[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LPFM Rules
On 1 Feb 00, Mike Thomas wrote:
> I guess we'll never learn. We signed on too many AM's in the 50's and
> 60's, made a mess of the band, and chased everyone over to FM. Then the
> combination of Docket 80/90 and now LPFM is poised to trash that band as
> well, and chase everyone over to the internet. Digital radio is poised
to
> hit later this year as well. Unless something is done, it's looking
like
> the end of the line for local, terrestrial-based broadcasting.
There are some differences. FM propagation isn't as changeable as AM, so
that coverage can be more reliably predicted. And the "capture effect" on
FM makes it possible to hear a strong signal without interference from
weaker stations. The combination of unpredictable nighttime propagation
and the tendency of AM signals to come in under one another makes it much
harder to listen to AM at times.
For example, I usually get WJIB very well at night in Brookline. A couple
of years ago, a couple of friends and I drove up to the top of Summit
Avenue to look at Comet Hale-Bop. I had WJIB on the car radio, but it was
fading in and out. And one of my friends remarked that I ought to know
better than to listen to an AM station in this day and age.
We already have a certain amount of interference from low-power stations.
If not for WRBB, a 10-watt holdover, I'd be able to get WBOQ easily in
Brookline. Frankly, I don't know why the FCC didn't just re-authorize the
licensing of stations like that and give them regular call letters instead
of -LP calls.
Actually, I do know. It was an attempt to reconcile various different
opinions and interests. A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
=============================================================
A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468
15 Court Square lawyer@world.std.com
Boston, MA 02108-2503 http://world.std.com/~lawyer/
=============================================================