379
edits
RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
in a [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201586 subsequent filing] in March 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt stated that microstations should not be licensed to larger corporations and that multiple microbroadcasters should be permitted to share a frequency and that perhaps power ceilings greater than one watt should be considered. The petitioners opposed the concept of a noncommercial only service and that some licenses should be set aside for race-based and gender-based groups. | in a [https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201586 subsequent filing] in March 1998, Leggett and Schellhardt stated that microstations should not be licensed to larger corporations and that multiple microbroadcasters should be permitted to share a frequency and that perhaps power ceilings greater than one watt should be considered. The petitioners opposed the concept of a noncommercial only service and that some licenses should be set aside for race-based and gender-based groups. | ||
During this proceeding, Leggett and Schellhardt sent the FCC Commissioners a videocassette of "[[Wikipedia:Pump Up the Volume (film)|Pump Up The Volume]]", a 1990 film about a fictional pirate radio station operator. | During this proceeding, Leggett and Schellhardt sent each of the FCC Commissioners a videocassette of "[[Wikipedia:Pump Up the Volume (film)|Pump Up The Volume]]", a 1990 film about a fictional pirate radio station operator. | ||
=== The "cease fire" demand letter === | === The "cease fire" demand letter === | ||
| Line 32: | Line 27: | ||
== The Skinner proposal (RM-9242) == | == The Skinner proposal (RM-9242) == | ||
[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/200957 The Skinner proposal], which was filed under the auspices of this company TRA Communications Consultants, Inc. was a very comprehensive plan that created three tiers of LPFM stations. As being very active in the Low Power Television (LPTV) industry at the time, Skinner's vision of LPFM was that of a commercial service built along the same regulatory structure as the LPTV service. Like with RM-9208, Skinner also promoted his petition as a solution to the upsurge of pirate radio stations following the passage of the ''Telecommunications Act of 1996''.<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 15</ref> The petition called for the use of filing windows as opposed to a table of allotments<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 49</ref>, which is used in the full-service and to use a lottery as opposed to auctions to settle mutual exclusivity.<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 50</ref> | |||
'''LPFM-1 primary service stations''' | |||
Under the Skinner proposal, the LPFM-1 class of service would be a primary service with a maximum facility of 3 kW [[ERP]] at 100 meters [[height above average terrain]] with an effective service contour of 24.2 kilometers. This would be similar to the old Class A service before it was upgraded to 6 kW. Minimum facility would be 50 watts.<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 23.</ref> LPFM-1 stations would be subject to a majority of the Part 73 rules and requires a local ownership, which is defined as within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the station.<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 24.</ref> | |||
'''LPFM-2 secondary service stations''' | |||
LPFM-2 would be secondary service permitting ERPs between 1 and 50 watts at 100 meters HAAT with an effective service contour of 8.7 kilometers.<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 25</ref> LPFM-2 stations facing displacement from other LPFM-1 stations would be given 60 days to be able to apply to upgrade to the LPFM-1 service if available in the area.<ref>Skinner proposal at para. 26.</ref> | |||
'''LPFM-3 temporary special event stations''' | |||
LPFM-3 was designated for LPFM facilities for temporary special events lasting no longer than 10 days. The service was proposed as 20 watts ERP at 100 meters HAAT with an effective service contour of 6.9 kilometers.<ref>Skinner proposal at para 27.</ref> | |||
=== Protection methods === | |||
The Skinner proposal called for the use of contours for co-channel and first-adjcent channel and without the need to protect second or third-adjacent channels or intermediate frequency channels "due to vast improvements in receiver technology since these restrictions were created several years ago".<ref>Skinner petition at para. 34.</ref> | |||
== The Web SportsNet proposal (RM-9246) == | == The Web SportsNet proposal (RM-9246) == | ||
[https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/164014 The Web SportsNet proposal] called for low power FM facilities to be used for temporary special event broadcasting and more permanent stations for venues such as sports venues and even airport terminals. While the technical concepts are not as comprehensive as the RM-9246 proposal, it does suggest power levels between 1 to 10 watts, using Channel 200 (87.9 MHz) where it is available and does not interfere with Channel 6 TV broadcast stations and channels would be assigned through a frequency coordinator. The petition cites and gives examples of past FCC experimental broadcast actions where low power FM facilities were temporarily authorized for large scale special events. | |||
== Comments received in these proceedings == | == Comments received in these proceedings == | ||
| Line 51: | Line 63: | ||
=== The REC Networks Concept === | === The REC Networks Concept === | ||
== Proceeding timeline == | |||
On March 5, 1998, the FCC would extend the comment period on RM-9208 by nearly two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/201887</ref> | |||
On May 22, 1998, the FCC would extend the reply comment period on RM-9208, RM-9242 and RM-9246 (event broadcasting) for a period of two months.<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/208876</ref> | |||