LPFM Application Info...
Broadcast Services
NEW: Pay 50% now, 50% after filing! You won't get THESE arrangements
anywhere else!
We'll NEVER throw you that tired old line which states: "Payment in
full must be received BEFORE services will be performed..."!
We are now accepting applicants for the second LPFM filing window. We
will only accept a limited number of applicants for the second LPFM filing
window. To be one of the clients for the second filing window
(Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada,
New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Wyoming), go to our credit card
acceptance page or contact us by whatever method you prefer from our contact
page.
Some lessons soon to be learned by LPFM applicants: At LEAST four of
the applications which will be returned as "flawed" are from applicants who
assured me, personally, that they "can file this application without having
to pay for any technical help"... Looks like they fell into an NAB
sponsored(?) "dis-information" trap...
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
Fractenna
Let's see if I have it correct:
1)The FCC has produced a --potential--new class of FM BCB which effectively
gives pirates the right to clutter the BCB;
2) YOU want to charge the pirates (and presumably some innocent others) to fill
out the application?
Why should anyone get a license if they don't have the modest knowledge needed
to fill out the application? Seems to me that the NAB has a thought or two
about this...or should.
Why don't you keep your pirates on the internet rather than cluttering up
valuable freq spectrum?
I can't think of anything LESS needed than LPFM, given the huge, existing,
freedom that the internet presents for limited audience, targeted
'narrowcasting'.
73,
Chip N1IR
TyllEulenspiegel
(nevermind your not my type)
Broadcast Services
as to need consultants, that the small non-commercials should have the same
option. AND, if the OPTION of a license were given, they wouldn't be
"pirates" now, would they?
Sheesh! I would've expected at least a SMALL bit of intelligence from an
amatuer operator! Perhaps, I was wrong... BTW, when you were studying to
pass your code (IF you managed to pass it without any "outside assistance"),
did YOU feel that you didn't deserve the right to a license because, at the
time, you didn't know enough to pass the test? (Probably not, because, at
that time, YOU were the person who didn't know... But, in THIS instant
matter, it's someone else so, for NOW, that gives YOU the right to be the
corporate mouthpiece for NAB? Grow up and get a life! There will be no
interference in this VERY well studied and documented idea... Unless you,
now, want to claim a better understanding of physics than the FCC,
themselves...)
Which commercial group signs your paycheck that's enough to spout off such
stupidity?
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000715083718...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Broadcast Services
three clients, right now, who would LOVE to get you to design a few
directional arrays (NO, not three element yagis, but REAL, actual, FCC
acceptable phased arrays...)
How should I tell them to contact you and when can you have the designs
completed and accepted for filing? (One of them should be capable of
handling a 200 kW P.E.P....)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"TyllEulenspiegel" <tylleule...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000715111034...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> Why pay you for something I can do for free? Unless its sex of course
> (nevermind your not my type)
>
>
>
> >
Broadcast Services
be construed as anything Chip wishes to interpret it as. Believe it or not,
a majority of my clients in the last filing window DO hold amatuer licenses
and are VERY familiar with the technical aspects of radio. What they do NOT
hold is a familiarity of the hoops which must be jumped through in order to
become licensed BROADCASTERS. And, I feel thatChip has probably just
insulted about 50% of the readers of this group. Of course, people will be
too polite to point this out to him...
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Broadcast Services" <haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote in message
news:gq1c5.3132$iT6....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> I've always felt that, if the commercial broadcasters were such
dumbasses
> as to need consultants, that the small non-commercials should have the
same
> option. AND, if the OPTION of a license were given, they wouldn't be
> "pirates" now, would they?
> Sheesh! I would've expected at least a SMALL bit of intelligence from an
> amatuer operator! Perhaps, I was wrong... BTW, when you were studying to
> pass your code (IF you managed to pass it without any "outside
assistance"),
> did YOU feel that you didn't deserve the right to a license because, at
the
> time, you didn't know enough to pass the test? (Probably not, because, at
> that time, YOU were the person who didn't know... But, in THIS instant
> matter, it's someone else so, for NOW, that gives YOU the right to be the
> corporate mouthpiece for NAB? Grow up and get a life! There will be no
> interference in this VERY well studied and documented idea... Unless you,
> now, want to claim a better understanding of physics than the FCC,
> themselves...)
> Which commercial group signs your paycheck that's enough to spout off
such
> stupidity?
>
> --
>
> Terry Keith Hammond
> President/Chief Engineer
>
> http://hawkfm.tripod.com
>
> Broadcast Services
> P.O. Box 155
> Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
>
> (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
>
> The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
> good men die like dogs.
> There's also a negative side."
> - Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
> "Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000715083718...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
Fractenna
As a telecommunications professional, I see no value whatsoever in designing a
license application which someone else can fill out for you. In particular, I
see the contrary.
What, pray, is the advantage of access afforded by these supposed LPFM '
station licenses' to the general public? What's wrong with internet radio?
I have never seen any case which showcases their merit. On the contrary, we see
articles, such as in the recent WIRED, of pirates who break the law and are
treated as heroes.
Some heroes.
Non-licensed broadcasting of this type is ILLEGAL. IMHO every applicant who
has BROKEN the extant law should be summarily rejected as an applicant.
I am not a member of, and do not speak for, the NAB. However, I can see where
the NAB would agree with at least some of these sentiments. This says a lot
about the professional broadcast community--as opposed to the -----pirates---.
BTW, we all remember the PIRATE RADIO efforts to disrupt the ARRL web site a
few weeks back. That is EXACTLY an example of why these people don't deserve
to have licensed broadcast.
73,
Chip N1IR
Broadcast Services
> As a telecommunications professional, I see no value whatsoever in
designing a
> license application which someone else can fill out for you. In
particular, I
> see the contrary.
>
Then, I take it, Clear Channel Communication, Citadel Communications Corp.
and the other "Mega-Groups" all carry blank applications in and have their
execs fill them out and file them? Would it be allright if I asked for some
photos of this procedure? (I'd be willing to bet that it WON'T be
allright...)
> What, pray, is the advantage of access afforded by these supposed LPFM '
> station licenses' to the general public? What's wrong with internet
radio?
>
What's wrong with "Internet QSOs"? Wouldn't that be just as good as an
actual "over the air" contact? (Oh.... THAT would apply to YOU whereas your
suggestion applies to "someone else"....)
> I have never seen any case which showcases their merit. On the contrary,
we see
> articles, such as in the recent WIRED, of pirates who break the law and
are
> treated as heroes.
>
Some laws are just downright oppressive and should've never been on the
books. Some (actually, ALL) people are entitled to opinions. you have
indicated your preference to quash the new service (which HAS BEEN approved
by government and applications HAVE BEEN accepted). So, since it is already
approved as a "valid service" by government and it is YOU who are in
opposition, WHO would THAT make the closest to being an "outlaw"? NOT the
applicants, as you would like to make it appear!
> Some heroes.
>
The LPFM supporters believed in and desired to establish a new, LEGAL
broadcast service. This has been done by following DUE PROCESS OF LAW. I,
for one, would commend them (and, yes, I've been at the front of the LEGAL
proceedings, too) for their efforts in doing things LEGALLY. Why must you
insist otherwise?
> Non-licensed broadcasting of this type is ILLEGAL. IMHO every applicant
who
> has BROKEN the extant law should be summarily rejected as an applicant.
>
> I am not a member of, and do not speak for, the NAB. However, I can see
where
> the NAB would agree with at least some of these sentiments. This says a
lot
> about the professional broadcast community--as opposed to
the -----pirates---.
>
Keep in mind, we are not refering to "pirates" who have broken any laws in
the past. We ARE refering to applicants for new LEGALLY APPLIED FOR roadcast
licenses...
>
> BTW, we all remember the PIRATE RADIO efforts to disrupt the ARRL web site
a
> few weeks back. That is EXACTLY an example of why these people don't
deserve
> to have licensed broadcast.
>
Maybe you do... I wouldn't know about that. It was none of any groups
doings that I am familiar with.... So far, from the evidence I have seen
(and, yes, it is VERY real), I'd say that it was probably NAB cronies doing
an "inside job" and signing off with someone elses name in an effort to
create such attitudes and personal prejudice such as yours.
Go buy a few slaves... This attitude that you're displaying belongs in
that time frame. Then, you can scream about how your slaves are "breaking
the law" when they point out that they were ALREADY emancipated! (This is a
sarcastic comment, but it IS much more applicable to the attitudes which you
display than you realize. Had you taken this approach BEFORE LPFM was
approved and applications accepted, THEN, you MIGHT have gotten somewhere.
But, for now, it is YOU who are talking "against the law" by "downing" a
LEGAL service.)
Charley Harp
Broadcast Services: 80
Fractenna: 13
Better go for the KO, guy.
Charle...@alum.calberkeley.org
Broadcast Services wrote in message ...
<<<excessive quoting snipped>>>
Bill Aycock
Broadcast Services wrote:
>
BIG SNIP
I feel thatChip has probably just
> insulted about 50% of the readers of this group. Of course, people will be
> too polite to point this out to him...
>
I know that your professional position has to include being
conservative, but %50 is WAY low.
And, the number of people that differ with him are legion, but most are
too bored with him to bother.
Bill
Fractenna
>have
>>three clients, right now, who would LOVE to get you to design a few
>>directional arrays (NO, not three element yagis, but REAL, actual, FCC
>>acceptable phased arrays...)
>designs
>>completed and accepted for filing? (One of them should be capable of
>>handling a 200 kW P.E.P....)
You can tell them that I will not have anything to do with pirate radio;and
only work with legal services WITH legal licenses in such a situation.
FYI I have been queried by 'pirates' before. At least a dozen times. They
always have weird e-mails and never use real names or addresses. They go
straight into the 'delete' dumpster.
The answer is no. If your 'clients' are unhappy with that then they need to
consider working with others.
There are many,many that cater to your interests. I'm sure you will have no
problem finding someone suitable to your needs.
Your clients can test the water with someone else's design. It will not be a
fractal one.
Chip N1IR
Broadcast Services
ARE legally licensed broadcast stations... Unless you've started passing out
"Chips' teeny weeny license application packets for the country of
Chippy-Wippy". I was always under the impression that FCC licenses WERE
legal.
Hmmm. That "N1IR" that you seem to throw around in every posting is what
nationality of call sign? FCC? Is it the same FCC that licensed the stations
which you just refered to as "pirates"? Damn! We need to get to get the feds
to "bust" you... You're just as much "pirate" as my clients are! (I wonder
how the FCC'd react to the information that you spit upon the same license
which you are so proud of, yourself... OHHHH! That's right!!! I forgot:
"This is YOU and the other is SOMEONE ELSE!)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000715174506...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Broadcast Services
400-450 MHz. region? (This approximates the frequency of resonance of a
human head and could account for your "I'm legally licensed and any OTHER
FCC documentation MUST be fraudulent!" attitude...)
Broadcast Services
a design". We are using tried and true designs...
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000715212256...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> >From: "Broadcast Services" haw...@peoplescom.net
> >Date: 7/15/00 8:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <WB7c5.3175$iT6....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
> As I said, your clients can test the waters with someone else's design. It
Broadcast Services
73
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Tom W8JI" <2w...@contesting.com> wrote in message
news:39711394...@news.akorn.net...
> By the way, if you scan down to "25 Years of Bafflegab", you'll see
> the persecution card being played.
>
> This generally happens when the moon is full. Do a search on the
> newsgroup archives at dates of the full moon, and you'll see a
> definite peak in paranoia that is oddly in-sync with the full moon.
>
> Some amateurs obviously hear signals loud and clear from the moon
> without a radio.
>
> 73 Tom
Fractenna
>Date: 7/15/00 8:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <WB7c5.3175$iT6....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
>
> Have you recently been exposed to an extreme amount of radiation in the
>400-450 MHz. region? (This approximates the frequency of resonance of a
>human head and could account for your "I'm legally licensed and any OTHER
>FCC documentation MUST be fraudulent!" attitude...)
>
>
> Terry Keith Hammond
> President/Chief Engineer
>
> http://hawkfm.tripod.com
>
> Broadcast Services
> P.O. Box 155
> Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
>
> (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
>
>The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
>hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
>good men die like dogs.
>There's also a negative side."
>- Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
Tom W8JI
<haw...@peoplescom.net> wrote:
>But, for now, it is YOU who are talking "against the law" by "downing" a
>LEGAL service.)
Terry,
At this time....it is foolish to argue with someone as respected,
well-liked, and so obviously well-adjusted.
If you wait for the full moon to get well past its peak he (they) will
become much calmer, even though not any more rational.
Until then, put on your CD player and listen to Lunatic Fringe. Many
people think that was written about John Lennon's death, but on this
newsgroup we know who they really had in mind.
73 Tom
Tom W8JI
Broadcast Services
new service...
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"TFF" <ibas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kregk$9nd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
> > Why don't you keep your pirates on the internet rather than
> > cluttering up valuable freq spectrum?
> > I can't think of anything LESS needed than LPFM, given the huge,
> > existing, freedom that the internet presents for limited audience,
> > targeted 'narrowcasting'.
>
> You can't as of yet listen to internet audio in your car or away
> from a computer, although this will soon change.
>
> I look at radio broadcasting as a soon to be archaic method of
> broadcasting. But as long as people are still using it, we might as
> well free it up when possible for public use.
>
> Listened to your local radio stations lately? It's all bland,
> mindless pablam anyway. It isn't as if it could get worse. :)
>
> --
> The Basement Internet Show
> http://www.basementshow.net
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Fractenna
>> Why don't you keep your pirates on the internet rather than
>> cluttering up valuable freq spectrum?
>> I can't think of anything LESS needed than LPFM, given the huge,
>> existing, freedom that the internet presents for limited audience,
>> targeted 'narrowcasting'.
>
> You can't as of yet listen to internet audio in your car or away
>from a computer, although this will soon change.
>
> I look at radio broadcasting as a soon to be archaic method of
>broadcasting. But as long as people are still using it, we might as
>well free it up when possible for public use.
>
> Listened to your local radio stations lately? It's all bland,
>mindless pablam anyway. It isn't as if it could get worse. :)
>
A sincere thanks for an honest, civil, and dissenting opinion. Compared to the
23 pieces of hate e-mail, I can see that there are some proponents who have
rationality and decorum to muster.
Let me pose the following to all who may have an interest in the topic.
Presume that 'JANE' is an FCC officer tasked with deciding LPFM station
licenses. Jane has, say, 1000 possible licenses in mostly rural markets. Yet
she has 50,000 applications, many from ex-pirates, and those living in urban
areas. An alarming number of applicants have police records, but a vast
majority of applicants are law-abiding radio enthusiasts who want to bring to
fruition the dream of doing radio 'there way'.
Many applications do not address the basic questions asked.So Jane now has a
'viable' pool of 20,000 applicants after these two cuts ('The First Cut is the
Deepest')
Given that the maximum distance (I know that some areas aren't radially
symmetric) for many LP installations is, say, 4 or 5 miles, Jane asks the
following:
1) Within the next , say, 2 or 3 years, what percentage of these proposed
stations could not be equivalently carried out as internet radio--noting that
IR will be viable both for fix AND mobile platforms very shortly?;
2) What percentage of these remaining stations, such as community oriented
applicants, cannot be carried out with very low power, UNLICENSED transmission?
3) With the rest, what percentage(granted it's small) of these could not be
best carried out by higher power stations (for example, in rural communities)
in which the applicant requests a license fee waiver on the regular
application?
What comes of this is very few of the radio enthusiast get LPFM licenses;
community based applicants in rural districts are favored; and the pirates and
remaining enthusiasts use the existing IR resource.
OK; now someone else play Jane.I 'd like to learn something from an
opposing--but civil and informed--point of view.
73
Chip N1IR
Will
The clutter you suggest will result is ludicrous. The NAB has
successfully lobbied FCC and Congress to require a ridiculous 3-channel
{sic} seperation between LPFM stations and existing, mainly commercial,
FM broadcast stations. This means that if a station is already on 100.7,
the closest a LPFM station can be alotted is either 100.4 or 101.0. This
is technically unnecessary and unfairly singles out LPFM operators in
favor of commercial ones (no such seperation requirent applies to
commercial stations). In many, many crowded markets 2-channel seperation
has been used for years without harmful interference. Consumer FM
receivers are more selective than ever, and problems are less likely now
than ever.
Until internet broadcasting easily reaches people in their cars, on
their walkmans, and reaches the poor, the elderly, and others not on the
net (many of whom don't want to be), LPFM will be a needed, valuable
service. Yes indeed, the FMBC spectrum is valuable, and it belongs to
the public. Even where and when IP-broadcasting truly becomes
"broadcasting," i.e. universally available, radio will still be
convenient, familiar, and simple. If internet broadcasting is such a
wonderful thing, let the commercials go on-line.
Since the late 70's especially, when the NAB managed to get the rules
rigged to kick everyone off the air under 100W (and to close down many
of those >100W non-commercial stations as well), the area from 92-108
MHz has become a wasteland of repetitive, vapid, sterile, rigidly
formatted programming. There is hardly a thing worth listening to
anymore in most markets.
The effective elimination of the requirement of commercial broadcasters
to carry local news, public affairs, and educational programming in the
early 80's has further degraded the quality and variety of what is on
the air today. With the advice and consent of Congress and the FCC,
broadcasters have been allowed to abrogate their responsibility to use
the privilege we have granted them in the public interest.
The consolidation of radio station ownership over the last 20 years has
been the coup de grace in eliminating diversity, responsiveness, dissent
(even of the musical variety), and innovation in radio programming in
the US, and much of the rest of the world. I can think of few measures
that might be taken to enrich and invigorate broadcast radio. Growing up
in New York City in the 70's, and going to college in the Bay Area in
the early 80's, I knew how rich, varied, interesting, and occasionally
infuriating FM radio could be. LPFM will not restore that era, but it
will be a small, significant step in bringing vitality and relevance
back to the FM dial.
More choices is good, right? Or does that only apply when the "choices"
are offered by the programming departments of a few holding companies in
LA and New York?
de Will KD7BFX
Fractenna wrote:
>
>
> Let's see if I have it correct:
>
> 1)The FCC has produced a --potential--new class of FM BCB which effectively
> gives pirates the right to clutter the BCB;
>
> 2) YOU want to charge the pirates (and presumably some innocent others) to fill
> out the application?
>
> Why should anyone get a license if they don't have the modest knowledge needed
> to fill out the application? Seems to me that the NAB has a thought or two
> about this...or should.
>
> Why don't you keep your pirates on the internet rather than cluttering up
> valuable freq spectrum?
>
> I can't think of anything LESS needed than LPFM, given the huge, existing,
> freedom that the internet presents for limited audience, targeted
> 'narrowcasting'.
>
> 73,
> Chip N1IR
Will
towns across the country. In many areas there has been no FM radio, and
little listenable AM radio, since the early 1980s. There just isn't
enough money to be made in those places. LPFM will help to change that.
de Will KD7BFX
Fractenna
>Well, you have it wrong on several counts.
>
>The clutter you suggest will result is ludicrous. The NAB has
>successfully lobbied FCC and Congress to require a ridiculous 3-channel
>{sic} seperation between LPFM stations and existing, mainly commercial,
>FM broadcast stations. This means that if a station is already on 100.7,
>the closest a LPFM station can be alotted is either 100.4 or 101.0. This
>is technically unnecessary and unfairly singles out LPFM operators in
>favor of commercial ones (no such seperation requirent applies to
>commercial stations). In many, many crowded markets 2-channel seperation
>has been used for years without harmful interference. Consumer FM
>receivers are more selective than ever, and problems are less likely now
>than ever.
I said 'clutter' not 'interfere'. You have confused the two. By my subjective
adjective, I am referring to an increase in the number of stations, so that,
for example, in a 1/2 hour car ride I will suddenly have an additional 20-30
fading in and out.
>
>Until internet broadcasting easily reaches people in their cars, on
>their walkmans, and reaches the poor, the elderly, and others not on the
>net (many of whom don't want to be), LPFM will be a needed, valuable
>service.
Hurrah! Then let's keep it for the poor and elderly rather than the 'anti-NAB'
approach you next describe...
Yes indeed, the FMBC spectrum is valuable, and it belongs to
>the public. Even where and when IP-broadcasting truly becomes
>"broadcasting," i.e. universally available, radio will still be
>convenient, familiar, and simple. If internet broadcasting is such a
>wonderful thing, let the commercials go on-line.
They have.
>Since the late 70's especially, when the NAB managed to get the rules
>rigged to kick everyone off the air under 100W (and to close down many
>of those >100W non-commercial stations as well),
I am not aware that the NAB is the FCC.
the area from 92-108
>MHz has become a wasteland of repetitive, vapid, sterile, rigidly
>formatted programming.
...and if people didn't listen to it, this approach wouldn't work.
There is hardly a thing worth listening to
>anymore in most markets.
>
...and yet radio audiences are bigger than ever.
>The effective elimination of the requirement of commercial broadcasters
>to carry local news, public affairs, and educational programming in the
>early 80's has further degraded the quality and variety of what is on
>the air today.
So if this is the concern, they why CREATE a new service? Just put these
requirements back on-line.
With the advice and consent of Congress and the FCC,
>broadcasters have been allowed to abrogate their responsibility to use
>the privilege we have granted them in the public interest.
>
No. If it is not a legal requirement it is not an abrogation.
>The consolidation of radio station ownership over the last 20 years has
>been the coup de grace in eliminating diversity, responsiveness, dissent
>(even of the musical variety), and innovation in radio programming in
>the US, and much of the rest of the world. I can think of few measures
>that might be taken to enrich and invigorate broadcast radio. Growing up
>in New York City in the 70's, and going to college in the Bay Area in
>the early 80's, I knew how rich, varied, interesting, and occasionally
>infuriating FM radio could be. LPFM will not restore that era, but it
>will be a small, significant step in bringing vitality and relevance
>back to the FM dial.
>
...and neither of the areas you mention is likely to have many LPFM stations.
>More choices is good, right? Or does that only apply when the "choices"
>are offered by the programming departments of a few holding companies in
>LA and New York?
>
Choice is great! But IR is not only an option, it is an answer in those cases.
73,
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
Exactly. But the widely promulgated perception is that Joey Gettalife will now
be able to have a radio station in his basement, to satisfy the (dubious and
often illegal) needs of the gang in the 'hood . If you don't believe this,
then go check out a pirate radio web site--which I made the mistake of doing
once. You'd think that the LPFM service was created for them...
In other words, the PERCEPTION of what LPFM will be is very different from the
reality of it's niche-need in rural communities.
I'm, personally, all for community-based rural LPFM. More dB to it!
73
Chip N1IR
Will
Fractenna wrote:
>
> What, pray, is the advantage of access afforded by these supposed LPFM '
> station licenses' to the general public? What's wrong with internet radio?
Nothing is wrong with internet radio. It just does not have the reach of
broadcasting. It is also not as convenient to use as a broadcast
receiver. Sound quality over the POTS internet connections most use is erratic.
LPFM offers diversity, and virtually insures programming that is in-line
with local wants and needs.
>
> I am not a member of, and do not speak for, the NAB. However, I can see where
> the NAB would agree with at least some of these sentiments. This says a lot
> about the professional broadcast community--as opposed to the -----pirates---.
The NAB isn't seriously worried about interference, if by interference
you mean the electromagnetic variety. The NAB is really soiling its
pants, even after they succeeded in largely gutting the form of LPFM we
now have, over the competition. They don't like it that little 100W
outfits are going to give their multi-kilowatt members a real run for
their money. LPFM stations, to the extent that they will be allowed to
actually develop, are going to siphon off listeners from the commercial
stations in large numbers. I think it must both gall and mystify the NAB
also that LPFMers are going to do that for the love and fun of it. I
mean, not only are FM$ stations going to lose advertising dollars, but
the money is just going to go away, rather than to another $ station.
Reading their monthly, it's clear they can't even understand why anyone
would *want* to do this.
de WIll KD7BFX
Will
de Will KD7BFX
Fractenna
>
>de Will KD7BFX
Nope. I don't have any such thing.
In fact, I don't have any antenna patents, or 'geometry' patents, at all.
73,
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
>
>>
>> What, pray, is the advantage of access afforded by these supposed LPFM '
>> station licenses' to the general public? What's wrong with internet radio?
>
>Nothing is wrong with internet radio. It just does not have the reach of
>broadcasting.
In fact, IR gives a LOCAL broadcaster GLOBAL reach. Your statement is, to say
the least, inaccurate.
It is also not as convenient to use as a broadcast
>receiver. Sound quality over the POTS internet connections most use is
>erratic.
This has not been my experience.
>
>LPFM offers diversity, and virtually insures programming that is in-line
>with local wants and needs.
>>
...ditto with IR.
>> I am not a member of, and do not speak for, the NAB. However, I can see
>where
>> the NAB would agree with at least some of these sentiments. This says a lot
>> about the professional broadcast community--as opposed to the
>-----pirates---.
>
>The NAB isn't seriously worried about interference, if by interference
>you mean the electromagnetic variety.
I'm not worried by interference either. Didin't say that.
The NAB is really soiling its
>pants, even after they succeeded in largely gutting the form of LPFM we
>now have, over the competition.
The NAB is not a 'person' so it can't have pants.
They don't like it that little 100W
>outfits are going to give their multi-kilowatt members a real run for
>their money.
I'm certain the NAM is far more intelligent and documentative than that...
LPFM stations, to the extent that they will be allowed to
>actually develop, are going to siphon off listeners from the commercial
>stations in large numbers.
...just like college stations in the 1970's... so much for that fantasy.
I think it must both gall and mystify the NAB
>also that LPFMers are going to do that for the love and fun of it.
Very few of the enthusiasts deserve this privelege. IR is more viable for them.
I
>mean, not only are FM$ stations going to lose advertising dollars, but
>the money is just going to go away, rather than to another $ station.
I doubt that. Nor do I find this relevant.
>Reading their monthly, it's clear they can't even understand why anyone
>would *want* to do this.
>
Smart fellows! Especially as IR already meets the need of the enthusiasts.
73,
Chip N1IR
>de WIll KD7BFX
>
Roger Halstead
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
"Tom W8JI" <2w...@contesting.com> wrote in message
news:39711394...@news.akorn.net...
Hell Tom,
I always thought that was the fillings in my teeth!
Now ya burst my bubble and there are others that do it too, and without
fillings?
Roger (K8RI)
>
> 73 Tom
Tom W8JI
Chip has neither any patents, nor any patience. Althought he might if
he ever became patient in a mental health facility, instead of his
life as assistant professor on the faculty at a mental help facility.
I hope that clears up the problem in simple professor-like English.
73 Tom
TyllEulenspiegel
>In addition to everything else, LPFM will bring FM radio back to small
TyllEulenspiegel
>>frac...@aol.com (Fractenna) wrote:
>>> Why don't you keep your pirates on the internet rather than
>>> cluttering up valuable freq spectrum?
>>> I can't think of anything LESS needed than LPFM, given the huge,
>>> existing, freedom that the internet presents for limited audience,
>>> targeted 'narrowcasting'.
>>
aaron_jones
>If internet broadcasting is such a
>wonderful thing, let the commercials go on-line.
Virtually all online broadcasting has commercials... double
commercials, both on the page and in the content. But commercials are
what pay the bills. I prefer the free content with commercials, to no
content at all...
BTW in the old days, when traveling, I strained to hear my a Phoenix
AM station on skip at night for the local news. Now when I relax in
the motel room, I just log on to the AM station's web site and listen
away, fade and noise free...well perhaps a few skips in the audio
stream on a busy night, but still a big improvement...
Fractenna
>AM station on skip at night for the local news. Now when I relax in
>the motel room, I just log on to the AM station's web site and listen
>away, fade and noise free...well perhaps a few skips in the audio
>stream on a busy night, but still a big improvement...
>
>
Yep:-)
IR is a wonderful innovation!
73,
Chip N1IR
Broadcast Services
for these things, but Chip has almost convinced me that I DO want to apply
for my own station, now. And, additionally, that I may want to begin
internet streaming AS A SUPPLEMENT TO the LPFM signal... (Carefull, Chip,
you're giving me ideas that can only hurt NAB more than originally... I've
already found one other loophole which would allow LPFM's to cover MUCH more
area than originally thought, also! Just a minor "omission" from the rules.
You'd better make some phone calls so NAB can start rolling out more
money...)
Broadcast Services
The service, as originally petitioned for, was more along the lines of what
Will refers to. But, NAB, in their "infinite lobbying wisdom (government
payoffs)" pressured to make the service non-commercial and (viola!): another
service of interest mainly to church groups for religious programming! But,
if you can tie-in with a non-profit, civic organization, it can still
represent the originally intended service.
Also, some of us are preparing to petition the FCC for a full
re-implementation of "re-regulated radio". The FCC has been so "put-off" by
NABs blatant lies and deceit, there's a good possibility that this could
actually happen.
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"TyllEulenspiegel" <tylleule...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716123729...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
Broadcast Services
construct a three element "fractal antenna" for 540 KHz.!!!
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716085618...@ng-da1.aol.com...
Fractenna
>construct a three element "fractal antenna" for 540 KHz.!!!
>
I've been asked for two phased monopole elements at a slightly higher
frequency. It can be done; but I will not pursue with LPFM applicants; I will
not have them attempt to showcase new technology in order to get a license.
No doubt some deserve it but most applicants will not.
Let them get a station license first.
73,
Chip N1IR
Broadcast Services
did you learn your basic radio spectrum allocation material?
I'm refering to LICENSED Amplitude Modulated (AM, since you seem to be
suffering from some sort of a mental block when it comes to this issue)
stations. What on God's Earth would this have to do with LPFM? (Let me
guess... It must be the calming effect of the drugs!)
Ordinarily, I wouldn't even DREAM of making such a sarcastic statement,
but I am actually beginning to enjoy this... And, it's so EASY to prove him
wrong! :-)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716160325...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Fractenna
>payoffs)" pressured to make the service non-commercial and (viola!): another
>service of interest mainly to church groups for religious programming! But,
>if you can tie-in with a non-profit, civic organization, it can still
>represent the originally intended service.
What evidence do you have for said illegal activity? You have just managed to
accuse both the government and an organization.
So much for your credibility on this subject....
NC
Fractenna
>you're giving me ideas that can only hurt NAB more than originally... I've
>already found one other loophole which would allow LPFM's to cover MUCH more
>area than originally thought, also! Just a minor "omission" from the rules.
>You'd better make some phone calls so NAB can start rolling out more
>money...)
>
Hmmm..who do I call? Money for what? Why would I have an interest in this?
NC
Fractenna
> DUDE!!! The 540KHz. frequency is NOWHERE NEAR an FM band allotment! Where
>did you learn your basic radio spectrum allocation material?
Non sequitar. You said:
">It's OK... But, I've got to admit that I'd actually like to see him
>construct a three element "fractal antenna" for 540 KHz.!!!
>
And I responded in kind.
Perhaps it might ocur to you that some LPFM 'applicants' also are involved
with the AM BCB...It sure occurred to them.
NC
Broadcast Services
presented at one of the conferences clears them of any wrongdoing, though, I
guess you will claim...
Why don't you go and defend someone who MAY be innocent... Like a thief or
a rapist. You'd have a better chance of defending them. (Not that I would!)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716161251...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Broadcast Services
"legalaities". Any ownership, at all, in an existing broadcast operation
immediately disqualifies them... Read the rules before you spout your
accusations.
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716161742...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Broadcast Services
adamantly opposed the establishment of "equal rights among broadcasters".
Perhaps there'll be a bonus in it for you (does the term "vacuum cleaner"
mean anything?)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716161410...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Fractenna
I must admit that I am forever baffled and surprised by the new levels of
slander that permeate this NG. After being called a psychopath; a
schizophrenic; MPD; fraudulent; liar; unloved; gold digger; child
molester/pederast; and others too numerous to mention, I am NOW being called
corrupt.
I must admit I don't understand it. I don't want to understand it.
Just accept the reality: I am none of these things. I am, like many here, a
person with certain talents and accomplishments which I readily share with
others. I know that must be disturbing for you-- to encounter a person who
thinks things like HONESTY and LEGALITY are important-- but they are to me. I
am comfortable with who I am and no degree of defamation from your efforts
will change that comfort level.
However, you need to be aware that there are limits to what I will take, and
those who cross over the line will, and are, being subject to legal recourse.
That line is not subtle and not indistinct.
Nathan Cohen, Ph.D.
Fractenna
>"legalaities". Any ownership, at all, in an existing broadcast operation
>immediately disqualifies them... Read the rules before you spout your
>accusations.
>
>
> Terry Keith Hammond
> President/Chief Engineer
>
> http://hawkfm.tripod.com
>
> Broadcast Services
> P.O. Box 155
> Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
>
> (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
>
>The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
>hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
>good men die like dogs.
>There's also a negative side."
>- Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > DUDE!!! The 540KHz. frequency is NOWHERE NEAR an FM band allotment!
>Where
>> >did you learn your basic radio spectrum allocation material?
>>
>> Non sequitar. You said:
>>
>> ">It's OK... But, I've got to admit that I'd actually like to see him
>> >construct a three element "fractal antenna" for 540 KHz.!!!
>> >
>>
>> And I responded in kind.
>>
>> Perhaps it might ocur to you that some LPFM 'applicants' also are
>involved
>> with the AM BCB...It sure occurred to them.
>>
>> NC
>
Well, inform THEM I just TOLD you I am not, and will not, be part of their
application process. Now calm down before you take yourself over the edge. It's
getting distressing to watch.
NC
Fractenna
>presented at one of the conferences clears them of any wrongdoing, though, I
>guess you will claim...
> Why don't you go and defend someone who MAY be innocent... Like a thief or
>a rapist. You'd have a better chance of defending them. (Not that I would!)
>
>
> Terry Keith Hammond
> President/Chief Engineer
>
> http://hawkfm.tripod.com
>
> Broadcast Services
> P.O. Box 155
> Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
>
> (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
>
>The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
>hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
>good men die like dogs.
>There's also a negative side."
>- Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >but, NAB, in their "infinite lobbying wisdom (government
>> >payoffs)" pressured to make the service non-commercial and (viola!):
>another
>> >service of interest mainly to church groups for religious programming!
>But,
>> >if you can tie-in with a non-profit, civic organization, it can still
>> >represent the originally intended service.
>>
>> What evidence do you have for said illegal activity? You have just managed
>to
>> accuse both the government and an organization.
>>
>> So much for your credibility on this subject....
>>
>> NC
>
They sure did! And I had nothing to DO with them.
Why are you trying to make someone else's problem-- mine?
NC
Will
here, we are talking about professional quality non-commercial radio,
like WBAI/KPFA, NPR/PRI, and the myriad of college and independent
stations that somehow managed to survive the late 70's. If IP radio
meets the needs of such outfits so well, why aren't Westwood and all the
other radio companies abandoning their frequencies and rushing to the net?
de Will KD7BFX
Will
Fractenna wrote:
>
>
> Given that the maximum distance (I know that some areas aren't radially
> symmetric) for many LP installations is, say, 4 or 5 miles, Jane asks the
> following:
>
> 1) Within the next , say, 2 or 3 years, what percentage of these proposed
> stations could not be equivalently carried out as internet radio--noting that
> IR will be viable both for fix AND mobile platforms very shortly?;
None. The network and the hardware will not be available, or where
available, affordable. Less than half of the US population even has
e-mail now.
>
> 2) What percentage of these remaining stations, such as community oriented
> applicants, cannot be carried out with very low power, UNLICENSED transmission?
None. Anyone who wants to have a signal that is 20 to 30 dB down from
LPFM levels is welcome to it. Part 15 FMBC was allowed precisely because
it is ineffectual for broadcast purposes, even in densely populated
urban areas.
>
> 3) With the rest, what percentage(granted it's small) of these could not be
> best carried out by higher power stations (for example, in rural communities)
> in which the applicant requests a license fee waiver on the regular
> application?
None. Equipment costs are prohibitive.
>
> What comes of this is very few of the radio enthusiast get LPFM licenses;
> community based applicants in rural districts are favored; and the pirates and
> remaining enthusiasts use the existing IR resource.
This is due to the NABs nabbing a third-channel stipulation in the LPFM
rules. Most major urban radio markets won't have *any* LPFM stations
because of this.
de Will KD7BFX
Broadcast Services
posts and I have called you none of the names to which you refer. (Although,
I would be FORCED to admit that you have a very actice imagination and, I'd
say, certain "paranoidal tendencies"...)
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716172517...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> > Call Dennis Wharton or Eddie Fritz. They're both NAB heads who've
> >adamantly opposed the establishment of "equal rights among broadcasters".
> >Perhaps there'll be a bonus in it for you (does the term "vacuum cleaner"
> >mean anything?)
> >
> >--
> >
> > Terry Keith Hammond
> > President/Chief Engineer
> >
> > http://hawkfm.tripod.com
> >
> > Broadcast Services
> > P.O. Box 155
> > Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
> >
> > (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
> >
> >The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> >hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
> >good men die like dogs.
> >There's also a negative side."
> >- Hunter S. Thompson
> >
> >
> >"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
Broadcast Services
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716172827...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> >They've admit it. The "fraudulent interference demonstration" which was
> >presented at one of the conferences clears them of any wrongdoing,
though, I
> >guess you will claim...
> > Why don't you go and defend someone who MAY be innocent... Like a thief
or
> >a rapist. You'd have a better chance of defending them. (Not that I
would!)
> >
> >--
> >
> > Terry Keith Hammond
> > President/Chief Engineer
> >
> > http://hawkfm.tripod.com
> >
> > Broadcast Services
> > P.O. Box 155
> > Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
> >
> > (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
> >
> >The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> >hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
> >good men die like dogs.
> >There's also a negative side."
> >- Hunter S. Thompson
> >
> >
> >"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
Broadcast Services
an offhanded comment to the effect that I'd like to SEE one of your designs
at a low frequency (this COULD also be interpreted as a compliment). But,
unfortunately, when dealing with broadcast arrays, the FCC will only approve
the "tried and true" (read this as: "We're afraid to allow experimenting
with new designs") designs of yesteryear.
Now, if you find THIS to be offensive, I don't know what to do. I'm not
accustomed to a "storm-trooper" attack followed up with an "I didn't really
mean it that way" line...
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716172720...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> > Actually, it has not. I check out my applicants in order to insure their
> >"legalaities". Any ownership, at all, in an existing broadcast operation
> >immediately disqualifies them... Read the rules before you spout your
> >accusations.
> >
> >--
> >
> > Terry Keith Hammond
> > President/Chief Engineer
> >
> > http://hawkfm.tripod.com
> >
> > Broadcast Services
> > P.O. Box 155
> > Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
> >
> > (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
> >
> >The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> >hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
> >good men die like dogs.
> >There's also a negative side."
> >- Hunter S. Thompson
> >
> >
> >"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
Tom W8JI
K1BQT
Chip's views on LPFM or meant to personally attack anyone elses' position.
It's an expression of how I feel--my op-ed contribution--about the broadcast
bands I used to love as a kid.
Regarding present non-licensed FM opportunities, last year I checked the specs
for Part 15 in the FM band. Unless I miscalculated (always a distinct
possibility), the power one can legally deliver into a 1/2-wave dipole on that
band is somewhere around -50 dBm, or 50-dB below 1 mW! Now that's serious
QRP--a level that probably makes every "FM band wireless mic" available on the
market a dangerous tool--illegal by orders of magnitude--and accessible to any
"radio pirate" with $10 in his pocket!
I do, in my heart, believe there's room for something between that option and
the mulit-kW bird toasters currently irradiating the FM band.
Moreover, I'm saddened by what passes for programming. Most stations are now
fully automated--or at least subscribing to an automated programing service for
content to cut costs (hence the droll repetition, station to station and region
to region). Meanwhile, in an effort to survive and capture more "share", the
big fish are now rapidly eating up the licenses of smaller fish within the same
region, firing staffs, and networking the transmitters as "market expanders"
(its cheaper than re-siting and building 1500-foot towers).
Despite the fact that many interesting and creative things are happening in the
world of music, you'll hear little of it above 92 MHz on a "formatted" station.
Of course, if one more moment of emisis-inducing "Classic Rock" proves too
much, you may always cut to Rush, Mike, G. Gordon, or Imus for some ethnic
pruining, get a "fix" of NY sexist trash from Stern, or listen to a clueless
clone of "Judge Judy" flaunt a doctorate in Physiology as her qualification to
dispense mental health services to a nation. Is this swill justified over
other options solely because it "makes money"?
With great reverence, I thank God for Boston University and the sub-92 MHz WBUR
where you can hear thoughtful talk radio like "The Connection", BBC News, and
even real "blues" on Sunday night with Mae Cramer. Without that, I swear I
would extract my radio from the dash and give myself the supreme satisfaction
of running over it six or seven times before throwing it into the trash (okay,
so I'm a NPR snob and don't "fit" most market demos).
Guess we should all prepare for the day when all non-government spectrum will
be owned entierly by business interests and (like us) be treated and traded as
commodities. As the private citizen's right to freely monitor and access the
airwaves vanishes, in all likelyhood, the right to perform other "risky"
activities such as operate private aircraft, run a local free press, keep
firearms, own private properly, etc will go by the wayside. Yet, we can all
watch the numbers on Wall Street rise--and be glad the folks at RJR are looking
out for our social wellbeing.
Or, we could somehow afford ourselves a social luxury and risk the
self-indulgence of injecting a little vitality into this thing called
Radio--kinda like the way it was when you and I were little hamletts.
Remember? Glued to the headphones and wide awake---after we were supposed to be
asleep??
Rick K1BQT
Broadcast Services
I wish you'd tell the folks over on rec.radio.broadcasting what you've
just told us, here. The "big discussion" of the last few days has centered
on how many listeners a radio station LOOSES if there are more than 300
songs on it's playlist!
--
Terry Keith Hammond
President/Chief Engineer
Broadcast Services
P.O. Box 155
Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
(903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side."
- Hunter S. Thompson
"K1BQT" <k1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000716185543...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
side...@mindspring.com
Fractenna wrote:
> >They've admit it. The "fraudulent interference demonstration" which was
> >presented at one of the conferences clears them of any wrongdoing, though, I
> >guess you will claim...
> > Why don't you go and defend someone who MAY be innocent... Like a thief or
> >a rapist. You'd have a better chance of defending them. (Not that I would!)
> >
> >--
> >
> > Terry Keith Hammond
> > President/Chief Engineer
> >
> > http://hawkfm.tripod.com
> >
> > Broadcast Services
> > P.O. Box 155
> > Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
> >
> > (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
> >
> >The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> >hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
> >good men die like dogs.
> >There's also a negative side."
> >- Hunter S. Thompson
> >
> >
> >"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000716161251...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> >> >but, NAB, in their "infinite lobbying wisdom (government
> >> >payoffs)" pressured to make the service non-commercial and (viola!):
> >another
> >> >service of interest mainly to church groups for religious programming!
> >But,
> >> >if you can tie-in with a non-profit, civic organization, it can still
> >> >represent the originally intended service.
> >>
> >> What evidence do you have for said illegal activity? You have just managed
> >to
> >> accuse both the government and an organization.
> >>
> >> So much for your credibility on this subject....
> >>
> >> NC
> >
>
> They sure did! And I had nothing to DO with them.
>
> Why are you trying to make someone else's problem-- mine?
>
> NC
--
The preceding may or may not have been authored by myself but I offer it to you
for your perusal.
Feel free to read as little or as much of it as you like. Be forewarned that I
refuse to use a
spell checker and don't take criticism well.
Fractenna
this matter and can see no reason why he shouldn't be able to feel comfortable
expressing them.
Cordially,
NC
Tom W8JI
> Just so everyone knows, I certainly take no offense at K1BQT's thoughts on
>this matter and can see no reason why he shouldn't be able to feel comfortable
>expressing them.
>
>Cordially,
>
>NC
Wonderful. NC approves of K1BQT's post.
Rick, you have permission to express your opinion!
CTR
Will
Fractenna wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, you have it wrong on several counts.
> >
> >The clutter you suggest will result is ludicrous. <snip of other stuff> Consumer FM
> >receivers are more selective than ever, and problems are less likely now
> >than ever.
>
> I said 'clutter' not 'interfere'. You have confused the two. By my subjective
> adjective, I am referring to an increase in the number of stations, so that,
> for example, in a 1/2 hour car ride I will suddenly have an additional 20-30
> fading in and out.
OK. In that case, the "clutter" you are apprehensive of is part of the
charm and value of the LPFM service, I think. Think of it: as you drive
around a large urban area (the few that will have LPFM allocations,
given the specious 3rd-channel rule), you will know something of the
neighborhood you are in by what you can hear on the radio. Among others,
newcomers to an area will have this additional tool in getting to know
the local flavor. If you are bothered by stations fading in and out, set
your car radio's memories to stations you listen to. For almost
everyone, this is what they do anyway at home. See above for road trip scenario.
>
> >
> >Until internet broadcasting easily reaches people in their cars, on
> >their walkmans, and reaches the poor, the elderly, and others not on the
> >net (many of whom don't want to be), LPFM will be a needed, valuable
> >service.
>
> Hurrah! Then let's keep it for the poor and elderly rather than the 'anti-NAB'
> approach you next describe...
That doesn't wash, or else why isn't the bulk of commercial programming
and its attendant advertising targeted to them?
>
> Yes indeed, the FMBC spectrum is valuable, and it belongs to
> >the public. Even where and when IP-broadcasting truly becomes
> >"broadcasting," i.e. universally available, radio will still be
> >convenient, familiar, and simple. If internet broadcasting is such a
> >wonderful thing, let the commercials go on-line.
>
> They have.
Oh, be serious! IP-simulcasting is a promotional gimmick, a "tie-in."
TV/Radio station sites are there for two reasons: to get people to tune
in in the conventional manner, and as a "value-added" service, where
information, such as expanded coverage of a news story, concert dates,
etc., can be found, and people are directed there *after* a program.
When commercial broadcasters begin to abandon their licensed frequencies
in favor of IP, I will be persuaded of what you say.
>
> >Since the late 70's especially, when the NAB managed to get the rules
> >rigged to kick everyone off the air under 100W (and to close down many
> >of those >100W non-commercial stations as well),
>
> I am not aware that the NAB is the FCC.
That's a petulant remark. The NAB lobbied Congress and the FCC
*furiously* when LPFM was proposed, and has yet to tone down the
rhetoric, almost a year after the FCC Report & Order. A number of
Senators and Congressmen, in particular Billy Tauzin and Michael Oxley
(see his letter to FCC Commish Kennard at
http://www.house.gov/oxley/s9904b.htm), to whose campaigns the NAB
contributes heavily, have worked overtime to gut LPFM. We have been
hearing a lot recently about lobbyists actually *writing* the text of
bills. The NAB is one of the five lobby groups documented to have done
this since 1994, when Common Cause and The League of Women Voters
launched a study of the practice (the others being the NRA, and groups
that represent the HMO, genetic pharmaceutical, and tobacco industries);
NAB doesn't deny it at all, they have publicly boasted of the practice,
as if they were patriots because of it. It is not exactly news that
corporations and trade groups have unparelled access and exercise undue
influence on the legislative process.
>
> the area from 92-108
> >MHz has become a wasteland of repetitive, vapid, sterile, rigidly
> >formatted programming.
>
> ...and if people didn't listen to it, this approach wouldn't work.
A lot of people don't. I listen to less than an hour of commercial radio
a month, FM or AM. And given some *real* alternatives, a lot of people
who don't listen to radio will. The handful of radio markets where a
number of independent stations (commercial *and* non-comm) continue to
thrive, like NYC, the Bay Area, and Boston-Cambridge metro have higher
*rates* of overall listening, and hours/week listening, than where
redundant taped-and-canned formats reign.
>
> There is hardly a thing worth listening to
> >anymore in most markets.
> >
> ...and yet radio audiences are bigger than ever.
Not hardly! As TV became popular radio audiences declined steadily from
about 1955 until the late 80's. The uptick in listenership since then
has almost exclusively come from AM talk audiences. Overall listenship
is down from its peak in the 40's. When you factor in a growth in US
population of 100 million since WWII, the numbers become even more stark.
>
> >The effective elimination of the requirement of commercial broadcasters
> >to carry local news, public affairs, and educational programming in the
> >early 80's has further degraded the quality and variety of what is on
> >the air today.
>
> So if this is the concern, they why CREATE a new service? Just put these
> requirements back on-line.
You mean *re-regulate* a powerful industry in this political climate?
One that contributes heavily to Congressional campaigns? It might be
desireable, but as likely as President Ralph Nader. Big national
organizations do a poor job of being local, particularly in quantity.
Except where ownership and management was local, even the best
intentioned broadcasters did a poor job of fitting in to the community.
The USA Today Principle doesn't work (and not for newspapers either!):
one paper for the nation, with maybe 4 column-inches of "local" news per
state. You get the same thing on the radio in every city in the US. Same
playlist, same personalities, same jingles and promos. The only thing
that varies is the ads, and then only according to name.
And, it is *a* concern, not *the* concern.
>
> With the advice and consent of Congress and the FCC,
> >broadcasters have been allowed to abrogate their responsibility to use
> >the privilege we have granted them in the public interest.
> >
>
> No. If it is not a legal requirement it is not an abrogation.
OK, wrong word maybe. Abdicate. Renege. Evade. The broadcast radio
spectrum belongs to the citizens of the US. Those who are granted the
temporary privilege of using it have a moral obligation (in truth, they
have a Constitutional obligation as well) to be good stewards of this
limited national, natural resource. They should be good citizens as
well. Whether or not Premier Broadcasting is legally bound to program
local news, arts & culture, children's and educational shows, nothing
they are presently doing gives them a higher claim to the broadcast
bands than someone like Pacifica, which formed for the express purpose
of doing radio and doing it differently by letting the listeners
actually and directly and right away do the programming. Nothing any
present commercial licensee is doing with their allocations gives any of
them any higher claim or special status than my Uncle Jack. Maybe LPFM
isn't the best idea. Maybe the best idea is to do BCB allocations by
open lottery.
>
> >The consolidation of radio station ownership over the last 20 years has
> >been the coup de grace in eliminating diversity, responsiveness, dissent
> >(even of the musical variety), and innovation in radio programming in
> >the US, and much of the rest of the world. I can think of few measures
> >that might be taken to enrich and invigorate broadcast radio. Growing up
> >in New York City in the 70's, and going to college in the Bay Area in
> >the early 80's, I knew how rich, varied, interesting, and occasionally
> >infuriating FM radio could be. LPFM will not restore that era, but it
> >will be a small, significant step in bringing vitality and relevance
> >back to the FM dial.
> >
> ...and neither of the areas you mention is likely to have many LPFM stations.
You are correct sir, because the NAB and advertising groups saw to it
that the technical requirements that apply to the LPFM service (but not
to full-power broadcasters) would preclude them, except in fringe areas.
>
> >More choices is good, right? Or does that only apply when the "choices"
> >are offered by the programming departments of a few holding companies in
> >LA and New York?
> >
>
> Choice is great! But IR is not only an option, it is an answer in those cases.
Again, in twenty years you may be correct. But we arent talking about a
hobby or a bake sale. Radio, even LPFM, is a mass-media. The internet in
general, not to speak of IP-radio particularly, has not reached that
status quite yet. When you can walk into a K-Mart and for $25 get a
device that will do IP-radio, when cars come standard with the
capability, the "mode" will have arrived. Money follows the people, and
the money is in RF these days. That is also where you want to be if you
mean to serve a neighborhood.
de Will KD7BFX
> >
> >Fractenna wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's see if I have it correct:
> >>
> >> 1)The FCC has produced a --potential--new class of FM BCB which effectively
> >> gives pirates the right to clutter the BCB;
> >>
> >> 2) YOU want to charge the pirates (and presumably some innocent others) to
> >fill
> >> out the application?
> >>
> >> Why should anyone get a license if they don't have the modest knowledge
> >needed
> >> to fill out the application? Seems to me that the NAB has a thought or two
> >> about this...or should.
> >>
> >> Why don't you keep your pirates on the internet rather than cluttering up
> >> valuable freq spectrum?
> >>
> >> I can't think of anything LESS needed than LPFM, given the huge, existing,
> >> freedom that the internet presents for limited audience, targeted
> >> 'narrowcasting'.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Chip N1IR
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Will
to toke up all they like with impunity. Some goofballs think the 5th
amendment means they don't have to file a tex return (or even pay taxes
at all). We are going to have to wait to see what the stations sound
like. I guarantee only one thing, and that is that there will be
tremendous variety (some of that variety is bound to be goddamn awful).
We need neighborhood micro-radio in the cities as much as in the sticks.
True, many out there have done without *any* radio for a long time, but
sometimes that is better for you than a surplus of the vapid and cloned.
de Will KD7BFX
Fractenna wrote:
>
> >n addition to everything else, LPFM will bring FM radio back to small
> >towns across the country. In many areas there has been no FM radio, and
> >little listenable AM radio, since the early 1980s. There just isn't
> >enough money to be made in those places. LPFM will help to change that.
> >
> >de Will KD7BFX
> >
>
> Exactly. But the widely promulgated perception is that Joey Gettalife will now
> be able to have a radio station in his basement, to satisfy the (dubious and
> often illegal) needs of the gang in the 'hood . If you don't believe this,
> then go check out a pirate radio web site--which I made the mistake of doing
> once. You'd think that the LPFM service was created for them...
>
> In other words, the PERCEPTION of what LPFM will be is very different from the
> reality of it's niche-need in rural communities.
>
> I'm, personally, all for community-based rural LPFM. More dB to it!
>
> 73
> Chip N1IR
Will
arrive with this edition of the new service, but in rural America there
is plenty of bandwidth to be had.
de Will KD7BFX
TyllEulenspiegel wrote:
>
> What you describe and what the FCC is selling are 2 different beasts.
>
> >In addition to everything else, LPFM will bring FM radio back to small
Will
I share in your dissappointment with LPFM in its present form. I do have
more optimism that you, however. No doubt religious groups are very
interested in the service, but so are a lot of others. You are probably
familiar with Pacifica Radio (owner of KPFA, WBAI, and stations in
Austin and D.C.). That sort of "pro-independent" with an open format
that features roughly equal portions of music/entertainment and
news/public affairs/documentary is very viable under LPFM. Some friends
have created a not-for-profit corporation in the Bellevue WA area, and
are seeking a LPFM license. Their group is dedicated to networking local
artists, journalists, musicians, writers, and activists, and to
providing education and information services in these areas. Granted, it
is mostly an urban niche, and LPFM allocations in cities like NY, LA,
and SF are sparse, but after a few years of QRM free LPFM operation, we
may be able to convince FCC to reduce seperation rules to 2nd-channel,
and then urban local radio can really fly! 100W in Manhattan would have
a potential audience in the millions!
I want to help lobby and support re-establishment of the pre-1983/1979
rules regarding programming, ownership, and power and other technical
requirements. Let me know what I can do, and where I can find out more
about the effort.
de Will KD7BFX
Broadcast Services wrote:
>
> The FCC are selling a "watered-down" creation custom designed by the NAB!
> The service, as originally petitioned for, was more along the lines of what
> Will refers to. But, NAB, in their "infinite lobbying wisdom (government
> payoffs)" pressured to make the service non-commercial and (viola!): another
> service of interest mainly to church groups for religious programming! But,
> if you can tie-in with a non-profit, civic organization, it can still
> represent the originally intended service.
> Also, some of us are preparing to petition the FCC for a full
> re-implementation of "re-regulated radio". The FCC has been so "put-off" by
> NABs blatant lies and deceit, there's a good possibility that this could
> actually happen.
>
> --
>
> Terry Keith Hammond
> President/Chief Engineer
>
> http://hawkfm.tripod.com
>
> Broadcast Services
> P.O. Box 155
> Mount Vernon, TX. 75457
>
> (903) 588-2532 (Voice & Fax)
>
> The radio business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
> hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and
> good men die like dogs.
> There's also a negative side."
> - Hunter S. Thompson
>
> "TyllEulenspiegel" <tylleule...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000716123729...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
Will
about illegal activity (anymore than a company contributing millions to
a party, or running millions worth of disingenuous "issue" ads right
before an election are "illegal"). The NAB and other broadcasting and
advertising lobby groups have contributed a lot of money to the campaign
funds of Billy Tauzin and Michael Oxley (the leaders of the House
Telecom Subcommittee), and members of the Senate Committee on
Communications (Burns, Stevens, Lott, and Ashcroft). For a start, look
at http://www.house.gov/oxley/s9904b.htm. Oxley sounds like he is
cribbing an NAB press release. The voting records on LPFM of Members who
have received large sums from the NAB is remarkably consistent, imagine that!
de Will KD7BFX
Fractenna wrote:
>
> >but, NAB, in their "infinite lobbying wisdom (government
> >payoffs)" pressured to make the service non-commercial and (viola!): another
> >service of interest mainly to church groups for religious programming! But,
> >if you can tie-in with a non-profit, civic organization, it can still
> >represent the originally intended service.
>