Re: LPFM Rules

["Bill O'Neill" <billo@erols.com>]

"Martin J. Waters" wrote:

>         IMO, it is reasonable to say that a licensee must understand that
> this might happen. As I posted before, there's a very long history of this.
> Looked at a certain way, the whole history of radio broadcasting in the
> U.S. is a story of existing stations getting their signal footprints
> stepped on. 

I'm not sure that we can equate the "build-out" of the AM band and
then the explosion of the FMers designated for principal service
with LPFM.  LPFM is sort of like first completing the exam and then
going back to correct your answers. Almost never works.  Face it,
LPFM is a flailing reaction to what has gone wrong with
deregulation.  (And, Scott Fybush scares me with the word that it
was a 'committee' who popped this wonder out there. Oy.)  Trip after
road trip through hinterlands, starving for a LOCAL LOCAL station
gets me, in the words of J. Williams, "annoyed."  The next sporting
event will be: toss in a few dozen .1 kW, .01 kW, kick in the
plates, then, as you drive down the highway, hit "scan" and watch it
smoke.

We all just saw from the ex-band's first days how far an AM
> signal of 1 kW goes at night on a truly clear channel. (I got a weak signal
> one night from California.) Way, way back, just about every AM station had
> a nighttime signal like that.

There's finally a chance to do it right and keep that end of the
dial abundantly quiescent...and AM!  Who knew?!  I guess we should
enjoy the ride while we can.  

Bill O'Neill