Help Low Power FM Radio!

Apr 8 21:56 UTC 2000

Michael Bracy <mbracy@bracywilliams.com> wrote:
>
>
>   Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 10:57:03 -0400
>   Subject: House of Reps vote on LPFM?
>
>
>   In January, the FCC voted to create a new class
>   of community based, non-commercial Low Power FM
>   radio stations.
>
>   Now, at the behest of the National Association of
>   Broadcasters and National Public Radio, the House
>   of Representatives is preparing next week to
>   overturn the FCC's decision by passing HR 3439.
>   This bill would require a year of "testing" LPFM
>   in 9 markets, and a positive vote by Congress
>   before full implementation of LPFM by the FCC.
>   Given the obvious strength of the broadcast
>   lobby, this bill would essentially kill Low Power
>   radio in all but the most rural communities.
>
>   If you care a whit about Low Power Radio, you
>   must call or email your Congressional
>   representative between today and Monday, April
>   10. You must make your friends call or email your
>   Congressional representatives. You must make the
>   people who aren't your friends but you sortof
>   know call or email your Congressional
>   representatives. Tell them to oppose HR 3439.
>   Tell them community radio needs to be expanded,
>   not subject to further regulations. And tell them
>   that you will not stand for caving in to the
>   broadcast lobby.
>
>   All members of Congress can be reached through
>   the main Capitol switchboard, 202 224-3121. If
>   you need to know the name of your Congressman, go
>   to politics.yahoo.com and enter your zip code.
>
>   This is for real - without a pushback from Low
>   Power Radio supporters this bill will pass the
>   House next week. We've got three days to generate
>   20,000 emails and phone calls. We all need your
>   support.
>
>   Best,
>   Michael Bracy
>   Low Power Radio Coalition
>   202 661-2065
>   mbracy@bracywilliams.com
>
>



The Low Power Radio Coalition
http://www.lowpowerradio.org/      

response 2 of 41:

Apr 9 15:23 UTC 2000

        Was anything operating locally around the Ann Arbor area yet?

        I have thought that Ann Arbor would have been granted more
commercial FM licenses (for its size) if it was not overshadowd
by all of Detroit radio.

response 4 of 41:

Apr 9 16:40 UTC 2000

91.1 is WUOM Flint. There are, of course, no "free spots" in the FM
broadcast band overall, but the same "spots" are used again and again so
long as they are sufficiently separated. FM is very good about this as the
mode really suppresses weak interference, unlike AM. WUOM Ann Arbor is at
91.7, but so is WCMU in Alpena, etc. There is, consequently, lots of local
free spots for low power stations. You isn't an audible station now at
every step of 0.2 Mhz. 

response 6 of 41:

Apr 9 20:16 UTC 2000

In #4: s/isn't/don't find/  (don't know how that happened... 8^{ )

response 8 of 41:

Apr 9 23:18 UTC 2000

I seem to remember hearing that some areas have odd decimals and some areas
have even decimals, and that the two alternate, and this reduces interference.

response 10 of 41:

Apr 10 21:11 UTC 2000

Is there some way to reduce FM bandwidth before adding more weak stations?
As things are, WUOM/91.7 already interferes with listening to Toledo and
adding a station in between the two would wipe out Toledo.
I think I am getting 89.9 (CBC), 90.3 (WKAR), 90.5 (WDTR), 91.3 (Toledo WGTE)
and 91.7 (WUOM).    90.3 extends from 90.2 to 90.4.    89.9 from 89.8 to 90.0.
This leave 90.1 free.  There is some weak station at 90.9, leaving 90.7 free.
91.0, 91.1.   You could fit in four weak stations that broadcast very
narrowly.   Why does WUOM take up so much bandwidth?

response 12 of 41:

Apr 10 22:21 UTC 2000

the wider bandwidth for FM is inherent , isn't it?  FM stands for "frequency
modulation" so i would think that a certain frequency range minimum around
the carrier frequency would be required for analog transmission.  Digital
would be a different story.

The stronger a signal, the more bandwidth it can appear to occupy if the
receiver is not properly shielded.  That is why I only get three stations on
my stereo: WCBN (88.3); WUOM (91.7) and; WKQL (107.1).  WUOM comes in staticky
with interference from WKQL, and all the rest of the band all the way up to
108 is nothing but WKQL.  Oh, and I can get WIQB, but i don't distinguish it
much from WKQL, as i seem to have equal desire to hear it.

response 14 of 41:

Apr 11 18:27 UTC 2000

I'm nowhere near a signal processing engineer, and i even understood most 
of that.  :)

response 16 of 41:

Apr 12 19:11 UTC 2000

My receiver is not a cheap receiver.  It gets Toledo much better than most,
but you have to tune carefully so as not to get too much WUOM with it.

response 18 of 41:

Apr 12 20:59 UTC 2000

I get no interference from WUOM (91.7) on Toledo (91.3) on my home
tuner. (I am using a indoor but powered antenna.)

response 20 of 41:

Apr 13 16:29 UTC 2000

WHAT!?  NPR is actively lobbying against low power radio?  <stunned>
 -This- I'm going to have to look into. Dave, where did you find out about
this?

response 22 of 41:

Apr 13 16:47 UTC 2000

Here's their offical comments as reported to the FCC in rgards to the (then)
proposed rulemaking:

http://www.npr.org/inside/981207.legal.html

response 24 of 41:

Apr 13 17:19 UTC 2000

Heh..whoops, I skimmed over the first paragraph.