What protection should be taken for a LPFM antenna mounted on a long
hockey stick high on a chimney to survive possible lightening strikes.

Thanks in advance.

The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters holds its AGM in Auckland on
September 20, marking a year since its establishment aimed at
fostering better co-operation and communication amongst users of the
LPFM band.

Here it is

In its first year it has held a successful Q&A evening at which the
Ministry of Economic Development's Radio Spectrum Management
representatives gave a useful presentation on LPFM broadcasting from
RSM's viewpoint, says Society Secretary Peter Shaw, while a number of
disputes between LPFM band users were investigated and mediated.
Others were resolved before reaching the 'dispute' stage.

The other major undertaking, which is ongoing, is the formulation of a
submission to RSM on proposed changes to the licensing and regulation
of the LPFM band.
Future planned events include presentations by representatives from
APRA and RIANZ, and workshops on some practical aspects of
broadcasting (for example, how to properly set up a transmitter and
antenna, or audio compressor demonstrations).

For more information on the Society, see their website at
www.lpfmnz.com.




--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Michael Rowse"
<valdusradio@y...> wrote:
> http://www.radioscope.co.nz/
>
> LPFM Society Marks First Birthday 16 Sep 2005
> The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters holds its AGM in Auckland
on
> September 20, marking a year since its establishment aimed at
> fostering better co-operation and communication amongst users of the
> LPFM band.
> Read the full article >
>
>
> Anybody a memeber of Radio Scope that can access the full article
and
> post it here for us all to read?

http://www.radioscope.co.nz/

LPFM Society Marks First Birthday 16 Sep 2005
The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters holds its AGM in Auckland on
September 20, marking a year since its establishment aimed at
fostering better co-operation and communication amongst users of the
LPFM band.
Read the full article >


Anybody a memeber of Radio Scope that can access the full article and
post it here for us all to read?

FM BROADCASTING SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT,LICENSING AND REGULATIONS:
FORMAL SUBMISSION TO RSM

The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters Incorporated has been
working for some time on a formal submission to be presented to RSM,
The document is in its 6th iteration at this time. It has been
agreed that the matter should be opened to wider discussion.

A copy of it has been placed in the Files section of this site
("TSOLPFMBI RSM Submission_revision06.pdf").

One of the more contentious points has been the proposal that the
LPFM GURL is amended with a condition prohibiting any Full-Power
broadcaster from also broadcasting on LPFM. There are some who
support this clause, and others who just as strongly oppose it.
Philip Crookes, who has posted in this forum, put forward to The
Society a very convincing argument against it; his contribution is
included in the document.

Although the submission will represent the view of The Society as a
whole, we welcome comment from all interested parties. We wish the
final submission to be a properly considered view, one that is
realistic and will provide the greatest benefit to the LPFM
community, which I am sure you all realise we are rather fortunate
to have in New Zealand.

It is hoped to further discuss the submission document at our AGM
next week, with a view to finalising it in the near future for
presentation to RSM.

Peter Shaw
Secretary
The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters Incorporated

The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters Incorporated is holding its
AGM in Auckland Central on Tuesday 20th September at 18:15.

If any LPFM Broadcaster is interested in joining The Society, you
are invited to come along. Please email me by return email, and I'll
send you some details. I have posted a copy of the Rules of The
Society ("TSOLPFMBI Rules") in the files on this web site.

For membership, the rules are:

=================================================
5.1 There shall be Full Members of the Society. A person shall be
entitled to be a Full Member of the Society if the person owns and
operates a Low Power station;

5.2 Any person entitled to be a Full Member of the Society and who
wishes to become a Full Member shall provide details of their name
and address to the Secretary.

5.3 Any person who ceases to be entitled to be a Full Member of the
Society shall immediately provide notice of that fact, and of the
date their entitlement ceased, to the Secretary.

5.4 There may be Associate Members of the Society. A person who does
not qualify to be a Full Member may become an Associate Member of
the Society by applying to the Secretary to do so. The Secretary
shall advise the Executive Committee of the application and the
Executive Committee shall determine at its next scheduled Executive
Committee meeting whether or not the applicant shall be admitted.

5.5 An Associate Member shall, in each year, pay a Special
Subscription of such amount as is determined by the Executive
Committee from time to time.
=================================================

In our first year as a Society we held a successful Q&A evening at
which two RSM representatives, Chris Brennan, Manager Radio Spectrum
Policy and Planning, and Ian Hutchings, Senior Policy Analyst Radio
Spectrum Policy and Planning, gave an interesting presentation on
LPFM broadcasting from RSM's viewpoint, followed by the Question and
Answer session. This was very well received by all those who
attended.

Some disputes were investigated. One major dispute was resolved. One
is pending. Other complaints were resolved before reaching the
formal "dispute" stage.

The other major undertaking, which is ongoing, is the formulation of
a submission to RSM:

FM BROADCASTING SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
LICENSING AND REGULATIONS
FORMAL SUBMISSION TO RSM

which will represent The Society's view on LPFM Broadcasting. More
on this to come shortly.

Future planned events are:

* Another Q&A type evening for our membership involving
representatives from APRA and RIANZ.
APRA = Australasian Performing Rights Association
RIANZ = Recording Industry Association of New Zealand

* WORKSHOPS on PRACTICAL ASPECTS of BROADCASTING
Examples of what this might involve are:
• Reasons for using an AUDIO COMPRESSOR, with demonstration
• How to properly set up a transmitter and antenna
• Sources for equipment



Sincerely,
Peter Shaw
Secretary
The Society Of Low Power FM Broadcasters Incorporated

7khz is a minimum spec and to my mind is adequate for
casual temporary stuff such as for O.B use.There
isquite a bit of vhf/uhf link gear in use such as
Marti links etc that only have a pass band of 7khz.Of
course gear that will go beyond this and up to 15khz
is much to be preferred but it is  case of
costs.Further an older 7khz link may more likely to be
available and more affordable.I do wish that AM
quality was 7khz or beyond.The transmitters I was
responsible for were cut off at 10k and in Wellington
it was 9.0khz with the exception of 2ZM on Mt Vic
which was modulated to 12khz.Sadly virtually all AM
receivers were sadly amiss just getting to 4 or 5 k
with the exception of some special broadband models
which could open out to 7 or 8khz but they were
relatively rare.
Anyway I will look aroundfor a pre loved link but cant
afford to go to $2000!!!
Thanks Ross.
--- Ross Levis <ross@...> wrote:

> I know someone who makes them but they are not
> cheap.  Probably around $2000.
> Why only 7khz audio?  That is lower than AM quality.
>  You need 15khz for FM.
>
> Ross.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Brian Gallagher
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:22 PM
>   Subject: [LPFM] UHF studio to transmitter links
>
>
>   I wish to locate one of these mainly for use as
>   outside broadcast link equpt between a remote
> point
>   and the studio.
>   It will need to be of music quality with an audio
>   response up to at least 7khz and an output in the
> uhf
>   band of three watts or more.
>   Does anyone know where I can lay my hands on one
> of
>   these systems for hire or pref for purchase?
>   Thanks
>   Brian
>


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian Gallagher

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:22 PM

Subject: [LPFM] UHF studio to transmitter links

I wish to locate one of these mainly for use as
outside broadcast link equpt between a remote point
and the studio.
It will need to be of music quality with an audio
response up to at least 7khz and an output in the uhf
band of three watts or more.
Does anyone know where I can lay my hands on one of
these systems for hire or pref for purchase?
Thanks
Brian

I wish to locate one of these mainly for use as
outside broadcast link equpt between a remote point
and the studio.
It will need to be of music quality with an audio
response up to at least 7khz and an output in the uhf
band of three watts or more.
Does anyone know where I can lay my hands on one of
these systems for hire or pref for purchase?
Thanks
Brian

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:55, Richard Phelps wrote:
> Thats a good point.
>

> Instead the new licenses were positioned mostly around the 103fm mark
> where possible. Same thing with National Radio (101fm).
>

My cheeky reply.....

Perhaps they were trying to stop us all getting RSI from having to turn the
tuning knob too far on the radio?



Cheers Geoff Barkman 	 ZL4TUX
--

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:38 PM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting:FrequencyAvailability an

Of course there is always the danger that if they realise there is
already a 1MHz guardband in place at 108, they will feel free to offer
the rest of the upper band - 106.3 upward - to the duopoly. That
wouldn't be the way we wanted to go either.


Philip

Of course there is always the danger that if they realise there is
already a 1MHz guardband in place at 108, they will feel free to offer
the rest of the upper band - 106.3 upward - to the duopoly. That
wouldn't be the way we wanted to go either.


Philip

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@s...> wrote:
> > The MED is ill-informed? An interesting statement to make when you
are trying you influence policy matters....
>
> I wouldn't go telling them that.  But I would guess that only a
handful of engineers in RSM actual know anything about frequency
allocations.  The author of the paper probably saw the 108Mhz as the
start of the aeronautical band and figured they need a guardband to
guard against interference with a service on 108Mhz.  This is what
appears to be the case since a 1Mhz gap is more than adequate buffer
for a several thousand watt transmission.  There is definately no need
for a guardband for a guardband.
>
> Regards,
> Ross.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael and Ross

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 11:08 AM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting: FrequencyAvailability an

They would have to re engineer the frequencies ie if Concert was on 89.0Mhz then unless the 400Khz spacing was removed Mai and 1ZB 89.4 would move accordingly and others 100 or 200khz but then again 92.6 would be feeded up and have National on eg 101.1 say then 101.4 would be available in Auckland.

 

In Taranaki for instance with Concert on 89.0 then Live on 89.2 could be moved the same way etc.In the end it will probably generate 2 or 3 more frequencies in most areas.It will take re educating people to change frequencies however.

 

Michael

Ross Levis <ross@...> wrote:

I don't think that would free up space.  Each region has an offset from other regions, so usually the neighbouring region will be in between the local frequency allocations, so using the same frequency could remove 2 other possible local frequencies from being available.

 

Ross.

I don't think that would free up space.  Each region has an offset from other regions, so usually the neighbouring region will be in between the local frequency allocations, so using the same frequency could remove 2 other possible local frequencies from being available.

 

Ross.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael and Ross

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:25 AM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting: FrequencyAvailability an

Whats really required is the syncronization of repeaters ie National radio,concert FM,Niu FM,all these play exactly the same content and could be on 1 frequency to free up space.

 

Michael

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael and Ross

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:25 AM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting: FrequencyAvailability an

Whats really required is the syncronization of repeaters ie National radio,concert FM,Niu FM,all these play exactly the same content and could be on 1 frequency to free up space.

 

Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and 
may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If you 
have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately 
by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments. 
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, 
distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We do not 
accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, 
interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views 
expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and 
may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If you 
have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately 
by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments. 
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, 
distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We do not 
accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, 
interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views 
expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thats a good point.

I believe this is the very thing thats going on with 'rejigging' of
medium powered frequencies up north by Canwest. Co-channel freqs
broadcasting the same programme, to achieve bigger coverage at the
expense of middle zone interference.

This could have been done by government when allocating the Niu FM
frequencies in the upper band. These frequencies were not in use
anywhere in the country, so theory suggests this could have been
implemented from the get go, but decided against for some reason.

Instead the new licenses were positioned mostly around the 103fm mark
where possible. Same thing with National Radio (101fm).

R.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., Michael and Ross
<alnairgrus@y...> wrote:
> Whats really required is the syncronization of repeaters ie
National radio,concert FM,Niu FM,all these play exactly the same
content and could be on 1 frequency to free up space.

Ross Levis <ross@...> wrote:

I strongly support the increase of LPFM power to at least 5 watts .  Current power levels provide a primary coverage area too small to attract serious operators that wish to spend time producing quality local programming.

 

 

Regards,

Ross.

----- Original Message -----

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> pushed to do the same, by the way, mai fm use bugger all filtering, only
> because they would only stuff the low band (LPFM) and not any essentail
> services, thats why they obliterate 88.1-88.9 closeby.
> 

To the contrary, Mai FM were required to use a great deal of filtering,
6 stages of cavity filtering, twice that of other stations at the site.
There was great concern about possible interference to nearby RT
receivers in the city hence the stricter limits imposed...

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

> pushed to do the same, by the way, mai fm use bugger all filtering, only
> because they would only stuff the low band (LPFM) and not any essentail
> services, thats why they obliterate 88.1-88.9 closeby.
>

To the contrary, Mai FM were required to use a great deal of filtering,
6 stages of cavity filtering, twice that of other stations at the site.
There was great concern about possible interference to nearby RT
receivers in the city hence the stricter limits imposed...

I'm just going to throw some ideas around.

 

I'm involved with a radio engineer here who can provide some facts to strengthen the argument that 5 watts is very safe, but also that it does not need to be restricted to the lower band.

 

They mention the upper guardband as not being suitable for 5 watts due to the aeronautical band starting at 108Mhz.  The authors of the paper are obvious ill-informed.  The Aeronatical VHF band is an international standard throughout the world and is indeed listed to start at 108Mhz, however, an aeronautical guardband is already in place to protect from interference from high power transmissions on 108.0Mhz.

 

The first allocated frequencies in the aeronautical band actually start at 109.000Mhz.  A guardband of 1Mhz is already in place to protect from high-power transmissions as high as 108Mhz used in many countries throughout the world.  There are several high-power stations on 107.9 or 108Mhz in Australia, UK, and US.  There is no reason the same could be done here.  So using this fact, there is no reason that the 5 watts or more could not be used on 107.9Mhz.

 

There is also an argument to extend the LPFM band to accomodate more operators.  With the nbew proposed 0.4Mhz separation for high-power transmissions in the same area, there is ample room for commercial and networking interests as well as an extended LPFM band.  This is very important to establish as soon as possible.  Once high-power licences are allocated close to the LPFM bands, there is no going back.

 

I propose an extension of the upper LPFM band from 106.3 to 107.9 at 5 watts.

 

Using a 5 watt limit for the transmitter power rather than e.i.r.p. will make it much easier for RSM field staff to test equipment for compliancy.

 

I haven't written a submission for this paper as yet.  The closing date for submissions is 1 December, so we have some time to co-ordinate as many positive ideas as possible for promoting these changes as being beneficial for the greater community.

 

It's no good just telling RSM "give me more power".  We need compelling ideas that make LPFM sound like the saviour of NZ radio from the commercial networks, and that 5 watts will provide a better service to the New Zealand public.

 

We needs facts that prove that there is no danger of interference in the top band at 5w.

 

Here is a (modified) opening paragraph I wrote for a previous proposal a few years ago that others could use for ideas, but don't use the exact same words otherwise RSM may become suspicious.

 

Radio broadcasting in this country is not currently meeting the needs of most people.  The large commercial networks, which run most of the commercial stations today, are generally all competing with each other for the same audience -- the audience that spends the most money.  This is less than 50% of the population.  This results in a very limited range of music & programming.  I and many others I have spoken to feel more emphasis must be directed towards inexpensive local low-power broadcasting.

 

I strongly support the increase of LPFM power to at least 5 watts .  Current power levels provide a primary coverage area too small to attract serious operators that wish to spend time producing quality local programming.

 

 

Regards,

Ross.

----- Original Message -----

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:44 AM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting: FrequencyAvailability an

I agree. These are good proposals and we need to press for them. I
will certainly be submitting my own response to this paper, and will
post it here for anyone else that would like to improve it, or use it
in the preparation of their own submission.

 

 

They are certainly aware that any auction of frequencies will be
dominated by the usual players, and that this doesn't respond to the
original definition of the market-based approach to frequency allocation.

 

This is an important point and one we will do well to take into
account. It means that the more submissions we can make reflecting our
views the better, though we need to be careful to make those
submissions in a sensible and appropriate form that will grab the
attention of public servants.

That means keeping it as brief as it can be, checking spelling and
presentation so it doesn't arrive full of mistakes, and sticking to
the point at issue rather than debating a load of irrelevant other issues.

In particular I would advise against getting involved in diatribes
against other users of the guard bands. That's a different question
and it's not discussed in this paper. And we should not send proposals
that argue against the GURL, and effectively call for separate
individual licensing of our stations.

I don't have the feeling that the election will change anything much
in this area of broadcasting. Neither of the likely winners has
publshed any policy position that I've seen that would be harmful to
out interests, so it looks as if we have a golden opportunitsy to
press for the spec we always wanted.

Aucklanders and Hamiltonians should press for the re-location of Mai
FM to the upper band, which I'm sure could be achieved without
actually hurting anyone.

Whether higher powers in the top five markets would be workable is a
bigger question. I could imagine a shouting war breaking out in
Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and perhaps Blenheim (not a top 5
market but there is this row over Mainland TV).

But perhaps it won't.

Philip

Primetime Radio 1ZZ
88.1 in Waimate North and Ohaeawai
107.7 in Kerikeri



attractive to
>
> So we need as many for this proposal as possible.  But the more
professional the submission, the better.  They will take more notice
of these.
>
> Nothing seems to have come from the Auckland LPFM club for helping
with submissions.  I still feel that providing a draft submissions to
individual operators to modify and send, is in the best interests of
your members and the rest of the country.
>
> Cheers,
> Ross.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jochen Siegenthaler
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:46 AM
>   Subject: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting:
FrequencyAvailability and Allocation
>
>
>   4. The purpose of this paper is to seek public feedback on
proposals relating to VHF-FM broadcasting that:
>
>     a.. adopt new technical standards with narrower frequency
separations for future use in the FM band; and
>     b.. progressively move to a slightly lower frequency limit at
the edge of the band; and
>     c.. enhance low power FM broadcasting through changes to the
General Licence; and
>     d.. facilitate the wider use of synchronous technology for
coverage extension and infill purposes; and
>     e.. create new FM licences throughout the country, largely in
the band above 100 MHz after the removal of the present moratorium,
for use by:
>       a.. a future non-commercial "not for profit" network (or an
equivalent use in each local area); and
>       b.. local broadcasting (two licences in each area), with
restrictions on acquisition to facilitate new entrants; and
>       c.. commercial broadcasting (two licences in each area),
allocated with no special acquisition restrictions.
>   See the full papaer here:
>   http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/spp/vhf-fm/discussion/discussion.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and
> may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If
you
> have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately
> by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments.
> If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use,
> distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
> taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We
do not
> accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption,
delay,
> interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views
> expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------
>   LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio/
>      
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     LPFM_Radio-unsubscribe@...
>      
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:44 AM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting: FrequencyAvailability an

I agree. These are good proposals and we need to press for them. I
will certainly be submitting my own response to this paper, and will
post it here for anyone else that would like to improve it, or use it
in the preparation of their own submission.

 

 

They are certainly aware that any auction of frequencies will be
dominated by the usual players, and that this doesn't respond to the
original definition of the market-based approach to frequency allocation.

 

 
This is an important point and one we will do well to take into
account. It means that the more submissions we can make reflecting our
views the better, though we need to be careful to make those
submissions in a sensible and appropriate form that will grab the
attention of public servants.

That means keeping it as brief as it can be, checking spelling and
presentation so it doesn't arrive full of mistakes, and sticking to
the point at issue rather than debating a load of irrelevant other issues.

In particular I would advise against getting involved in diatribes
against other users of the guard bands. That's a different question
and it's not discussed in this paper. And we should not send proposals
that argue against the GURL, and effectively call for separate
individual licensing of our stations.

I don't have the feeling that the election will change anything much
in this area of broadcasting. Neither of the likely winners has
publshed any policy position that I've seen that would be harmful to
out interests, so it looks as if we have a golden opportunitsy to
press for the spec we always wanted.

Aucklanders and Hamiltonians should press for the re-location of Mai
FM to the upper band, which I'm sure could be achieved without
actually hurting anyone.

Whether higher powers in the top five markets would be workable is a
bigger question. I could imagine a shouting war breaking out in
Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and perhaps Blenheim (not a top 5
market but there is this row over Mainland TV).

But perhaps it won't.

Philip

Primetime Radio 1ZZ
88.1 in Waimate North and Ohaeawai
107.7 in Kerikeri



attractive to
>
> So we need as many for this proposal as possible.  But the more
professional the submission, the better.  They will take more notice
of these.
>
> Nothing seems to have come from the Auckland LPFM club for helping
with submissions.  I still feel that providing a draft submissions to
individual operators to modify and send, is in the best interests of
your members and the rest of the country.
>
> Cheers,
> Ross.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jochen Siegenthaler
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:46 AM
>   Subject: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting:
FrequencyAvailability and Allocation
>
>
>   4. The purpose of this paper is to seek public feedback on
proposals relating to VHF-FM broadcasting that:
>
>     a.. adopt new technical standards with narrower frequency
separations for future use in the FM band; and
>     b.. progressively move to a slightly lower frequency limit at
the edge of the band; and
>     c.. enhance low power FM broadcasting through changes to the
General Licence; and
>     d.. facilitate the wider use of synchronous technology for
coverage extension and infill purposes; and
>     e.. create new FM licences throughout the country, largely in
the band above 100 MHz after the removal of the present moratorium,
for use by:
>       a.. a future non-commercial "not for profit" network (or an
equivalent use in each local area); and
>       b.. local broadcasting (two licences in each area), with
restrictions on acquisition to facilitate new entrants; and
>       c.. commercial broadcasting (two licences in each area),
allocated with no special acquisition restrictions.
>   See the full papaer here:
>   http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/spp/vhf-fm/discussion/discussion.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and
> may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If
you
> have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately
> by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments.
> If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use,
> distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
> taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We
do not
> accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption,
delay,
> interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views
> expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------
>   LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio/
>      
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     LPFM_Radio-unsubscribe@...
>      
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@s...> wrote:


> I really like these paragraphs:
> 41. It is also considered possible to contemplate a slightly higher
power for the "low power" broadcasting used at this band edge. The
power limit is designed to protect against interference to the
sensitive Land Mobile base receivers which are typically located on
hilltop locations some kilometres away from the urban areas where low
power FM services are generally located. There has been little
evidence of incompatibility between LPFM and land mobile at present
power levels and a modest power increase is not expected to change
this, especially if such use was constrained to say 0.5 MHz away from
the band edge.
>

I agree. These are good proposals and we need to press for them. I
will certainly be submitting my own response to this paper, and will
post it here for anyone else that would like to improve it, or use it
in the preparation of their own submission.
>
> I believe RSM are under a little pressure to provide some sort of
higher power LPFM, so the more submissions on this subject, the more
likely it will go through.
>
They are certainly aware that any auction of frequencies will be
dominated by the usual players, and that this doesn't respond to the
original definition of the market-based approach to frequency allocation.
>
> Note that commercial operators will also be submitting professional
submissions strongly against these proposals, with the help of their
engineers and lawyers.  They will want to stop LPFM becoming more of a
threat to their listening audience figures.
>
This is an important point and one we will do well to take into
account. It means that the more submissions we can make reflecting our
views the better, though we need to be careful to make those
submissions in a sensible and appropriate form that will grab the
attention of public servants.

That means keeping it as brief as it can be, checking spelling and
presentation so it doesn't arrive full of mistakes, and sticking to
the point at issue rather than debating a load of irrelevant other issues.

In particular I would advise against getting involved in diatribes
against other users of the guard bands. That's a different question
and it's not discussed in this paper. And we should not send proposals
that argue against the GURL, and effectively call for separate
individual licensing of our stations.

I don't have the feeling that the election will change anything much
in this area of broadcasting. Neither of the likely winners has
publshed any policy position that I've seen that would be harmful to
out interests, so it looks as if we have a golden opportunitsy to
press for the spec we always wanted.

Aucklanders and Hamiltonians should press for the re-location of Mai
FM to the upper band, which I'm sure could be achieved without
actually hurting anyone.

Whether higher powers in the top five markets would be workable is a
bigger question. I could imagine a shouting war breaking out in
Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and perhaps Blenheim (not a top 5
market but there is this row over Mainland TV).

But perhaps it won't.

Philip

Primetime Radio 1ZZ
88.1 in Waimate North and Ohaeawai
107.7 in Kerikeri



attractive to
>
> So we need as many for this proposal as possible.  But the more
professional the submission, the better.  They will take more notice
of these.
>
> Nothing seems to have come from the Auckland LPFM club for helping
with submissions.  I still feel that providing a draft submissions to
individual operators to modify and send, is in the best interests of
your members and the rest of the country.
>
> Cheers,
> Ross.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jochen Siegenthaler
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:46 AM
>   Subject: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting:
FrequencyAvailability and Allocation
>
>
>   4. The purpose of this paper is to seek public feedback on
proposals relating to VHF-FM broadcasting that:
>
>     a.. adopt new technical standards with narrower frequency
separations for future use in the FM band; and
>     b.. progressively move to a slightly lower frequency limit at
the edge of the band; and
>     c.. enhance low power FM broadcasting through changes to the
General Licence; and
>     d.. facilitate the wider use of synchronous technology for
coverage extension and infill purposes; and
>     e.. create new FM licences throughout the country, largely in
the band above 100 MHz after the removal of the present moratorium,
for use by:
>       a.. a future non-commercial "not for profit" network (or an
equivalent use in each local area); and
>       b.. local broadcasting (two licences in each area), with
restrictions on acquisition to facilitate new entrants; and
>       c.. commercial broadcasting (two licences in each area),
allocated with no special acquisition restrictions.
>   See the full papaer here:
>   http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/spp/vhf-fm/discussion/discussion.html
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and
> may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If
you
> have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately
> by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments.
> If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use,
> distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
> taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We
do not
> accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption,
delay,
> interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views
> expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------
>   LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     LPFM_Radio-unsubscribe@...
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

hi, we are about ready to launch our station in west auckland, pirate
fm is alive and kicking.
What id like , just to keep the peace among the LPFM stations in
auckland, is to know what Frequencies are available to use in the west.
We will be 24hour 7 days, Rock with talk back, would be great to talk
over whats what with khz.

30 sept seems about the launch date at this stage, hope to hear your
ideas before then, thx the pirate.

Dereck rests but will never be forgotten!!!

----- Original Message -----

From: Jochen Siegenthaler

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 9:46 AM

Subject: [LPFM] MED Discussion Paper on VHF-FM Broadcasting: FrequencyAvailability and Allocation

4. The purpose of this paper is to seek public feedback on proposals relating to VHF-FM broadcasting that:

• adopt new technical standards with narrower frequency separations for future use in the FM band; and
• progressively move to a slightly lower frequency limit at the edge of the band; and
• enhance low power FM broadcasting through changes to the General Licence; and
• facilitate the wider use of synchronous technology for coverage extension and infill purposes; and
• create new FM licences throughout the country, largely in the band above 100 MHz after the removal of the present moratorium, for use by:
  • a future non-commercial "not for profit" network (or an equivalent use in each local area); and
  • local broadcasting (two licences in each area), with restrictions on acquisition to facilitate new entrants; and
  • commercial broadcasting (two licences in each area), allocated with no special acquisition restrictions.

See the full papaer here:

http://www.med.govt.nz/rsm/spp/vhf-fm/discussion/discussion.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4. The purpose of this paper is to seek public feedback on proposals relating to VHF-FM broadcasting that:

• adopt new technical standards with narrower frequency separations for future use in the FM band; and
• progressively move to a slightly lower frequency limit at the edge of the band; and
• enhance low power FM broadcasting through changes to the General Licence; and
• facilitate the wider use of synchronous technology for coverage extension and infill purposes; and
• create new FM licences throughout the country, largely in the band above 100 MHz after the removal of the present moratorium, for use by:
  • a future non-commercial "not for profit" network (or an equivalent use in each local area); and
  • local broadcasting (two licences in each area), with restrictions on acquisition to facilitate new entrants; and
  • commercial broadcasting (two licences in each area), allocated with no special acquisition restrictions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential and 
may contain legally privileged information or copyright material. If you 
have received this email in error, please advise the sender immediately 
by return email and then delete both messages and any attachments. 
If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any use, 
distribution, amendment, copying or any action taken or omitted to be
taken in reliance of this message or attachments is prohibited. We do not 
accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, 
interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Views 
expressed in this email may not be those of originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~