[EAS] It's not rocket science...

[Robertm]

If you have a monitoring plan that depends on reception beyond a station's protected contour, it is a bad plan. 


> On Jul 22, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Suzanne Goucher <suzanne at mab.org> wrote:
> 
> We opposed LPFMs because of the risk of interference with existing stations.  In fact, the FCC dropped an LPFM at 105.1 in Portland, which made it impossible for the Portland station in our secondary EAS network to monitor the next station up the line, which operates at 105.1.  (They also originally allocated two or three other LPFMs in Maine that would have interfered with existing full-powers.). The full power station at 105.1 has a much greater reach than its predicted grade B, owing to its transmitter sitting atop one of the highest mountains in the state.  So now I'm having to rebuild that network in reverse monitoring order because the FCC wants to see a redundant daisy-chain backup network in our state plan.  That said, when the Commission finally approved LPFMs, our board voted to admit them to membership (mostly out of concerns over a membership discrimination lawsuit), and we do actually have a couple of LPFMs that are members.  -Suzanne Goucher, Maine Association !
> of Broadcaster
>