[BC] Some movement on the 3rd adjacent issue?

[tpt at literock93r.com]

Now Barry...

How are the LPFM's "limited"?

No commercials? They were intended to b e non-profit.
Ownership? They were intended to be locally owned.
Programming? They were not intended to be satellite programmed.

Engineering Specifications? Except in a few rural areas, 100 watts at  
100 feet is about all you can squeeze in. Or should be able to.

The MItre study was the usual Washington joke.  Go buy a couple of  
radios at Wallie World and you'll understand.

Note that the proposed legislation also allows translators on a third  
adjacent.
Dangerous. I had a battle with the Twin Falls boys who were trying to  
put a 250 watt translator on my third adjacent (94.5 to my 93.9)  
--inside my 60 dbu--and adjacent to the largest mall in our area.

Apart from the fact they proposed to mount the antenna on an Alltel  
"flag pole" cell antenna--and were beside a McDonalds built along the  
main shopping road in our market and just across from a large  
apartment building (which would certainly not meet the present rule  
about building in an "unihabited" area) they proposed to rebroadcast a  
commercial station 100 miles away to be received on 94.1.

That app. vanished when I suggested to the owners of the primary station that
since their station was in Ohio--and I am licensed in Ohio, they  
reallllly didn't want to get in a lawsuit.

The point is a locally owned 100 watt LPFM on a third adjacent is more easily
controlled than an absentee owned "satellator" run by some  
fly-by-night outfit in California or Florida.