<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/">
<channel>
	<generator>Vivvo CMS 4.1</generator>
	<title></title>
	<link>http://www.rbr.com/</link>
	<copyright>&amp;copy;2010 Spoonlabs d.o.o.</copyright>
	
	
			
				
					<item>
						
							<title>LPFM draws support in House subcommittee</title>
							<link>http://www.rbr.com/radio/15120.html</link>
							<category>Radio News</category>
							<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:47:00 -0400</pubDate>
							<description>Members of Congress, the FCC and consumer/watchdog groups all seemed to think making it easier to license LPFM stations by eliminating 3rd adjacency interference protection was a good idea â€“ and</description>
							
						
					</item>
					
							
								
									<item>
										<title>Greg Jablonski</title>
										
											<link>http://whmi.com</link>
										
										<category>Radio News</category>
										<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:17:04 -0400</pubDate>
										<description>It SHOULDN&amp;#039;T be OK to run a translator on a third adjacent channel, and that&amp;#039;s the problem.  Interference thresholds should be CONSISTENTLY defined by desired to undesired signal ratios, not FCC administrative descriptions like &amp;quot;translator,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;LPFM,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;full-power FM.&amp;quot;  Unfortunately, the FCC likes to try to defy the laws of physics in furthering its agenda.</description>
									</item>
								
							
						
				
			
		




<description></description>
</channel>
</rss>
