Re: Rant About LPFM

[umar@nerodia.wcrb.com]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, R.L. Caron wrote:

> That argument only carries to the extent that the discussion remains in
> realm of analog to analog. Noboby knows what effect, if any, third
> adjacencies will have on IBOC digital, simply because we have no real world
> situations in which to conduct proper testing.

IBOC has yet to be proven workable. I doubt very much that it will ever be
economically viable even if it can be made to work technically.  It'll be
the AM stereo of the 2000's, I think.

Eureka-147 has no multipath problems, unlike IBOC, and offers a usable
bandwidth of 192 to 256 kbits/second as opposed to IBOC's 90-odd. It will
actually sound better than FM, which IBOC will not.  Yet I have heard
Eureka-147 receivers in the UK are not selling well. 

> The FCC itself hasn't been a completely straight shooter in all this. Their
> representatives consistently, almost piously, assured broadcasters they
> would *never* do anything to cause interference to existing signals, only to
> promulgate new rules that roll back the interference-free contour area for
> all stations from 50% to 75%.

Other than eliminating third-adjacent protections, I don't see that the
new spacing requirements for LPFM's amount to a rollback at all.
However, let me add that I don't think the *existing* spacing rules for FM
stations adequately protect stations from interference. 

As far as the NAB is concerned, interference was never the real issue; the
NAB simply wants to prevent its members from having to face new
competition for the ears of their listeners. Else, why oppose Eureka-147
and S-DARS, neither of which poses any interference threat? 

The real solution to the problem of insufficient diversity on the airwaves
is to reverse the ill-conceived deregulation of the industry, break up the
conglomerates, and force broadcasters to live up to their community
service obligations.


Rob Landry

--
umar@nerodia.wcrb.com
I do not speak for my employers.