Re: LPFM Rules

[Robert Smith <rmsmith@ma.ultranet.com>]

"R.L. Caron" wrote:

> Listening to FCC representative Roy Stewart solemly tell an assemblage of
> broadcasters that his agency would never do anything to cause interference
> to existing stations, I thought to myself: "Hmm, this is the Clinton
> administration. Watch out for a redefinition of the word interference."
>
> They just did it!

Not only have they apparently redefined interference, but I'm not sure they
understand the meaning of "secondary service".  Having spent most of the
weekend updating my software with which I do FM allocation studies for
preparing FCC applications, I've noticed some interesting contradictions...

Full service FMs must protect other full service FMs to their 60 dBu, 57 dBu
or 54 dBu, depending on the station class.  LPFMs must protect full service
FMs only to their 70 dBu (with no distinction for Bs and B1s).  On the other
hand, full service FMs aren't required to provide any protection to
translators, because they are a secondary service.  But LPFMs must protect
translators.  Full service FMs must provide protection to other full service
FMs on the co-channel, first, second and third adjacent channels, while LPFMs
can ignore third channel full service and facilities.

Of course, if the LPFM is within 320 km of the Canadian border and the station
to be protected is Canadian, then the rules change.  Canadians must be
protected on the third adjacent as well as first and second and co-channel.
There is yet another set of rules if the LPFM is 320 km of Mexico.

So, exactly what kind of service is LPFM??

Bob Smith