The U.S. Congress recently passed the Local Community Radio Act of
2010, which will expand the number of low-power FM stations by reducing
the required minimum spacing between them and full-power stations.
As it worked its way through Congress, the technical requirements
for the separation were tweaked and the bill eventually gained the
support of the NAB, which had originally opposed it.

I haven't been able to find any articles about the bill on large
online news sites, but here's an article from Radio World, which
appears to be an industry site:

http://www.rwonline.com/article/110948

This next article is on the website of the group that organized the
effort to create the bill, so it's not neutral, but it does give a
lot more information about who supported it:

http://www.prometheusradio.org/node/2438

I was frustrated that all of the articles talked about technical
requirements for the new stations, but not whether they would have
to actually have local content rather than syndicated feeds (note
the support of several national religious organizations), so I went
looking for the bill itself. Here it is:

http://www.thomas.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h6533_enr.xml

So this bill really did only address technical issues, expanding
the existing LPFM service. I didn't feel like spending a lot of
time rooting around the FCC site for more details, but I did find
their main LPFM page:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lpfm/index.html

And this page about licensing requirements on the GPO website:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...7cfr73.853.htm

There are links to more sections of the CFR he

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html#LPFM

Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that as long as a group can
establish a local entity to hold the license, they can put whatever
content they want on the air. I don't see anything that prohibits
syndicated programming and requires the station to actually serve
the local community. I guess we'll just have to hope that some of
them do.

Here's the NPR story that originally brought my attention to the
bill:

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132032...alls-In-Senate

(As the URL indicates, this story aired on Dec. 13th. The bill was
later un-stalled in the Senate.)


Patty

Patty Winter wrote:
The U.S. Congress recently passed the Local Community Radio Act of
2010, which will expand the number of low-power FM stations by reducing
the required minimum spacing between them and full-power stations.
As it worked its way through Congress, the technical requirements
for the separation were tweaked and the bill eventually gained the
support of the NAB, which had originally opposed it.

I keep thinking about this and looking at it, and more and more I think
this is a bad thing.

As consumer radio receivers get worse and worse, the response is to try
and shoehorn more stations into the band.

I think LPFM stations are a great idea when there is space for them, but
I think dropping the third-adjacent rule and the like is not going to make
actual space for them, it's just going to result in poorer reception for
existing stations, and LPFM stations whose actual range is far more limited
than it should be.

I was frustrated that all of the articles talked about technical
requirements for the new stations, but not whether they would have
to actually have local content rather than syndicated feeds (note
the support of several national religious organizations), so I went
looking for the bill itself. Here it is:

http://www.thomas.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/h6533_enr.xml

None of that will change, and to be honest I think those are the problems,
NOT the third-adjacent rule. Force the class A as well as the LPFM station
to have a certain amount of local content, force them to actually make some
attempt at serving the public. Shut down the stations that are not doing this
or let them shut down on their own and THEN you will have less band congestion.

Right now if I tune across the FM band here in Hampton, VA, I can find
three stations playing exactly the same song. They are all playing off
automation systems. This is not serving the public.

Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that as long as a group can
establish a local entity to hold the license, they can put whatever
content they want on the air. I don't see anything that prohibits
syndicated programming and requires the station to actually serve
the local community. I guess we'll just have to hope that some of
them do.

Yes, this is true of LPFM stations as well as conventional AM and FM stations.
If you look at the license database you will find that the vast majority of
LPFM licenses are assigned to Christian broadcasting combines that use them
effectively as unattended operations broadcasting network material directly
off a satellite feed.

I think this is a terrible thing and a total misuse of the LPFM license,
but no more so than the local 50KW "classic rock" station that does exactly the
same thing on a larger scale.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

If you look at the license database you will find that the vast majority of
LPFM licenses are assigned to Christian broadcasting combines that use them
effectively as unattended operations broadcasting network material directly
off a satellite feed.

This is what always happens when any service is opened up: the religious
broadcasters instantly do a frequency grab. Look at the
noncomm/educational band.

I think this is a terrible thing and a total misuse of the LPFM license,
but no more so than the local 50KW "classic rock" station that does exactly
the
same thing on a larger scale.

Loenzo Milam and Jeremy Lansman thought the grab for the sub-92 stations
by applicants who were neither non-commercial nor educational. The Jesus
stations mobilized and did a major campaign against the "Petition
Against God", and the wusses at the FCC denied what I thought was a
perfectly crafted petition in short order.

The usual remark when the topic of LPFM came about was "just what we
need: a couple thousand more Jesus stations."

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article ,
John Higdon wrote:

Loenzo Milam and Jeremy Lansman thought the grab for the sub-92 stations
by applicants who were neither non-commercial nor educational.

Actually, I meant to say "fought" rather than "thought". Hey, as you get
older, the distinctions blur.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

A more detailed article about the LCRA bill and how it effects LPFM making room for more new stations is available at

http://nexusbroadcast.com/lpfm-news/...nity-radio-act

John Higdon wrote:

Loenzo Milam and Jeremy Lansman thought the grab for the sub-92 stations
by applicants who were neither non-commercial nor educational. The Jesus
stations mobilized and did a major campaign against the "Petition
Against God", and the wusses at the FCC denied what I thought was a
perfectly crafted petition in short order.

I think that if the stations can in fact show that they are providing a
public service and are filling a need in the community for a Christian
station which is currently unfilled, they should be licensed.

But then, I think the same requirement should also be made for any other
organization of any sort applying for a license or license renewal.

However, it appears that the problem will soon be going away, since Family
Radio is currently assuring us that the Rapture will take place on May 21.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."