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

Wed Jul 19 13:04:02 CDT 2006

Mark,
   Your doing a good thing. LPAM is a good thing, and if the commission
was convinced that operators would behave themselves, they could raise
the power limits on Part 15 AM to 1/2 watt or maybe 1 watt. From all I
hear, the Rangemaster 1000 is a great transmitter, and with good CRL,
Orban, or Omnia Processing, it sounds just as good as my 1 KW daytimer,
with uses a Omnia 3. One half watt on one of those Rangemasters will do
more than what people think they will!
   I thinking about starting a LPAM for our subdivision called
"Cambridge Farms", just outside Gallatin, TN. We have a property manager
and subdivision association over our subdivision, and I'm going to bring
it up in our next board meeting. I will use it to get out information
and neighbor events to property owners. We have nearly 750 homes in
Cambridge Farms. My music format will be all 80's pop/CHR of the 80's,
with some 70's.
   People should consider LPAM or doing Part 15 FM.  The big boys are
policing the FM band too heavy, but act as they could care less about
AM.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of mark at shander.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:25 PM
To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
Subject: RE: [BC] LPAM (was Smallest AM Radiator/TIS)

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
> 
> 

_______________________________________________

Do you have a BDR? http://www.oldradio.com/bdr.htm