Re: LPFM Rules

[mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu (Martin J. Waters)]

>I wrote:
<snip>
><< And, if you really want to know, I would have taken this opportunity to
>>end the abuse of translators by rolling that whole thing into this
>>rulemaking. I would have morphed all the translator assignments/provisions
>>into the LPFM thing. I would have effectively revoked all the existing
>>translators and made the licensees compete in the pool for new LPFMs... >>
<snip>

>R.L. Caron responded:
>Agreed. We have very few really legitimate translators on this coast. What
>some (ahem, NCE) broadcasters have done with chains of these fed from
>thousands of miles away is nothing short of a mockery of the rules. It would
>have been a great opportunity to do a complete sweep of this garbage. (Not
>to mention making available lots of low power transmitters and antennas for
>the new LPFM applicants.)
>
>It's a little different out west, where entire populations can live in
>'bowls' created by 11,000' mountains...leaving few if any signals listenable
>from stations that should be covering well. Commission could have judged
>these on a case-by-case basis, but they would tell you in a heartbeat they
>just don't have the staff! Wait 'till the LPFM applications hit. Hello,
>AccountTemps! Actually, prior to that is a likely a flood of applications
>from "regular" broadcasters trying to tie up as many potential LPFM
>allocations with even more unneeded boosters. It's gonna be a mess. It need
>not have been so, but the whole thing has a political twinge to it and I'm
>sure there was pressure to rush it to market even though it wasn't fully
>cooked. And, of course, the usual bureaucratic impulse to blunt potential
>criticism by leaving a few crumbs for everybody.