[BC] LPAM Info

[Mike McCarthy]

I can't find this RM in the FCC's EDCOS system.

MM

At 08:20 AM 10/28/2005 -0500, Richard Fry wrote
>Here is a paste about a proposed LPAM service, from the DIY Media website:
>
>http://www.free103point9.org/newsroom.php
>
>__________________
>
>Low power AM petition for rulemaking accepted at FCC
>
>10.23.05
>
> From DIY Media
>
>RM-11287 is a multi-party petition that calls for the opening of the AM 
>band to small broadcasters. Two of the five parties involved also filed 
>the original petition for rulemaking that led to LPFM's conception.
>
>This has been a long time coming: citizen interest in LPAM has percolated 
>since the 1990s, and there's been open discussion of the idea since at 
>least 2002. In 2003 a respected broadcast engineer submitted a proposal to 
>the FCC which called for the creation of 30 and 100-watt "neighborhood 
>radio" AM stations with 1-5 mile broadcast ranges. The FCC never formally 
>acknowledged receipt of this document. In 2004 efforts were made to revive 
>the proposal, to no avail. Building on these previous efforts with copious 
>field experimentation led to the petition the FCC finally accepted.
>
>RM-11287 attempts to differentiate LPAM from LPFM in several respects. The 
>most significant is its commercial nature: LPAM seeks to "fill the current 
>gap between small stations and megacorporations...where mid-sized 
>businesses used to be" in the broadcast industry. Petitioners contend that 
>while LPFM addresses a "community coverage gap" opened by the 
>consolidation of radio since 1996, "[t]here remains, in radio and in other 
>mass media industries, a separate, but similarly dangerous, 'small 
>business gap'" which "harms the nation by hindering economic growth and 
>also by limiting the free flow of information and ideas." It is proposed 
>that one entity may own up to 12 LPAM stations nationally, although no 
>more than one in any given market.
>
>Multiple options are presented for the technical requirements of an LPAM 
>service, with power levels ranging from 1 to 250 watts. All are geared 
>toward keeping administration of the service simple. It is believed that 
>under such conditions LPAM stations may provide opportunities for access 
>to the airwaves that LPFM simply cannot: for example, according to cited 
>analysis from REC Networks, metropolitan Detroit is currently off-limits 
>to LPFM, but as many as four possible LPAM frequencies exist in the city.
>
>Some components of the petition, like asking the FCC to make licensing 
>decisions between competing applicants based on their proposed broadcast 
>content, will simply not fly. And given that the Telecommunications Act of 
>1996 requires the FCC to auction off all commercial broadcast licenses, 
>implementation of the proposal as written would require the blessing of 
>Congress. But the fact that the FCC is at least open to a rudimentary 
>level of discussion about LPAM is encouraging. Comments on RM-11287 are 
>due in mid-November (on or around November 20).
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/