[BC] LPAM (was Smallest AM Radiator/TIS)

[mark@shander.com]

Hi All,

I've been helping non-profit stations in Arizona serve their community
with Part 15 stations.  The one I work with in Fountain Hills, Arizona
reaches the small community there fairly well with a single
transmitter, and they just added another at the local church to help
bring services to people who physically can't attend.

I also set up streaming for them - they have listeners around the globe
and are able to use a content distribution network that allows them to
reach people who carry PDA's just like people used to carry portable
radios.  I thought the number of people who used computers to listen to
local radio wasn't high until I saw the station's statistics that
include the "client" used to connect.  That helps identify the device
being used to receive a stream, whether it's a computer or PDA.

I think that while LPAM power levels are an important topic, I think
the licensing issue vs. non-licensed is even more important.

Licensed station operators are likely to feel they have something "at
risk" when content breaches accepted community standards.

I believe a licensed, low power AM class solution is important, but I
think making improvements in license acquisition needs to go along with
that.  Beyond interference issues, administrative and enforcement costs
will go up.  These licenses should therefore assist in creating their
own barrier to entry - they should cost a few thousand dollars or so to
help defray their administrative costs and keep people who are less
likely to respect the airwaves from acquiring them.

Does that sound reasonable?

Regards,

Mark
www.shander.com

--- Dana  Puopolo <dpuopolo at usa.net> wrote:

> It will be the NAB that's yelling the loudest...
> 
> -D
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:36:17 AM EDT
> From: "Bailey, Scott" <SBailey at nespower.com>
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Subject: RE: [BC] LPAM (was Smallest AM Radiator/TIS)
> 
> Dave,
>   Then, what would it take, "an act of congress" to force the
> commission
> to change the rules in part 15 AM?  I think that a full 1/2 watt
> would
> be o.k. for Part 15, but I'm sure somebody will yell, INTERFERENCE!
> MAKE
> THEM TURN IT OFF!
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
> [mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of
> DHultsman5 at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 8:23 AM
> To: broadcast at radiolists.net
> Subject: Re: [BC] LPAM (was Smallest AM Radiator/TIS)
> 
>  
> In a message dated 7/19/2006 7:15:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
> rfry at adams.net writes:
> 
> >>  Rule 15.209  does not define anything about tx power or  antenna
> >> system gain/efficiency, only that the peak field strength  in
> >> microvolts/meter when measured 30 meters away from  the
> >> antenna cannot exceed [24,000/Operating Freq in   kilohertz].
> 
> Phil Alexander responded:
> >I had to read that one  myself. ...Operation on 600 kHz is permitted
> > twice the FI as on 1200  kHz while, in fact, it should be the
> opposite
> > to account for  propagation attenuation which is far greater at
> >1200 kHz than at 600  kHz.
> ____________
> 
> However the useful fields permitted under 15.209  in the AM broadcast
> band 
> are gone long before ground conductivity plays a  significant part in
> them, 
> no matter what the frequency.
> 
> RF  
> 
> 
> 
> *************************************************************
>  
> Similar to the old college radio carrier current stations.  This is 
> why
> many 
> of them were on the low band clear channel stations 660,640,670 700
> etc.  I 
> you couldn't hear them normally you would use them for your carrier
> current 
> frequency because you were allowed to radio a distance of 15
> microvolts/per 
> meter.   This made it nearly two hundred feet from a  power line at
> 640
> kHz. as 
> I recall from KSMU days in Dallas.  
>  
> Dave Hultsman
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Do you have a BDR? http://www.oldradio.com/bdr.htm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Do you have a BDR? http://www.oldradio.com/bdr.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Do you have a BDR? http://www.oldradio.com/bdr.htm
> 
>