posted 12-10-2002 19:05            

"The LPFM Channel Finder was removed from the FCC's Web site on December 9, 2002. This tool formerly had been used by applicants for new LPFM stations to find potential sites and frequencies and to prepare acceptable applications. However, at present, the LPFM Channel Finder cannot guarantee with any certainty that a particular frequency or location will still be available at the next application filing window because of accumulating changes to the broadcast station database. Rather than generate studies now that may not result in an acceptable application during the next application filing window (no application filing windows are expected in the near future), we have suspended use of the LPFM Channel Finder for an indefinite period. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

posted 12-10-2002 20:34            

The current administration sees no need of furthering LPFM. We will no longer be offering the LPFM channel finder under the current administration. The next LPFM window will open when an LPFM friendly administration comes to power.

Further we will not be acting on applications that are MX or have small errors until all singleton applicants have either built their facility or have let their CP expire. We anticipate dealing with these situations in 2008.

Thank You,

Iwanna Frequency

Secretary To
His Royal Hiney
King Michael Powell the Divine

posted 12-10-2002 22:39            

This is not good.

posted 12-11-2002 01:22         

Currently, the REC LPFM Channel Search is updated every weekend with Friday's business. The FCCs channel search going down will not impact the REC site.

(We were up before theirs.)
http://www.recnet.com/lpfm

posted 12-11-2002 01:27            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bryan27:
Translation:

The current administration sees no need of furthering LPFM.

---

Another translation might be "we don't really need to worry about consolidation because IBOC is acknowledged to be a massive interference source and so anything less than 1000 watts is probably going to be destroyed for many listeners. Thus there is no point in wasting the staff's time and generate even more political fallout when people start losing access to their favorite stations.

Our only hope is that people do NOT make a systematic recording of their loss of access to these stations that might stand up in a court of law.

posted 12-11-2002 06:19            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RECNetworks:
The FCCs channel search going down will not impact the REC site.

---

posted 12-12-2002 05:52            

quote:

---

Originally posted by RECNetworks:
I can understand why they took the LPFM finder down. I am not surprised.

Currently, the REC LPFM Channel Search is updated every weekend with Friday's business. The FCCs channel search going down will not impact the REC site.

(We were up before theirs.)
http://www.recnet.com/lpfm

---

And yours, IMHO, was always better....

Any chance of restoring calculations as if the original proposed rulemaking were law (excluding second and third-adjacent restrictions)?

Not to say that you'd EVER advocate unlicensed broadcasting, or anything, but after all, this is a board for free and "just barely free" radio....

(also it makes for a good demonstration of just how many more stations could be allowed had the FCC actually grew some brass ones and removed an artificial restriction on channel spacing)

-John-

posted 12-13-2002 12:16         

We had proposed no second adjacent channel spacing at first but now with IBOC being a reality, I don't think we will ever see relief for the second adjacent.

posted 12-15-2002 17:16            

I agree that this is not Good News.

I'm not sure it's as dire as some of the posts in this thread have speculated, but it's definitely not good.

One phrase in the FCC's announcement that particularly bothers me: the reference to "changes in the station database". I hope this doesn't mean that Bad Guys are out "putting frequencies in inventory" to block LPFM applicants and other competitors.

Yours,

posted 12-16-2002 03:55         

This channel gobbling is another reason why the LPFM community needs to come out in arms on the RM-10609 Calvary Chapel proposal. If this is ever allowed to happen, it could put the last nail on the coffin of local radio.

posted 12-26-2002 04:44            

BTW(I also just made a donation also - thanks for the site. - I appreciate it!)

My main point, though, of this note is how I find it interesting that all FCC coverages of FM stations/xltrs assume FLAT TERRAIN!! In the Owens Valley, the LPFM channel search including the 2nd adjacant channel protection comes back with a couple of channels that assume to be totally clear **actually have unusually strong reception** of distant stations in this area due to: 1) knife-edge refraction of distant FM stations (namely in the San Joaquin Valley across the Sierra 2) mountain scatter/reflection (brings i Las Vegas FM signals strongly in places) 3) channelling of FM signals within valleys 4) plain-ole mountain blocking of stations otherwise within their 60 dBu coverage area (somne other SJValley stations not favored by Sierra Nevada Knife-edge propagation. Taking out a sensitive FM receiver in the field nearby actually comes up **radically different**, and "free channels" (which several did match OK I should point out here) were good to use, but a few others recommended in *blue* actually are occupied with "DX" but still quite strong signals and would cause consideable interference to any LPFM station! I know it is not easy to account for terrain effects in databases, but I wonder if the mayhem we see on the FM bands with LICENSED stations (particularly in the mountainous west) and strange FM channel spacing/placement of such stations in "real life" are really due to too much dependence upon databases that might work in flat-terrain locales -- actually working to create worsened co-channel and adjacent channel interference situations in hilly/mountainous areas.

And so, the database and search program work well enough, but it is good to also use a sensitive FM receiver to get "actual-life" results for clear/clean channels. This is obvious to most of us but I wonder if the FCC does the same...

Yeah, it all may be moot with IBOC, etc. etc. yeah - re. "Calvary" - they put on a class-D translator in this area (so we can hear them on five channels now in this rural area!!) to last only **one month** (90.1 K211EA) but I still see their info in the FCC database is "current." More game playing by THAT entity? Hmmmm...

And why the "educational" requirement in LPFM? Hmmm...

Steve McGreevy
ex-KMUD 43m

posted 12-26-2002 06:22         

quote:

---

Originally posted by KMUD:
but then was dissappointed to see that they are not taking CA apps. curently and that the LPFM search utility was suspended. Hmmm...

---

quote:

---

BTW(I also just made a donation also - thanks for the site. - I appreciate it!)

---

quote:

---

My main point, though, of this note is how I find it interesting that all FCC coverages of FM stations/xltrs assume FLAT TERRAIN!!

---

In commercial rules (with some exceptions), flat terrain with a theoretical maximum facility is used.

The same goes for LPFM. Even though it may exclude some stations from being dropped in, it is a simple method that can save you a lot of money (and makes search tools like ours even more possible).

quote:

---

....**radically different**, and "free channels" (which several did match OK I should point out here) were good to use, but a few others recommended in *blue* actually are occupied with "DX" but still quite strong signals and would cause consideable interference to any LPFM station!

---

quote:

---

And so, the database and search program work well enough, but it is good to also use a sensitive FM receiver to get "actual-life" results for clear/clean channels. This is obvious to most of us but I wonder if the FCC does the same...

---

Remember, we tell you what you can legally have. You may find that some or all of these channels will not work in your area.

Even though it is highly unlikely that they would ever accept it, if you have a channel that you know for a fact will not cause any prohibited overlap, you can always file for the channel accomponied by a waiver demonstrating that there is no projected interference/contour overlap. Once again, it's a crap shoot and you have a 1% chance of landing a CP.

quote:

---

Yeah, it all may be moot with IBOC, etc. etc. yeah - re. "Calvary" - they put on a class-D translator in this area (so we can hear them on five channels now in this rural area!!) to last only **one month** (90.1 K211EA) but I still see their info in the FCC database is "current." More game playing by THAT entity? Hmmmm...

---

IBOC is not as much as a threat as Calvary. See our website for info on RM-10609. We encourage all FRN'ers who want to see any kind of a future for local LPFM stations to file comments in this docket.

quote:

---

And why the "educational" requirement in LPFM? Hmmm...

---

posted 12-26-2002 06:33            

Can we get along just as well with ONLY the information on the REC NETWORKS Web Site, or have we really lost something that the REC Web Site -- while terrific!!!! -- cannot duplicate?

IF we have really lost something of value here, it might be worthwhile to write up a letter -- or even a formal Petition -- that asks the FCC to re-instate the LPFM Channel Finder. At the very least, this would show our adversaries that the LPFM movement won't accept a reversal like this without putting up a fight. Also: The letter or Petition could raise concerns about the "backlog" in LPFM application processing.

If such a letter or Petition was prepared, copies should go to key Congressional legislators. Maybe we can get a little more support in the Senate now that we don't have a Senate Majority Leader who was Eddie Fritts' college roommate.

Well ... Let me know what all of you think. IF a letter or Petition was drafted, I'm sure we could line up a lot of signatories through AMHERST ALLIANCE channels, THE LPFM GRAPEVINE, www.communityradiousa.com and other networks.

Sincerely,

posted 12-26-2002 06:36            

Sorry about that.

posted 12-26-2002 07:35            

Thanks for the clarification and you're welcome re. the donation - now I am twice as pleased I donated after delving deeper into your fab site. The FM station searches are of great help and enlightment - I didn't know somany FM stations had radiation patterns that would make an AM broadcast engineer grin (al la night patterns). Fascinating!

Yep, I canunderstand how your database works and how engineering plans would have to work in technically "flat" terrain. Of course, terrain effects are more inthe realm of the curious "DXer" to discover, but how can they be quantified to be of use in real-life planning onthe FMband.

Ok on "educational" as differing from "non-commercial" I dunno- hate to complain,but seems to me that there is excessive religion onthe lower part of the FM dial compared to 20 years ago. I can tune in a good deal of "Christian" programming but NO NPR is available in this area without resorting to huge yagi's to pull in a little 10-watt translator in Ridgecrest, CA. What a shame, and the programming that locals could is is filled with those drn satellite-translators ad naseum, so I have to heartily agree with your views on "Calvary" thatthey have a vastly disproportionate amount of grants and just plainly that local programming and those that would exercise their talents to do so should havegreatprecedence over mass-produced and distributed stuff from far away that i sdulicated excessivly (like I said, a good FM receiver heard five of those pesky calvary stations/xltrs in this area and NO NPR! ) Right you are.

Steve

A while back, it was hoped thatLPFM would allow for "Micro-power broadcasters" who could be happy with 0.1 watt to do their fancy - far better range than the feeble Part-15 allowable signal, but I guess thatwould have resulted in too many transmitters to deal with (like 27 MHz...). Those are a huge jump down from the "minimal" station technical requirements for LPFM and so much "paperwork" to do to get a CP. It really discourages many people altogether (probably designed to do so or else the system would be overwhelmed my sheer numbers).

My last question though, as I intend to jump the required hurdles to get an LPFM app., is where do Ifind FCC information on their definitions of "organizations." The term "singleton" is new to me too - is this an FCC term for individuals (non-org.) applications, or is a slang term? Learnig much! Tnx!

Steve