Yeah, I'm aware of RSM looking to close the adjacent channel spacing
to 400 kHz. That isn't an issue, they've already proved that it's not
a big problem.

As for the top end of the band, I doubt they'll ever allow anything on
108.00 - that's a guard frequency - ie, off limits. Added to which,
they get real twitchy the closer you get to 110 (aircraft navigational
instrumentation).

Under the current system, and with reference to 106.5, I would have
expected the licence to be on 106.3 - 400 kHz away from 106.7

The only thing I can surmise from this is they plan to shift the lower
end of the upper guardband from 106.7 to 106.9. This may be mirrored
by a corresponding shift at the top end from 107.7 to allow 107.9 to
be used.. but heck, I just don't see THAT happening.

We've got Mai FM 88.6 sitting right on a low power frequency (with an
EIRP of 10 kW), commercially licenced networked stations also using
LPFM for areas where they can't get a commercial licence, now we have
106.5 in use in CHCH - with things in such disarray as this, I really
think the re-hashing of 2011 can't come soon enough.



--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Richard Phelps" <richard@...>
wrote:
>
> 89.0fm is currently the lowest allowable licenced FM frequency in ANY
> market. ( ..current exceptions here: http://tinyurl.com/88-6-88-9 )
>
> What RSM is testing, are the ideas of changing the default spacing
> from 800khz to 400khz across the board, and also tabling the idea of
> extending the licensable spectrum downward to make 88.6fm the lowest
> allowable licensed frequency in any market, and no higher than
> 106.65fm the highest allowable licensed frequency in any market. Thats
> a mouthful, so lets abbreviate these to LALF for lowest, and HALF for
> highest, for the purposes of this post.
>
> Co-channel concerns:
> Conclusively, the 400khz raster results are positive - including
> co-channel frequencies in neighbouring markets - like 93.8fm in
> Auckland vs 93.8fm Waikato. Co-channel is totally achievable. Consider
> the successful 89.8fm splitoff from Te Aroha a few years back, to
> local 89.8fm Tauranga and 89.8fm Waikato masts. No problems. NZ's
> geography comes in very handy.
>
> Extending the spectrum concerns:
> Having 88.6fm as the LALF in all markets would eliminate the anomolies
> like 88.6fm in Auckland and those noted at the top of this post, and
> potentially create new licensable frequencies in every other market at
> both ends of the spectrum.
>
> Effects on LPFM:
> The lower LPFM range would simply be moved down. If 88.6fm goes ahead
> as the LALF, and assuming RSM include 400khz separation applicable to
> the gap between the LALF/HALF and LPFM, then the lower guardband would
> range from (possibly) 87.5fm to 88.2fm, and the upper band from
> 107.0fm to (possibly) 108.0fm
>
> Remember, that's the point of the Guardband - to exist on the edges of
> licensed spectrum. The guardband would simply move further to the edges.
>
> Thats as simple as it gets, and is to the best of my recall. I welcome
> and appreciate any corrections to this.
>
> cheers all!
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@> wrote:
> >
> > It is common to have 300khz separation from the lower LPFM band but
> I've not
> > seen 200. It's a worrying trend. We have 89.0Mhz here in Tauranga,
> with
> > 88.7 the highest LPFM band frequency. It's not too bad at 300, but
> 200 is a
> > nightmare.
> >
> >
> >
> > We were assuming the new lower LPFM band will be 87.5 to 88.3,
with the
> > first licensed frequency at 88.6, but it could end up at 88.5 in
> some areas
> > if this case is the norm. That will effectively make 88.3 useless.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ross.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: LPFM_Radio@...
> [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...]
> > On Behalf Of wireless.radio
> > Sent: Friday, 12 September 2008 8:51 p.m.
> > To: LPFM_Radio@...
> > Subject: Re: [LPFM] Just one question ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, but that still doesn't explain how or why RSM would allocate a
> > commercial licence on a frequency that's inside the back door of a low
> > power frequency?
> >
>