Home | Radio News | Radio vet fears LPFM onslaught


Radio vet fears LPFM onslaught

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

All-around radio veteran and current blogger Mel Phillips believes that Congress has lost its mind with its plan to fill the airwaves with LPFM stations. Count him as one who is not convinced that 3rd channel adjacency can safely be abandoned. But he seems to be concerned not only with that, but with the clutter that will exist on the dial in general.

“If you think our country’s airlanes are overcrowded, wait till you see the logjam of radio signals we’ll be getting,” he blogged recently. “Washington will be forced to use radar screens to scan all the radio frequencies we’ll have.”

He’s advising whoever reads his work to contact their representatives in Congress and try to get the LPFM bill defeated.

Have an opinion on this article? Post your comment below.

Bookmark and Share

Today's Broadcasting News

RBR - Radio News
TVBR - TV/Cable News




Subscribe to comments feed Comments (5 posted):

John Broomall on 29 October, 2009 05:39:21
avatar
Who cares what Mel Phillips thinks about LPFM? I have 20+ years broadcasting experience and don't know or care who Mel is. Obviously he does not know or care who I am.

My background has been entirely in Christian NCE radio and TV. I am an expert in LPFM; Mr. Phillips is not. Broadcasting is big and diverse enough for both of us to exist at the same time
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
BEn Dawson on 29 October, 2009 10:48:11
avatar
The proliferation of 2nd adjacent channel and third adjacent channel translators has already compromised the FM band allocation situation beyond repair. LPFM expansion will be relatively trivial by comparison.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Paul Smith on 30 October, 2009 08:18:38
avatar
In addition to the "destruction" caused by 2nd and 3rd adjacent translators, even more destruction has been caused by IBOC HD that is in the adjacent channels. You cant harm it any more than that and you might just get a small community station that believes in serving it's community with meaningful local content.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Paul Dean Ford, P.E. on 30 October, 2009 09:49:43
avatar
The FCC appears to be bent on destroying over the air broadcasting. First, restrictive AM rules, failure to control sources of interference in the AM band, IBOC (the biggest joke of all), abuse of translators, abuse of allocations, control by fines which can bankrupt a small broadcaster, most importantly allowing mega-groups of stations instead of the old 7AM 7FM & 7TV, and now LPFM.

If the FCC would break up the mega-clusters, there would be no need for LPFM; every would-be broadcaster could obtain a channel.

The FCC should be abolished and we should start over. We need a regulator that is responsible; not the political system we have today. Solid engineering should rule. The present FCC is regulator, prosecutor, and judge. There is no justice under such a system.

It's time for a change NOW!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1
Gregg E Zuelke NAB, SBE, IEEE, ET1 USN (Ret), AmRad, (OLD) FCC 1st Class R/T on 30 October, 2009 02:29:17
avatar
Applaud to Mr. Ford!

I live in an area where several stations are airing on the 'next' adjacent channels, and large stations have several 'translators' currently doing the same for FM as well.

SUPPOSEDLY, the newer stations and translators are outside the 'protected' zone of the original stations, yet, on all of my radios, I get cross channel noise of the adjacent channels --- 99.1 and 99.3, 92.1 and 92.3 for example --- unless I am sitting [almost] underneath their transmitters.

(One primary FM station moved their transmitter to a TALL mountain out here well in line with the primary station it now interferes with; one AM station dropped power for 20 minutes in the daytime and I picked up 3 OTHER stations at least 100 miles NORTH and WEST of OUR station clearer than OUR station when operating.)



I would be VERY HIP to enjoy some LPFM stations that are not regulated by Arbitron --- you think most mainline stations could live w/o being able to show that they are getting numbers anymore????? Out here only a baby handful of stations do air something that is not 'mainline'. (You should hear the [lack of] diverse commercials on those stations --- I know by heart the 'karaeoke drunk' PSA due to one of them --- as though the station is popular, it is LOCAL and a low(er) power AM, so the numbers do not come out as high as the ten stations that play 'Christine Aguilera'.) Luckily, the stations are not looking to 'bloat' their pockets, which, does make a case for LPFM and even a few AM stations being those small AM stations do broadcast LOCALLY compared to the high power stations that do 'network' junk.



Still, the interference problems I've listened to with IBOC both on AM and FM, seen / heard on the [still] active TV [analog] translators, even on Amateur Radio broadcasts that I have sent logs AND audio / video clips to the regional FCC only to be told that even being able to view / hear the noise they claim there are no "interference" problems in the area.

(Remember the 36 point AM radiation testing of years ago to make sure your lobes did not stray.)



That they are pushing for "WHITE SPACE" operations, pushing for more adjacent channel stations, [readily paid off by IBIQUITY --- MY "opinion" for] pushing IBOC even with the known noise problems, looking to do BPL even with the complaints of ARRL, etc., and you basically read it will bring more [regulatory] money in to the FCC --- translation GOV'T --- pockets, plus as Mr. Ford noted above on how the FCC is now running free, the airwaves are no longer 'public' airwaves.



LPFM and small AM stations would be great ... as long as they are controlled so they do not interfere with larger stations nor themselves.

(You would think in this era of electronics, SOMEONE could build filters that would keep the interference out of next channel stations, eh?) (Errrr.....don't they already??????? wow it COULD work.)
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
1

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
Log in


RBR-TVBR readers rejected PRA negotiations two weeks ago. 8/23 NAB explained the proposal and wants the industry’s opinion, so we’ve simplified the answers and we're putting it before you again:
Submit your own poll Email production@rbr.com
www.harkerresearch.com




Facebook

Twitter

Rate this article
0