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

[Barry Mishkind]

Tom,

At 05:50 AM 10/10/2009, tpt at literock93r.com wrote:
>Now Barry...

         Tom .... (It was great to see you in Philly!)

>How are the LPFM's "limited"?
>
>No commercials? They were intended to b e non-profit.

         Were they? Or were they intended to be
         neighborhood stations, filling a "local" need
         that most broadcasters have come to feel
         is too hard to do?

>Ownership? They were intended to be locally owned.

         This is true ... and except for the gymnastics
         some of the satellators have performed, has
         remained so.  Hasn't it?

>Programming? They were not intended to be satellite programmed.

         I sure hope that is true.

>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.

         That indeed should be more than enough for
         a local station. Rural areas ... well, that is
         another matter - one many people think
         that the Commission should have given
         more thought to before allowing so
         many rim-shot move-ins.

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

         Push-pull.

>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.

         250 W is much more than 100 W.  And perhaps
         there should be a complete end to satellators
         above 75 MHZ.

>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.

         OK.

- - -
The Broadcasters' Desktop Resource

www.theBDR.net
Please take a look
Please pass it on....