RE: LPFM Rules

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

>Mike Fitzpatrick wrote:
>Although it might sound harsh, I would just eliminate all translators. No
>protection or "special situations" allowed.
<snip>

        IMO, translators have a purpose. I think it's a good example of a
rule that turned out to be poorly written because they never anticipated
that applicants would find the huge loophole in it. The rule probably goes
back to the days when FM was secondary to AM.
        As R.L. Caron said in a post, legitimate translators actually tend
to be more important in other parts of the country than the Northeast. If a
translator is needed for a primary station to fill in holes within what
theoretically *ought* to be its protected signal area, under the rules,
then I think it's good. And I might go a bit beyond that.
        I think the massive abuse of translators has given a lot of people
the attitude, just get rid of all of them. I do think that's too harsh.