case, a translator in Harrisburg, PA is broadcasting a satellite feed of the True Oldies Channel that does not appear on any AM, FM or HD sub-channel in the market. The 80/160 KM distances noted above in section B(1)(i) and (ii) seem to be largely ignored.
What the FCC wants to know is this: There are thousands of pending translator applications; what is to be done about them in light of the new LPFM legislation congress passed last year? Should they be dismissed, approved or some market based combination of the two. Keep in mind, the new LPFM stations are on an equal regulatory footing with translators, unlike full power FM or the previous LPFM licenses granted in 2003.
Whatever the outcome, it would appear that this will be the final chance to get an LPFM license when the filing window opens. After this, there will likely not be a scrap of spectrum left to dole out. The deadline for filing comments with the FCC is August 29th.
It dawned on me, earlier today, that current decline in radio and all traditional media in general, is no coincidence. When the radio consolidations took place ten or so years ago, the first thing that was almost always cut or eliminated was the news room. Along with that, local programming in general was reduced or replaced with automation.
This, in turn, leads to a bland, uninformative product that the general public doesn’t really care about.
Local newspapers have all but disappeared too. The remaining ones are owned by one of several large newspaper holding companies like Gannett, Newscorp, Hearst, and Tribune. In a similar to radio scenario, local papers were bought up by these companies, news room staffs were cut, quality of content declined, readership declined accordingly. Rinse, repeat until the paper is nothing but a shell of it’s former self, filled with mostly used car ads.
But isn’t the internet the cause of all this? No, the internet and the so called “new media” are filling a void left by the hollowed out old media. New media, which often relies on people who may be well intended, but do not have the training in investigative journalism, often lacks credibility when it really counts. Unfortunately, it is easy to search the internet and find articles that lack any type of referenced source material or have other technical problems that call into question the authenticity of the material. Much of this could be corrected with the right links or posting of original documents to back up the story. This is an often pointed to weakness with internet sources of information. There are, however, some outstanding new media outlets, from some surprising locations.
Media outlets (as well as most other businesses) in this country are mostly controlled by big Wall Street banks. Here is how that works:
Media company A wants to buy some or all of media company B.
They go to a bank to get a loan.
After much negotiating and back and forth, the bank agrees to give A the loan, under certain conditions.
Those conditions include continued performance, annual revenue growth and periodic audits.
In a buy or be bought world, their is no other alternative for A, but to agree with those conditions.
Media company A now needs continued credit to continue to operate their business, this is what happened during the great consolidation, not only of radio, but TV and Newspapers as well.
If and when the conditions of the loan look like they are not being met, the bank sends out it’s representatives to talk to the owners of media company A.
They “suggest” moves to improve the bottom line, often offering to make concessions if certain conditions are met, such as installing voice tracking and laying off workers or selling properties
News rooms are cut first as news is labor intensive and does not make any money.
Slowly, the rest of the staff is reduced or has their pay and hours reduced.
It is thus that the large banksters have gained control of much of the “traditional” media in this country. They have sought to steer the free press into oblivion, substituting, instead, the corporatist media outlets we see today in NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, Foxnews, as well as the above mentioned newspaper holding companies. While skimming over general news items, much of the important news of the day goes unreported. Things like the Fed’s latest round of quantitative easing (QE3), the ever expanding role of TSA, the unauthorized nature of the Libyan adventure and the possible ties to Goldman Sachs, the continuing nuclear release at Fukushima, FDA approval of GMO seeds, the FCC’s revolving door employees, ever increasing amounts of police brutality, etc are under reported or not reported at all.
Why are those particular stories important? Because the implications impact every one of us, only most people don’t know or understand that. Citizens of this country have no idea why things are getting so expensive, why their jobs have disappeared, why their houses are worth less than they paid for them, why the current crop of politicians look worse than the last crop, why police are dressing like storm troopers and gunning people down in their own homes, etc. It all reminds me of the Pink Floyd song, Sheep:
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air
We are being fed with little bits of over simplified, unconnected and or incomplete information which only fits the narrative the so called news organization is putting forward. Deviation from the narrative rarely occurs and only under the most unusual circumstances or by accident.
The answer is, of course, to support those independent media outlets that are still around. The independent radio stations, TV stations and newspapers as well as those on line news sources and aggregators that do a good job getting the story out need to stick around. It would also help to increase the numbers of independent, non-conflicted (interest wise) sources of information. I would suggest that everyone do a little bit of digging around and find out who, in their own neck of the woods, is an honest source of local news.
If there is not a local independent media outlet, consider starting one. The new LPFM rules are still being worked on, the FCC has promised to speed this along, which means we should see something in the next five years or so. While we wait, consider blogging or teaming up with a group of people to launch an online news site. While I have been blogging for several years, I have learned one very important fact: People love the truth. That is the surest formula for success, tell the truth and back it up with valid sources and documentation. I know many people in the radio news business that, if asked, would be happy to give some pointers on local news gathering.
One thing is for sure, we can no longer sit around and wait for someone to do something. If we are to change the course of this country, each and every one of us needs to contribute.
The President has signed the reconciled bill into law, it will be published to the national register. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski promises “swift action” to get the new rules in place. If this law leads to a bunch of new, live local community radio stations springing up across the country then it is a welcome thing. With all the rumbling in congress about cutting public radio funding, LPFM may have some big shoes to fill. I have to admit, I am generally a supporter of public radio, however they have gotten off track (full of themselves) in the last few years.
There are many different requirements placed on the FCC by the LCRA to thread the LPFM needle around translators and full power FM stations, so it may take a little time to craft new LPFM rules, however, I’d expect to see a filing window sometime in 2011.
If you are considering a LPFM station and are eligible for a license, take a peak at Prometheus Radio Project, which has a wealth of information about LPFM station building.
If you need a good engineer to file paperwork, specify equipment, consult about transmitter locations, towers, antennas and so forth, drop me a line. You can find my info and contact information in the About section.
The FM band is about to get more crowded, courtesy of the legislative branch of the US government. I have been mixed on LPFM based on my own technical experiences. That being said, the FCC seems hell bent on shoe horning every possible signal into the FM band, so why not? It certainly won’t be any worse than IBOC or the ever growing crop of translators. LPFM could possibly bring back local radio to some markets, depending on who gets the licenses and how they are acted on. A local school district around here picked up an LPFM license on the last go around. During the double blizzard of February 2010, they filled the shoes of the two former local stations, which have become remote controlled repeater stations for a city 35 miles away, so there is a glimmer of possibility.
The according to HR 6533, the original channel spacings (elimination of the 3rd adjacent channel protections) in MM Docket No. 99-25 are to be implemented. Additionally, LPFM stations are on the same footing as translators and FM booster stations, which is a slight change from LPFM 1.1
I’d expect to see an NPRM from the FCC rather quickly, as the bill is pretty specific. It may be interesting to see how possible frequencies are identified for LPFM service.
The house passed the “LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009 ” (aka HR 1147) last night in one of the last legislative acts of 2009. This is the companion bill to S. 592, which is still in committee.
The need for LPFM stations is justified thusly:
In part due to consolidation of media ownership, there have been strong financial incentives for some companies to reduce local programming and rely instead on syndicated programming produced for hundreds of stations, though noncommercial educational radio stations, including FM translator stations, currently provide important local service, as do many commercial radio stations. A renewal of commitment to localism–local operations, local research, local management, locally originated programming, local artists, and local news and events–would bolster radio’s service to the public.
Local communities have sought to launch radio stations to meet their local needs. However, due in part to the scarce amount of spectrum available and the high cost of buying and running a large station, many local communities are unable to establish a radio station.
In 2003, the average cost to acquire a commercial radio station was more than $2,500,000.
In January 2000, the Federal Communications Commission authorized a new, affordable community radio service called `low-power FM’, or `LPFM’, to `enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting’.
Through the creation of LPFM, the Federal Communications Commission sought to `create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local groups, including schools, churches, and other community-based organizations, to provide programming responsive to local community needs and interests’.
The Federal Communications Commission made clear that the creation of LPFM would not compromise the integrity of the FM radio band by stating, `We are committed to creating a low-power FM radio service only if it does not cause unacceptable interference to existing radio service.’.
Currently, FM translator stations can operate on the second- and third-adjacent channels to full-power radio stations, up to an effective radiated power of 250 watts, pursuant to part 74 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, using the very same transmitters that LPFM stations will use. The Federal Communications Commission based its LPFM rules on the actual performance of these translators, which already operate without undue interference to FM stations.
Small rural broadcasters were particularly concerned about a lengthy and costly LPFM interference complaint process. Therefore, in September 2000, the Federal Communications Commission created a process to address interference complaints regarding LPFM stations on an expedited basis.
In December 2000, Congress delayed the full implementation of LPFM until the Federal Communications Commission commissioned and reviewed an independent engineering study. This action was due to some broadcasters’ concerns that LPFM service would cause interference in the FM radio band.
The Federal Communications Commission granted licenses to over 800 LPFM stations despite the congressional action. These stations are currently on the air and are run by local government agencies, groups promoting arts and education to immigrant and indigenous populations, artists, schools, religious organizations, environmental groups, organizations promoting literacy, and many other civically oriented organizations.
After 2 years and the expenditure of $2,193,343 in taxpayer dollars, the independent engineering study commissioned by the Federal Communications Commission concluded that concerns about interference on third-adjacent channels were unwarranted.
The Federal Communications Commission issued a report to Congress on February 19, 2004, which stated that `Congress should readdress this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third-adjacent channel distance separation requirement for LPFM stations.’
On November 27, 2007, the Federal Communications Commission again unanimously affirmed LPFM, stating in a news release about the adoption of the Low-Power FM Third Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the Federal Communications Commission recommends `to Congress that it remove the requirement that LPFM stations protect full-power stations operating on third-adjacent channels’. Until the date of enactment of this Act, Congress had not acted upon that recommendation.
Minorities represent almost a third of the population of the United States. However, according to the Federal Communications Commission’s most recent Form 323 data on the race and gender of full-power, commercial broadcast licensees, minorities own only 7 percent of all local television and radio stations. Women represent more than half of the population but own only 6 percent of all local television and radio stations. LPFM stations, while not a solution to the overall inequalities in minority and female broadcast ownership, provide an additional opportunity for underrepresented communities to operate a station and offer local communities a greater diversity of viewpoints and culture.
LPFM stations have proven to be a vital source of information during local or national emergencies. Out of the few stations that were able to stay on the air during Hurricane Katrina, several were LPFM stations. In Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, low-power FM station WQRZ remained on the air during Hurricane Katrina and served as the Emergency Operations Center for Hancock County. After Hurricane Katrina, when thousands of evacuees temporarily housed at the Houston Astrodome were unable to hear over the loudspeakers information about the availability of food and ice, the location of Federal Emergency Management Agency representatives, and the whereabouts of missing loved ones, volunteers handed out thousands of transistor radios and established an LPFM station outside of the Astrodome to broadcast such information.
Similar to S. 592, the bill aims to:
Increase the number of LPFM station by doing away with the 3rd adjacent protections.
Mitigate interference by creating a 1 year period during which a new LPFM station must broadcast “periodic announcements that alert listeners that interference that they may be experiencing could be the result of the operation of the new low-power FM station on a third-adjacent channel and shall instruct affected listeners to contact the low-power FM station to report any interference.” LPFM licensees are then tasked with solving interference complaints with in a licensed full power FM station’s protected contour.
Protect translator input signals.
Protect reading for the blind services.
I am not finding fault with any of the justifications, they are all true and make a good point about the decline of Radio in general as I have discussed in previous posts.
The potential increase of LPFM stations is in the thousands.
The proposed interference mitigation is a pipe dream. The FCC enforcement bureau is overworked as it is. We have had a pirate on one of our frequencies for years, every once in a while they drive out and bust the guy, only to have him return a week or two later. Somehow this group of overworked people will be able to process hundreds or thousands of interference complaints?
Unless there is increased funding for the FCC enforcement bureau, I am skeptical. There is no specific discussion on funding, only specifying that the cost should be below $139 million.
The Senate seems to have it in their mind to release the LPFM genie from the bottle:
The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved a bill (Local Community Radio Act (S. 592)) today that would loosen regulations limiting low-power FM stations. It would abolish the third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirement except for stations that provide a radio reading service, as well as give FM translators and LPFMs equal access to spectrum. The House Commerce Committee has also cleared the bill.
The Local Community Radio Act (S. 592) official bill summary is:
3/12/2009–Introduced.Local Community Radio Act of 2009 – Repeals provisions in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 that required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to: (1) modify rules authorizing the operation of low-power FM radio stations to prescribe minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels; (2) prohibit applicants who have engaged in the unlicensed operation of any station from obtaining a low-power FM license; and (3) conduct a program to test whether low-power FM radio stations will result in harmful interference to existing FM radio stations if minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels are not required. Requires the FCC to modify its rules to eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between specified stations. Requires the FCC to retain rules that provide third-adjacent channel protection for full-power noncommercial FM stations that broadcast radio reading services via a subcarrier frequency from potential low-power FM station interference. Requires the FCC, when licensing FM translator stations, to ensure that: (1) licenses are available to both FM translator stations and low-power FM stations; and (2) such decisions are made based on the needs of the local community.
I would add to that list; Must be on the air at least 50% of the time and no more than 50% of that time is automated. Why not? If this is supposed to spur local (community radio) what would be the point of a whole bunch of low power automated stations? Just more clutter in the FM band.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
~1st amendment to the United States Constitution
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
~Benjamin Franklin
...radio was discovered, and not invented, and that these frequencies and principles were always in existence long before man was aware of them. Therefore, no one owns them. They are there as free as sunlight, which is a higher frequency form of the same energy.
~Alan Weiner
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
~Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Article 19
Open Mic