Broadcast Tower
Currently, the technical parameters of a Class A
FM station top out at 6 kW @ 328'. A Petition for
Rulemaking from SSR Communications to allow the
power to be doubled from the same HAAT in Zone II areas.
Zone II areas are the ones where Class C stations
are allowed to be built, as opposed to Class B
stations which are the big hitters in places like
the very crowded FM dial on the eastern seaboard.
The Class C areas have a lot more wide open
territory around them, hence less concern about interference issues.
The proposal, put forth by SSR's Matthew K.
Wesolowski, would give Class A stations the
chance to upgrade their signals and gain sounder competitive footing.
Wesolowski stated, "Petitioner respectfully
requests that the Commission adopt these changes,
as they would serve the public interest and
benefit several minority-owned Class A FM stations."
He noted that the current maximum power for a
Class C3 FM, the weakest of the Class C group, is
25 kW and pointed out that the 12 kW of the C4
would fill the big gap between C3 and A that currently exists.
Wesolowski also noted that the Commission's own
Advisory Committee for Diversity in the Digital
Age has recommended the creation of sub-Class A
groups, or medium power FM stations, for use in
more crowded areas that would allow new stations
to go on the air with parameters between the
current Class A specifications and the
LPFM/translator level. He noted the proposal for
a Class A1 limit of 1.5 kW @ 328' and a Class A2
limit of 1 kW @ 164'. While such stations might
not fit in everywhere, they would provide a
useful option for some high population density areas.
Wesolowski argued that his C4 classification
would be valuable addition to the FM class
structure for a number of reasons and should also be considered.
Wesolowski was conscientious enough to put dots
on his i's and crosses on hits t's he even
provided the FCC with a new minimum separation
chart that takes into account the hypothetical
existence of Class C4 FM stations.
RBR-TVBR observation: This sounds like it would
be in the public interest to us. If a station can
cover more territory and reach more people
without interfering with another station, what's the harm?
Well, the harm could be a second round of Docket
80-90-type damage that was the FCC proceeding
that led to the creation of rimshot FMs, which in
turn led to the presence of a lot more forks
dipping into the local advertising pie as well as
the introduction of stations that began life at a
competitive disadvantage. Add in the influx of
non-broadcast equity investors and a sour economy
and the end result was bankruptcy, a new local
ownership cap of up to four stations in 1992 and
the eight-station cap for large markets that hit
the industry for better or worse but either way
like a sledge-hammer as a result of Telecom 1996.
But we doubt that will happen here. So we say why
not? Let's do the work, see how many small
stations would benefit and give this proposal strong consideration.
-------------------------------------------------------
Amateur Radio Operator
Duane Whittingham - N9SSN
Skywarn, ARES, SATERN, RACES
Melrose Park Public Safety Communications Officer
State of Illinois COML Trainee
City of Chicago CERT Member
Red Cross Disaster Services Technology Member
Red Cross ECRV Certified
_______________________________________________
Medianews mailing list
[email protected]
http://etskywarn.net/mailman/listinfo/medianews_etskywarn.net
