I don't have Outlook Express on this computer, but I think the issue
is more about the way I am subscribed to the forum. Do you get
separate e-mails each time a new message is sent? I get an
intermittent list grouping a day's postings. Attachments aren't
accessible in that listing, nor are they displayed to me online.

Philip



--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@s...> wrote:
> I had no problem with the attachment in Output Express.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: philip_crookes
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:13 PM
>   Subject: [LPFM] Re: My submission to RSM
>
>
>   What gets displayed on my screen is:
>
>   Attachment(not stored)
>   Groove FM Broadcast submission to RSM 1-12-05 Final.doc
>   Type:
>   application/octet-stream
>
>   There's no way to access that file from here. Which is why I suggest
>   uploading it to the files section of this forum. It's to do with the
>   way the forum is set up - I suspect Ross, as a founding father of the
>   forum, has different rights than the rest of us commoners.
>
>   We had this problem in a transport group I'm following, but I've
>   forgotten the details if the explanation. I think it's to do with how
>   you receive notification about new postings.
>
>   Philip
>   Primetime 1ZZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------
>   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.

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

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:13 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Re: My submission to RSM

What gets displayed on my screen is:

Attachment(not stored)
Groove FM Broadcast submission to RSM 1-12-05 Final.doc
Type:
application/octet-stream

There's no way to access that file from here. Which is why I suggest
uploading it to the files section of this forum. It's to do with the
way the forum is set up - I suspect Ross, as a founding father of the
forum, has different rights than the rest of us commoners.

We had this problem in a transport group I'm following, but I've
forgotten the details if the explanation. I think it's to do with how
you receive notification about new postings.

Philip
Primetime 1ZZ

Thanks you, Ross.

I was a bit bad and wrote most of it last night, finishing at 2am. Never mind.
Apparently some of the RSM guys did listen to us in the past which can only
help the cause for all of us, I guess!

Sorry Philip, I will have a go at uploading it shortly.

Cheers and fingers crossed aye? Could be a whole new era.

Dean

Quoting Ross Levis <ross@...>:

> I like what you have said Dean. It's clear and gives good examples of
> the benefits of LPFM and local community stations.
>
> Maybe RSM will tune in, if they can receive it.
>
> Ross.
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Groove 107.7FM
>  To: LPFM_Radio@...
>  Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:10 PM
>  Subject: [LPFM] My submission
>
>
>  Don't think this went through last time.
>  In case anyone is interested.
>  As they say: "Read it and weep".
>  I've used Groove 107.7 as an example a bit but it is probably typical
> of a lot
>  of LPFM stations.
>
>  Cheers
>
>  Dean Conland
>
>  Groove 107.7FM
>  PO Box 10-989
>  The Terrace
>  Wellington
>  Ph 04-381 GROOVE (04-381 4766)
>



Groove 107.7FM
PO Box 10-989
The Terrace
Wellington
Ph 04-381 GROOVE

What gets displayed on my screen is:

Attachment(not stored)
Groove FM Broadcast submission to RSM 1-12-05 Final.doc
Type:
application/octet-stream

There's no way to access that file from here. Which is why I suggest
uploading it to the files section of this forum. It's to do with the
way the forum is set up - I suspect Ross, as a founding father of the
forum, has different rights than the rest of us commoners.

We had this problem in a transport group I'm following, but I've
forgotten the details if the explanation. I think it's to do with how
you receive notification about new postings.

Philip
Primetime 1ZZ

If anyones interested.
It does use Groove as an example a bit but as a typical LPFM station.
As they say, "Read it and weep".

Cheers

Dean Conland

Groove 107.7FM
PO Box 10989
Wellington

Ph 04-381 GROOVE / 381 4766.

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

From: Groove 107.7FM

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:10 PM

Subject: [LPFM] My submission

Don't think this went through last time.
In case anyone is interested.
As they say: "Read it and weep".
I've used Groove 107.7 as an example a bit but it is probably typical of a lot
of LPFM stations.

Cheers

Dean Conland

Groove 107.7FM
PO Box 10-989
The Terrace
Wellington
Ph 04-381 GROOVE (04-381 4766)

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Groove 107.7FM" <dean.c@p...>
wrote:
> Don't think this went through last time.
> In case anyone is interested.
> As they say: "Read it and weep".
> I've used Groove 107.7 as an example a bit but it is probably
typical of a lot
> of LPFM stations.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dean Conland
>
> Groove 107.7FM
> PO Box 10-989
> The Terrace
> Wellington
> Ph 04-381 GROOVE (04-381 4766)

Hi Dean,

Yahoo doesn't diaplay attachments to other useers - can you upload it
to the files section of this forum?

I've just spent a merry half hour being reminded of how awful fax
machines are with anything more than a couple of plges. Gawd knows
what sort of a shambles has arrived at the Ministry after five failed
attempts.

Just as well I have e-mailed a pdf as well.

Philip

Primetime 1ZZ

Don't think this went through last time.
In case anyone is interested.
As they say: "Read it and weep".
I've used Groove 107.7 as an example a bit but it is probably typical of a lot
of LPFM stations.

Cheers

Dean Conland

Groove 107.7FM
PO Box 10-989
The Terrace
Wellington
Ph 04-381 GROOVE (04-381 4766)

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the LPFM_Radio
group.

   File        : /301105 Rsponse to MED discussion paper.pdf
   Uploaded by : philip_crookes <philip@...>
   Description : Primetime 1ZZ reponse to MED proposals

You can access this file at the URL

http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio/files/301105%20Rsponse%20to%20MED%20\
discussion%20paper.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/au/groups/files

Regards,

philip_crookes <philip@...>

Well said Philip...   I also have broadcast to the odd sheep, potplant, and
cowpat, along with a pimply faced school kid besotted with radio
(educational/school/student type people).


----- Original Message -----
From: "philip_crookes" <philip@...>
To: <LPFM_Radio@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Reply to [LPFM] MED Discussion paper - Reply draft from the
"Networks"


> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@s...> wrote:
>
> > That would be fine in Northland and other sparsly
> > populated areas in NZ where there is likely never going
> > to be a full band of LPFM stations.  You may have a
> > completely different view if you lived in Auckland
> > or any of the main cities (snip)
>
> I agree entirely. The major markets are a wholly different different
> arena, and I don't have answers for their problems. But I would
> caution that a fee for guaranteed spectrum in the guard band is less
> likely to be $50, and much more likely to be $500, and the informality
> and ease of starting s station will be lost forever if we were to move
> to a registration scheme.
>
> It was clear to me at the  meeting with RSM organised by the LPFM
> Society in Auckland earlier this year, that the LPFM system under the
> current GURL is seen by MED as a satisfactorily easy way of using the
> guard band that would be there anyway for technical reasons. We are
> there because the guard band is there, not the other way around. If we
> complicate the issue, they could simply decide to leave it empty, or
> licence it to low-power data distribution,  and save themselves
> administrative cost and hassle. I don't believe they want to do that,
>    but it's a possibility.
>
> Once there is a fee, there has to be a list of who is operating which
> station where. There has to be policing and enforcement, which the
> station operators will be made to pay for on top of any registration
> fee. There will be reports to file, compliance statements to prepare
> and submit, costly technical inspections to pay for, and stations will
> face the possibility of sanctions for some real or presumed offence.
>
> Sooner rather than later the Ministry will come under pressure to
> differentiate between rival applicants - to decide between competitors
> who will be "better"? Should a rap station run by a pair of 16 year
> olds with zits and attitude be preferred over a programme of 1940s
> dance bands presented by a retiree with a gramophone player and a
> stack of 78s? And if it isn't, why not?
>
> We will lose the unique quality of the LPFM system in New Zealand -
> that it's as easy to start a station as it is to open a web site.
>
> > Paying a small annual fee of say $50 should not break
> > the bank and if it guaranteed a frequency with a 0.2
> > spacing to the next station then a lot of people
> > would be happy.
>
> Perhaps in the five or six biggest markets. Elsewhere it would be an
> intrusion, an extra cost, and a barrier to growth, development and
> spontaneity.
> >
> > Currently a higher elevated station can start
> > up on the same frequency as someone else and
> > that could mean the end the other station.
> >
> (snip)
>
> > So I'm predicting I'll have to give up on LPFM
> > once this starts happening here.  I'm only
> > interested in running the station as I know
> > I'm reaching a lot of people.  An estimate is
> > between 2000 and 5000 listeners
>
> In the city you can find that many people within 3 km of the
> transmitter. Up here in the Winterless North, there are barely 5000
> people within 20 km of the antenna mast. We have more sheep, cows,
> turkeys and pot plants than people. So it may be that we should be
> treated differently from our city colleagues.
>
> >
> > So I'm hoping that by the time this starts happening, the
> >proposed restricted community full-power licences will
> >become available and I'll tender for one of them, with a
> >guarantee that at least the major networks are not
> >elligble to tender for it.
>
>
> There we can agree. And I would suggest that the best long-term answer
> will be to leave the GURL pretty much as it is, and push for a series
> of 20- to 50 watt licences in other parts of the band. We will have a
> huge battle with the vested foreign-owned commercial network
> interests, but the Ministry appears aware of the problem that the
> networks have totally distorted the "market", and that there needs to
> be a better way of meeting local needs that the present auction in
> which there is only ever one winner in a two-horse race between 800
> pound gorillas with bottomless bnk balances.
>
> And of course we ignore the possibilities of LPAM, where there are
> frequencies going begging if we could get our hands on them, and the
> potential of Digital Radio Mondiale on AM and FM bands, which I would
> love to try here.
>
> Philip
>
> Primetime 1ZZ
>
> (broadcasting to sheep and cattle in Ohaeawai, Waimate North and Kerikeri)
>
>
>
> > Ross.
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: philip_crookes
> >   To: LPFM_Radio@...
> >   Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:18 AM
> >   Subject: Re: Reply to [LPFM] MED Discussion paper - Reply draft
> from the "Networks"
> >
> >
> >   --- In LPFM_Radio@..., elw <threemonkeys@p...> wrote:
> >   >> Thanks heaps to everyone for getting back .
> >   >
> >   >>2) If the MED were to actively police the LPFM activities because of
> >   >> non conformance issues, what do you think will happen...  They'll >
> >   >> place a  cost on the users...  so behave...
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Hokay now this leads to another question.  Would it be so bad
> >   > to pay?
> >
> >
> >   I am totally opposed. I pay the costs of Primetime 1ZZ out of my own
> >   rather small pocket. I'm not a great salesman of adverts, I'm much
> >   more interested in programming than in selling, and a compulsory fee
> >   would most likely silence us, and, I suspect, lots more. The joy of
> >   the GURL is that it's no more complicated than running a web page.
> >
> >   I want to keep it that way. So I vote NO, NO and NO again to any
> >   compulsory spectrum licensing fee. That way lies the end of LPFM as we
> >   have it.
> >
> >   Philip
> >
> >   Primetime 1ZZ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   ---------------------------------------------------------
> >   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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>So I'm hoping that by the time this starts happening, the
>>proposed restricted community full-power licences will
>>become available and I'll tender for one of them, with a
>>guarantee that at least the major networks are not
>>elligble to tender for it.
>
> There we can agree. And I would suggest that the best long-term answer
> will be to leave the GURL pretty much as it is, and push for a series
> of 20- to 50 watt licences in other parts of the band. We will have a
> huge battle with the vested foreign-owned commercial network
> interests, but the Ministry appears aware of the problem that the
> networks have totally distorted the "market", and that there needs to
> be a better way of meeting local needs that the present auction in
> which there is only ever one winner in a two-horse race between 800
> pound gorillas with bottomless bnk balances.
>
> And of course we ignore the possibilities of LPAM, where there are
> frequencies going begging if we could get our hands on them, and the
> potential of Digital Radio Mondiale on AM and FM bands, which I would
> love to try here.

Thats what I am hoping for and have put in my submission. I will flick it up on
my website for peer review before sending it in...

http://richms.com/submission.pdf - please email suggestions back to
rich2011@..., not this address as it wont make it thru the whitelist
here.

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

> That would be fine in Northland and other sparsly
> populated areas in NZ where there is likely never going
> to be a full band of LPFM stations.  You may have a
> completely different view if you lived in Auckland
> or any of the main cities (snip)

I agree entirely. The major markets are a wholly different different
arena, and I don't have answers for their problems. But I would
caution that a fee for guaranteed spectrum in the guard band is less
likely to be $50, and much more likely to be $500, and the informality
and ease of starting s station will be lost forever if we were to move
to a registration scheme.

It was clear to me at the  meeting with RSM organised by the LPFM
Society in Auckland earlier this year, that the LPFM system under the
current GURL is seen by MED as a satisfactorily easy way of using the
guard band that would be there anyway for technical reasons. We are
there because the guard band is there, not the other way around. If we
complicate the issue, they could simply decide to leave it empty, or
licence it to low-power data distribution,  and save themselves
administrative cost and hassle. I don't believe they want to do that,
    but it's a possibility.

Once there is a fee, there has to be a list of who is operating which
station where. There has to be policing and enforcement, which the
station operators will be made to pay for on top of any registration
fee. There will be reports to file, compliance statements to prepare
and submit, costly technical inspections to pay for, and stations will
face the possibility of sanctions for some real or presumed offence.

Sooner rather than later the Ministry will come under pressure to
differentiate between rival applicants - to decide between competitors
who will be "better"? Should a rap station run by a pair of 16 year
olds with zits and attitude be preferred over a programme of 1940s
dance bands presented by a retiree with a gramophone player and a
stack of 78s? And if it isn't, why not?

We will lose the unique quality of the LPFM system in New Zealand -
that it's as easy to start a station as it is to open a web site.

> Paying a small annual fee of say $50 should not break
> the bank and if it guaranteed a frequency with a 0.2
> spacing to the next station then a lot of people
> would be happy.

Perhaps in the five or six biggest markets. Elsewhere it would be an
intrusion, an extra cost, and a barrier to growth, development and
spontaneity.
>
> Currently a higher elevated station can start
> up on the same frequency as someone else and
> that could mean the end the other station.
>
(snip)

> So I'm predicting I'll have to give up on LPFM
> once this starts happening here.  I'm only
> interested in running the station as I know
> I'm reaching a lot of people.  An estimate is
> between 2000 and 5000 listeners

In the city you can find that many people within 3 km of the
transmitter. Up here in the Winterless North, there are barely 5000
people within 20 km of the antenna mast. We have more sheep, cows,
turkeys and pot plants than people. So it may be that we should be
treated differently from our city colleagues.

>
> So I'm hoping that by the time this starts happening, the
>proposed restricted community full-power licences will
>become available and I'll tender for one of them, with a
>guarantee that at least the major networks are not
>elligble to tender for it.


There we can agree. And I would suggest that the best long-term answer
will be to leave the GURL pretty much as it is, and push for a series
of 20- to 50 watt licences in other parts of the band. We will have a
huge battle with the vested foreign-owned commercial network
interests, but the Ministry appears aware of the problem that the
networks have totally distorted the "market", and that there needs to
be a better way of meeting local needs that the present auction in
which there is only ever one winner in a two-horse race between 800
pound gorillas with bottomless bnk balances.

And of course we ignore the possibilities of LPAM, where there are
frequencies going begging if we could get our hands on them, and the
potential of Digital Radio Mondiale on AM and FM bands, which I would
love to try here.

Philip

Primetime 1ZZ

(broadcasting to sheep and cattle in Ohaeawai, Waimate North and Kerikeri)



> Ross.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: philip_crookes
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:18 AM
>   Subject: Re: Reply to [LPFM] MED Discussion paper - Reply draft
from the "Networks"
>
>
>   --- In LPFM_Radio@..., elw <threemonkeys@p...> wrote:
>   >> Thanks heaps to everyone for getting back .
>   >
>   >>2) If the MED were to actively police the LPFM activities because of
>   >> non conformance issues, what do you think will happen...  They'll >
>   >> place a  cost on the users...  so behave...
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hokay now this leads to another question.  Would it be so bad
>   > to pay?
>
>
>   I am totally opposed. I pay the costs of Primetime 1ZZ out of my own
>   rather small pocket. I'm not a great salesman of adverts, I'm much
>   more interested in programming than in selling, and a compulsory fee
>   would most likely silence us, and, I suspect, lots more. The joy of
>   the GURL is that it's no more complicated than running a web page.
>
>   I want to keep it that way. So I vote NO, NO and NO again to any
>   compulsory spectrum licensing fee. That way lies the end of LPFM as we
>   have it.
>
>   Philip
>
>   Primetime 1ZZ
>
>
>
>
>
>   ---------------------------------------------------------
>   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.

Geoff Barkman wrote:
> Hi Guys
> I wonder if we are all looking at this issue of increasing power on LPFM from
> the wrong angle.
> Why not suggest that the LPFM sections of the FM band gets left as is... but
> instead have a medium powered FM part of the band on several minimal expense
> frequencies of say $50 per annum in other parts of the band. Say the
> frequencies of say 105.0 - 106.5 mHz get used for 5 watt MPFM usage. There
> would be potential for upto 4 MPFM transmitters in most areas :). That way
> the dedicated people move to a cleaner part of the band... it frees up the
> LPFM areas... then everyone is happy.
> I know there was a station in Dunedin here that was pushing up to 25 watts on
> a LPFM frequency... they were causing havoc big time. The top and bottom
> parts of the Guard band shouldn't have power increases... because of say
> Airplane frequencies... there is potential for interference there.
> Moving out of the existing Guardband also frees up the interference from Ipod
> transmitters etc.
> I know with Amateur 70cm bands we had problems with Low powered devices up and
> down the country triggering repeaters... so we basically swapped our input
> and output frequencies around... and solved the problem.

As has already being mentioned, there is a guardband in the aircraft band from
the top of the FM band, so one in the FM band is redundant. Thats how all the
other countries have there high power station all the way to the top.

Having said that, I dont think they should take the guardband away since its the
home of LPFM ;)

Hi Guys
I wonder if we are all looking at this issue of increasing power on LPFM from
the wrong angle.
Why not suggest that the LPFM sections of the FM band gets left as is... but
instead have a medium powered FM part of the band on several minimal expense
frequencies of say $50 per annum in other parts of the band. Say the
frequencies of say 105.0 - 106.5 mHz get used for 5 watt MPFM usage. There
would be potential for upto 4 MPFM transmitters in most areas :). That way
the dedicated people move to a cleaner part of the band... it frees up the
LPFM areas... then everyone is happy.
I know there was a station in Dunedin here that was pushing up to 25 watts on
a LPFM frequency... they were causing havoc big time. The top and bottom
parts of the Guard band shouldn't have power increases... because of say
Airplane frequencies... there is potential for interference there.
Moving out of the existing Guardband also frees up the interference from Ipod
transmitters etc.
I know with Amateur 70cm bands we had problems with Low powered devices up and
down the country triggering repeaters... so we basically swapped our input
and output frequencies around... and solved the problem.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:23, Richard Malcolm-Smith wrote:
> Can others please post links to there submissions. I am putting one together
> that I will be sending in later tonight, but wish to see how others have
> formated there ones and the content to see if I have missed anything out in
mine.
>

Cheers Geoff Barkman 	 ZL4TUX
--

Can others please post links to there submissions. I am putting one together
that I will be sending in later tonight, but wish to see how others have
formated there ones and the content to see if I have missed anything out in
mine.

Ross Levis wrote:
> That would be fine in Northland and other sparsly populated areas in NZ
> where there is likely never going to be a full band of LPFM stations.
> You may have a completely different view if you lived in Auckland or any
> of the main cities where it's almost a waste of time starting a new
> station because of the noise of several other stations on every LPFM
> frequency at different distances.  The coverage areas are much smaller
> and everyone is fighting over frequencies and having to move frequency
> when another station starts up next door.

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

From: philip_crookes

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:18 AM

Subject: Re: Reply to [LPFM] MED Discussion paper - Reply draft from the "Networks"

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., elw <threemonkeys@p...> wrote:
>> Thanks heaps to everyone for getting back .
>
>>2) If the MED were to actively police the LPFM activities because of
>> non conformance issues, what do you think will happen...  They'll >
>> place a  cost on the users...  so behave... 
>
> 
>
> Hokay now this leads to another question.  Would it be so bad
> to pay?


I am totally opposed. I pay the costs of Primetime 1ZZ out of my own
rather small pocket. I'm not a great salesman of adverts, I'm much
more interested in programming than in selling, and a compulsory fee
would most likely silence us, and, I suspect, lots more. The joy of
the GURL is that it's no more complicated than running a web page.

I want to keep it that way. So I vote NO, NO and NO again to any
compulsory spectrum licensing fee. That way lies the end of LPFM as we
have it.

Philip

Primetime 1ZZ

johnpeterson@... wrote:
> Without throwing cold water on a tremendous opportunity, has
> anyone considered that moving to 5 watts will mean FEWER
> LPFM stations as the coverage area will be larger for each
> station? Which one of us is going to volunteer to stop
> broadcasting to make room for someone to expand their
> coverage?

No it wont. It will just mean that the people that are midway between the
stations will get mush, whereas at the moment they get nothing. It doesnt take
much additional strength to recieve one station over another on the same
frequancy. It will also mean that those in the lower band have more of a chance
against mai fm on crappy radios, which is something that the network submission
seems to think that a lot of people have.

Regarding the discussions ongoing about LPFM Power levels.
For us out in the rural parts of NZ I would like to see a max Eirp
of aprox 14dbW . This will provide good signal in our immediate
broadcast area . Overcome noises from PCs , Networking and all the
other things you experience in the CBD areas . Also crappy radios ,
Jap
imports with band expanders ( in my opinion should not be allowed
)
  You will need a commerical or very well build homemade exciter and
suitable filters.

The lower number of frequencies available in Auckland is unfortunate
,
but why punish the rest of New Zealand for restricting the power
level
in a nationwide GURL ?

SteveJ

johnpeterson@... wrote:
> Without throwing cold water on a tremendous opportunity, has
> anyone considered that moving to 5 watts will mean FEWER
> LPFM stations as the coverage area will be larger for each
> station?  Which one of us is going to volunteer to stop
> broadcasting to make room for someone to expand their
> coverage?

No it wont. It will just mean that the people that are midway between the
stations will get mush, whereas at the moment they get nothing. It doesnt take
much additional strength to recieve one station over another on the same
frequancy. It will also mean that those in the lower band have more of a chance
against mai fm on crappy radios, which is something that the network submission
seems to think that a lot of people have.

Hi All ,
There was a comment the other day re rates charged by the commerical
stations. Even though I'm tied up with  commercial stations and a non
commercial station , I speak for my self rather than on anyone's
behalf.

You have to remember that commercial stations have high overheads !

eg
Up to $4000 licence fee per year for some of the high power licences,
Maintainence on High power sites , towers + antennas dont come cheap.
High power TX use a large amount of electricity at a very high prices.
Inital purchase price of High Power Transmitter , Channel combiners ,
filters , Large Heliax coax and associated De Hydrator / compressors
to keep the feeder under pressure .Also consider
Site rental prices to BCL or JDA or others.
Landowners often ask for around $6000 Plus per year per service on
top of the building owners fees.
Also Studio rental to landlords , more electricity
APRA Fees ,  Equipment costs
Paid Staff costings , paying for music and recordings , not just
pirated off the internet and royalties to share holders .

So before you are critical of fees charged by commercial
stations ,have a bit of though to the real charges   inc coffing up
for renewal
of the management rights in 2011


cheers
Steve J

Without throwing cold water on a tremendous opportunity, has
anyone considered that moving to 5 watts will mean FEWER
LPFM stations as the coverage area will be larger for each
station?  Which one of us is going to volunteer to stop
broadcasting to make room for someone to expand their
coverage?

John

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "M.B & J.D Duffy"
<DuffyFamily@x> wrote:
(snip)
>
> My submission to RSM is the same as every one I have sent them.
>
> 5 watt EIRP
> No multiple tx
> No linking
> No LPFM spectrum use for commercial gain
> No LPFM use by commercial and or high power operators.
>
> MBD

Sad to say, limiting us to one transmitter would be a disaster for my
station. We need at least two, and ideally three, just to reach the
5000 people in the service area. Much of the territory I can broadcast
to contains sheep and cattle, with people sparsely scattered between
our metropolis of Kerikeri (about 1100 households) and our tiny
village of Ohaeawai (about 100 households. These are places 20 km
apart that clearly see themselves as a single community, as does the
small settlement of Okaihau, a settlement of around 250 households
about 18 km away, which under present regulations I can't cover. So I
have called for a distinction to be made between major markets, where
a limit on multiple transmitters is defensible, and rural areas, where
I believe it's not.

Nor can I agree with the 'no commercial gain' argument. That may be
fine for faith-based stations or groups with deep pockets and willing
benefactors. For the rest of us, it's an unwanted and arbitrary
decision: why is it better to allow a religious or political group to
pay for broadcasting than to allow a fledgling enterprise to behave in
a businesslike manner? And who will enforce this regulation, and who
will pay for the enforcement?

And the argument for banning holders of existing licences is a matter
that doesn't belong in the GURL, but rather as a clause in the
licences of higher power operators. I've suggested a clause saying the
licensee may not allow the programme carried on the high-power
frewuncy to be rebroadcast on LPFM frequencies within 125 km of their
transmitter site.

Make compliance the responsibility of the high-power broadcasters, not
the MED or ourselves.

Our terms and conditions under the GURL are unique in the developed
world. Nowhere else is access to broadcasting spectrum so free and
inhindered by unweanted regulation as it is in  New Zealand. We should
be careful not to invite more regulation than we have now. That's what
the networks are calling for.

I suggest that we should encourage the view that the establishment of
a low-power station is very similar to the establishment of a web
site. There are some technical considerations, you have to respect the
law of the land and pay copyrights, and for the rest you are free to
get on with it any way you like. Just like the owners of websites are.

Philip

Primetime 1ZZ

I have noticed the way that the conversation seems to be heading on the
issue of payment of a fee to use LPFM.

The underlying concern seems to be that "It would be the end of LPFM as we
know it"

The reality is that the end of LPFM as I know it happened some time ago.

I started broadcasting 24/7 in October 1999 back then we were considered
pirates got hassled by the radio nazi's (no disrespect intended to the
current RSM staff) broadcast around 1 km and could not do ads etc. It
essentially was either a hobby or a annoyance.

Now what do we have? higher power, legitimacy, linking, multiple tx's, high
power users taking up spectrum. Essentially for a lot of stations now it is
business.

If we want to keep it the way it should be then maybe it really needs to go
back to the way it was!


My submission to RSM is the same as every one I have sent them.

5 watt EIRP
No multiple tx
No linking
No LPFM spectrum use for commercial gain
No LPFM use by commercial and or high power operators.

MBD
CPRfm








----- Original Message -----
From: "philip_crookes" <philip@...>
To: <LPFM_Radio@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Reply to [LPFM] MED Discussion paper - Reply draft from the
"Networks"


> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., elw <threemonkeys@p...> wrote:
> >> Thanks heaps to everyone for getting back .
> >
> >>2) If the MED were to actively police the LPFM activities because of
> >> non conformance issues, what do you think will happen...  They'll >
> >> place a  cost on the users...  so behave...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hokay now this leads to another question.  Would it be so bad
> > to pay?
>
>
> I am totally opposed. I pay the costs of Primetime 1ZZ out of my own
> rather small pocket. I'm not a great salesman of adverts, I'm much
> more interested in programming than in selling, and a compulsory fee
> would most likely silence us, and, I suspect, lots more. The joy of
> the GURL is that it's no more complicated than running a web page.
>
> I want to keep it that way. So I vote NO, NO and NO again to any
> compulsory spectrum licensing fee. That way lies the end of LPFM as we
> have it.
>
> Philip
>
> Primetime 1ZZ
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., elw <threemonkeys@p...> wrote:
>> Thanks heaps to everyone for getting back .
>
>>2) If the MED were to actively police the LPFM activities because of
>> non conformance issues, what do you think will happen...  They'll >
>> place a  cost on the users...  so behave...
>
>
>
> Hokay now this leads to another question.  Would it be so bad
> to pay?


I am totally opposed. I pay the costs of Primetime 1ZZ out of my own
rather small pocket. I'm not a great salesman of adverts, I'm much
more interested in programming than in selling, and a compulsory fee
would most likely silence us, and, I suspect, lots more. The joy of
the GURL is that it's no more complicated than running a web page.

I want to keep it that way. So I vote NO, NO and NO again to any
compulsory spectrum licensing fee. That way lies the end of LPFM as we
have it.

Philip

Primetime 1ZZ

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

From: elw

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 6:07 PM

Subject: RE: Reply to [LPFM] MED Discussion paper - Reply draft from the "Networks"

Thanks heaps to everyone for getting back .

 

 

Ø       2) If the MED were to actively police the LPFM activities because of non conformance issues, what do you think will happen...  They'll place a cost on the users...  so behave... 

 

Hokay now this leads to another question…  Would it be so bad to pay?  Interested to see what the list thinks of the idea of paying for your lpfm frequency.  If it meant it was mine and no one else could broadcast on it within say 40ks or something, I would have no probs paying something for it.  But how much would it be worth – given that you couldn’t make a profit, or own a high power frequency (directly or indirectly), or relay to ANYWHERE!!  That would make it stay local and largely as a hobby, but would give us the security needed to grow the station.  For example, I have been thinking of getting some biz cards and stationary done but kinda think whats the point when some kid with a $100 crap transmitter could screw my station any minute.  What do you all think?

 

Cheers

Leigh

www.HeavenFM.com

www.cheers.co.nz