Messages In This Digest (3 Messages)

I believe it is 94.6 on Mt. Te Aroha. It put’s a good signal into Tauranga also. What the hell are they doing on 88.6! That is ridiculous. Their signal is strong all over the Waikato.

From: LPFM_Radio@... [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...] On Behalf Of M.B&J.D Duffy
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2008 5:45 a.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@...
Subject: Re: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

I was in Hamilton last week setting up a station. Life fm part of the RBG mothership has a high poweer licene for 94.7 (if i'm correct) and are broadcasting on 88.6 as well.

As for being a trust or the like for the entity of your lpfm operation then that is fine so long as you are just that , a charitable trust not a multi, multi million dollar business. as RBG is being operated under the guise of a charity.

#5645

From: "Ross Levis" <ross@...>
Date: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:53 am
Subject:: RE: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

rosslevis

Offline

We will need to start thinking about the fact that radio in 10 years will likely be all digital. That may mean the current FM band will be empty, or utilized for digital radio, or allocated for some other use. LPFM will either cease to exist, or it will need to be reformed considerably to exist on a digital platform -- LPD?

Digital broadcasting equipment is somewhat more expensive than FM, so that will weed out those with smaller budgets.

Ross.

From: LPFM_Radio@... [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...] On Behalf Of piratefm2007
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:31 a.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@...
Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@...> wrote:
>hmmmm, i see two sides to this issue, firstly, wireless radio has a
very valid point in regards to profesonal ethics, i agree no
commercial should be using the gaurd band whatsoever, they are in the
business of solely making money and this goes against the policies of
LPFM and the gaurd bands.
Secondly, as the big boys aim to move away from 88-107 in due course
and setup satelite transmissions there will be no need for them to
use ANY gaurd bands due to the fact of almost total coverage they
will be getting in there new format.
LPFM station can only hope that they may be granted the use of some
of this then available space (89-105)and also just maybe they may be
granted a power increase to boot.
So all may not be one sided if LPFM operators can prove that they are
capable of running a good ship, thats food for thought at the best of
times from what ive heard from one or two stations.
Anyway, this no profit idea to me is crap, ive invested close to 20
grand what with commercial onair desks, towers, compressors and the
like, if rsm and the powers that be wish LPFM to conduct themselves
as good stations then they need to be able to afford the equipment to
do so.
Any business be it profit or non-profit has its income deemed AFTER
running expenses and setup costs, why should this be any different
for LPFM radio operators? Clean well run stations require good well
mantained gear in order to achieve this.

In summary, lobbying RSM may have its results, some good some not so
good, i think firstly LPFM operators must prove their salt to RSM and
the community in general in order to be taken seriously and the only
way i can see this being possable is for LPFM stations to be given a
fair go in the first place by not have to compete with commercial
stations for space in the gaurd band and also not being handcuffed to
this "no profit" crap as most stations are in it as a hobby mainly
and any financial rewards would be sunk back into their stations
anyway.

hope ive not bored you lot
andy archer Pirate FM

> I can almost guarantee this will not happen because of Rhema,
George FM,
> and similar networks that have put pressure on RSM to not do so.
>
>
>
> I don't see it as a widespread problem. Obviously it is affecting
you
> wherever you are. As someone mentioned, Rhema use LPFM in small
towns where
> they are often the only LPFM station in the air. There is not much
point
> kicking them off.
>
>
>
> Ross.
>
>
>
> From: LPFM_Radio@...
[mailto:LPFM_Radio@...]
> On Behalf Of wireless.radio
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
> To: LPFM_Radio@...
> Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "Herb" <foralaugh@>
wrote:
> >
> > Yep, a really interesting thread...
> >
> > From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
> > localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
> > (Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
> > engineered for use.
> >
> > I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach...
No
> > full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
> > station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2
stations
> > per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations
could
> > be the same programme, or different content on each frequency.
This
> > would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using
LPFM
> > at the same time.
> >
> > If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
> > have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
> > nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
> > force networks to have new frequencies engineered.
> >
> > My thoughts...
> > Herb.
>
> Very good point there Herb and thank you for raising it. This would
> indeed kill many birds with one stone. It is mainly the major
> commercial networks that I am referring to - so adding a clause the
> same as the Australians are using would indeed solve quite a few
problems.
>

#5644

From: "M.B&J.D Duffy" <DuffyFamily@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:44 pm
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

DuffyFamily@...

I was in Hamilton last week setting up a station. Life fm part of the RBG mothership has a high poweer licene for 94.7 (if i'm correct) and are broadcasting on 88.6 as well.

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

From: Ross Levis

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:13 PM

Subject: RE: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

I can almost guarantee this will not happen because of Rhema, George FM, and similar networks that have put pressure on RSM to not do so.

I don�t see it as a widespread problem. Obviously it is affecting you wherever you are. As someone mentioned, Rhema use LPFM in small towns where they are often the only LPFM station in the air. There is not much point kicking them off.

Ross.

From: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of wireless.radio
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

--- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au, "Herb" <foralaugh@...> wrote:
>
> Yep, a really interesting thread...
>
> From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
> localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
> (Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
> engineered for use.
>
> I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach... No
> full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
> station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2 stations
> per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations could
> be the same programme, or different content on each frequency. This
> would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using LPFM
> at the same time.
>
> If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
> have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
> nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
> force networks to have new frequencies engineered.
>
> My thoughts...
> Herb.

Very good point there Herb and thank you for raising it. This would
indeed kill many birds with one stone. It is mainly the major
commercial networks that I am referring to - so adding a clause the
same as the Australians are using would indeed solve quite a few problems.

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1300 - Release Date: 26/02/2008 19:50

#5643

From: "piratefm2007" <piratefm2007@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:31 pm
Subject:: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

piratefm2007

Offline

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@...> wrote:
>hmmmm, i see two sides to this issue, firstly, wireless radio has a
very valid point in regards to profesonal ethics, i agree no
commercial should be using the gaurd band whatsoever, they are in the
business of solely making money and this goes against the policies of
LPFM and the gaurd bands.
Secondly, as the big boys aim to move away from 88-107 in due course
and setup satelite transmissions there will be no need for them to
use ANY gaurd bands due to the fact of almost total coverage they
will be getting in there new format.
LPFM station can only hope that they may be granted the use of some
of this then available space (89-105)and also just maybe they may be
granted a power increase to boot.
So all may not be one sided if LPFM operators can prove that they are
capable of running a good ship, thats food for thought at the best of
times from what ive heard from one or two stations.
Anyway, this no profit idea to me is crap, ive invested close to 20
grand what with commercial onair desks, towers, compressors and the
like, if rsm and the powers that be wish LPFM to conduct themselves
as good stations then they need to be able to afford the equipment to
do so.
Any business be it profit or non-profit has its income deemed AFTER
running expenses and setup costs, why should this be any different
for LPFM radio operators? Clean well run stations require good well
mantained gear in order to achieve this.

In summary, lobbying RSM may have its results, some good some not so
good, i think firstly LPFM operators must prove their salt to RSM and
the community in general in order to be taken seriously and the only
way i can see this being possable is for LPFM stations to be given a
fair go in the first place by not have to compete with commercial
stations for space in the gaurd band and also not being handcuffed to
this "no profit" crap as most stations are in it as a hobby mainly
and any financial rewards would be sunk back into their stations
anyway.

hope ive not bored you lot
andy archer Pirate FM




> I can almost guarantee this will not happen because of Rhema,
George FM,
> and similar networks that have put pressure on RSM to not do so.
>
>
>
> I don't see it as a widespread problem.  Obviously it is affecting
you
> wherever you are.  As someone mentioned, Rhema use LPFM in small
towns where
> they are often the only LPFM station in the air.  There is not much
point
> kicking them off.
>
>
>
> Ross.
>
>
>
> From: LPFM_Radio@...
[mailto:LPFM_Radio@...]
> On Behalf Of wireless.radio
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
> To: LPFM_Radio@...
> Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "Herb" <foralaugh@>
wrote:
> >
> > Yep, a really interesting thread...
> >
> > From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
> > localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
> > (Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
> > engineered for use.
> >
> > I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach...
No
> > full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
> > station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2
stations
> > per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations
could
> > be the same programme, or different content on each frequency.
This
> > would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using
LPFM
> > at the same time.
> >
> > If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
> > have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
> > nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
> > force networks to have new frequencies engineered.
> >
> > My thoughts...
> > Herb.
>
> Very good point there Herb and thank you for raising it. This would
> indeed kill many birds with one stone. It is mainly the major
> commercial networks that I am referring to - so adding a clause the
> same as the Australians are using would indeed solve quite a few
problems.
>

#5642

From: "ceejay7777" <ceejay7777@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:25 am
Subject:: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

ceejay7777

Offline

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "wireless.radio"
<happydayradio@...> wrote:

> so adding a clause the
> same as the Australians are using would indeed solve quite a few
problems.

What "clause" are you referring to?

#5641

From: "Ross Levis" <ross@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:13 am
Subject:: RE: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

rosslevis

Offline

I can almost guarantee this will not happen because of Rhema, George FM, and similar networks that have put pressure on RSM to not do so.

I don’t see it as a widespread problem. Obviously it is affecting you wherever you are. As someone mentioned, Rhema use LPFM in small towns where they are often the only LPFM station in the air. There is not much point kicking them off.

Ross.

From: LPFM_Radio@... [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...] On Behalf Of wireless.radio
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@...
Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Herb" <foralaugh@...> wrote:
>
> Yep, a really interesting thread...
>
> From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
> localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
> (Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
> engineered for use.
>
> I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach... No
> full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
> station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2 stations
> per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations could
> be the same programme, or different content on each frequency. This
> would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using LPFM
> at the same time.
>
> If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
> have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
> nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
> force networks to have new frequencies engineered.
>
> My thoughts...
> Herb.

Very good point there Herb and thank you for raising it. This would
indeed kill many birds with one stone. It is mainly the major
commercial networks that I am referring to - so adding a clause the
same as the Australians are using would indeed solve quite a few problems.

#5640

From: "wireless.radio" <happydayradio@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:47 am
Subject:: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

wireless.radio

Offline

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Herb" <foralaugh@...> wrote:
>
> Yep, a really interesting thread...
>
> From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
> localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
> (Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
> engineered for use.
>
> I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach... No
> full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
> station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2 stations
> per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations could
> be the same programme, or different content on each frequency. This
> would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using LPFM
> at the same time.
>
> If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
> have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
> nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
> force networks to have new frequencies engineered.
>
> My thoughts...
> Herb.


Very good point there Herb and thank you for raising it. This would
indeed kill many birds with one stone. It is mainly the major
commercial networks that I am referring to - so adding a clause the
same as the Australians are using would indeed solve quite a few problems.

#5639

From: "wireless.radio" <happydayradio@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:43 am
Subject:: Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

wireless.radio

Offline

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., Jesse Archer <jesse.archer@...>
wrote:
>
One lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air
for a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was
coming from.


This is a classic example of allowing people to set up a transmitter
and get "on the air" who have absolutely NO broadcast training, or RF
engineering knowledge.
I can't believe that RSM were so loose as to allow a situation like
this to occur.

#5638

From: "ceejay7777" <ceejay7777@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:24 am
Subject:: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

ceejay7777

Offline

Australia has Low Power Open Narrowcast (LPON) 1 watt (residential) 10
watt (non-residential). The content must be of "limited appeal".

There are also High (HPON) which can be up to 2Kw. Same rules apply.

There certainly are networks operating on LPON, the most evident being
christian radio network Vision which has over 300 transmitters around
the country and delivers via satellite. Others include racing radio,
also fully networked and a number of tourist radio networks - in this
case "network" means same content, but delivered by local means,
usually automated CD stacker.

For more information go to the ACMA site:

http://acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90181


--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@...> wrote:
>
> There is no LPFM is Aussie as such.  There is narrowcasting where
you can
> apply for a licence to provide a service/music format not provided
in the
> same area by a commercial operator.  But I believe these are full power
> licences.
>
>
>
> The same is now available here known as Local Commercial FM Radio.
>
> http://data.rsm.govt.nz/spp/vhf-fm/criteria-and-conditions/index.html
>
>
>
> There are several restrictions such as limited networking and not
linked to
> any other radio station in NZ.
>
>
>
> Ross.
>
>
>
> From: LPFM_Radio@...
[mailto:LPFM_Radio@...]
> On Behalf Of Herb
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 7:30 p.m.
> To: LPFM_Radio@...
> Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
>
> Yep, a really interesting thread...
>
> From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
> localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
> (Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
> engineered for use.
>
> I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach... No
> full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
> station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2 stations
> per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations could
> be the same programme, or different content on each frequency. This
> would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using LPFM
> at the same time.
>
> If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
> have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
> nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
> force networks to have new frequencies engineered.
>
> My thoughts...
> Herb.
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps operating a second transmitter on the same channel with
> entirely different programming is an option. This would be enough to
> encourage a commercial operator to get around to leasing a frequency
> of sorts or realise LPFM frequencies are not suitable for commercial
use.
> >
> > Yes I agree frequency squatting is something detestable.
> >
> > Gavin.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jesse Archer
> > To: LPFM_Radio@...
<mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:50 PM
> > Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
> frequencies
> >
> >
> > Interesting conversation.
> > Personally, I have no issue with commercial operators using LPFM
> frequencies *where* they don't have frequencies.
> >
> > Probably the biggest guardband user from the 'biggies' would be
> RBG - however, they are a non-profit organization....so do they count
> under the argument here?
> >
> > One of the reasons RSM still allows 'networking' of LPFM -
> [meaning, I could set up hundreds of LPFMs across NZ (using the 25km
> rule of course) and it would be fine] - is the political power R.B.G.
> hold here because of their use of the LPFM's.
> >
> > My recommendation here: Lets NOT complain. The less RSM hear from
> us lot complaining, the more likely they'll get sick of LPFM
> broadcasting and take it away. I've heard a few RSM inspectors get
> quite frustrated with the stupid things some current operators have
> been doing - power beyond their recommended level, dodgy gear - one
> lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air for
> a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was coming
> from.
> >
> > I'm happy with how LPFM is setup at the moment, wouldn't want a
> thing to change.
> >
> > Only thing that annoys me is people who sit on 3-4 frequencies in
> one area broadcasting services that are already adequately catered
> for. (this excludes Tx site operators who house LPFM equiptment on
> their hills for other external broadcasters)
> > I call this 'frequency hogging'.
> >
> > My 2c: Focus on one program/station and getting it to serve your
> audience the best it can.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jesse
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > JESSE ARCHER | PROGRAM DIRECTOR | UGM NEW ZEALAND
> > Office: 07 985 6176 | Cellphone: 027 371 4624
> > jesse@ | www.ugmradio.com
> >
> > The content of this email is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If it is not intended for you, please email the sender
> immediately and destroy the original message.
> >
>

#5637

From: "Ross Levis" <ross@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:45 am
Subject:: RE: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

rosslevis

Offline

http://data.rsm.govt.nz/spp/vhf-fm/criteria-and-conditions/index.html

There is no LPFM is Aussie as such. There is narrowcasting where you can apply for a licence to provide a service/music format not provided in the same area by a commercial operator. But I believe these are full power licences.

The same is now available here known as Local Commercial FM Radio.

There are several restrictions such as limited networking and not linked to any other radio station in NZ.

Ross.

From: LPFM_Radio@... [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...] On Behalf Of Herb
Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 7:30 p.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@...
Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

Yep, a really interesting thread...

From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
(Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
engineered for use.

I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach... No
full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2 stations
per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations could
be the same programme, or different content on each frequency. This
would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using LPFM
at the same time.

If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
force networks to have new frequencies engineered.

My thoughts...
Herb.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps operating a second transmitter on the same channel with
entirely different programming is an option. This would be enough to
encourage a commercial operator to get around to leasing a frequency
of sorts or realise LPFM frequencies are not suitable for commercial use.
>
> Yes I agree frequency squatting is something detestable.
>
> Gavin.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jesse Archer
> To: LPFM_Radio@...
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:50 PM
> Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
> Interesting conversation.
> Personally, I have no issue with commercial operators using LPFM
frequencies *where* they don't have frequencies.
>
> Probably the biggest guardband user from the 'biggies' would be
RBG - however, they are a non-profit organization....so do they count
under the argument here?
>
> One of the reasons RSM still allows 'networking' of LPFM -
[meaning, I could set up hundreds of LPFMs across NZ (using the 25km
rule of course) and it would be fine] - is the political power R.B.G.
hold here because of their use of the LPFM's.
>
> My recommendation here: Lets NOT complain. The less RSM hear from
us lot complaining, the more likely they'll get sick of LPFM
broadcasting and take it away. I've heard a few RSM inspectors get
quite frustrated with the stupid things some current operators have
been doing - power beyond their recommended level, dodgy gear - one
lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air for
a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was coming
from.
>
> I'm happy with how LPFM is setup at the moment, wouldn't want a
thing to change.
>
> Only thing that annoys me is people who sit on 3-4 frequencies in
one area broadcasting services that are already adequately catered
for. (this excludes Tx site operators who house LPFM equiptment on
their hills for other external broadcasters)
> I call this 'frequency hogging'.
>
> My 2c: Focus on one program/station and getting it to serve your
audience the best it can.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jesse
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> JESSE ARCHER | PROGRAM DIRECTOR | UGM NEW ZEALAND
> Office: 07 985 6176 | Cellphone: 027 371 4624
> jesse@... | www.ugmradio.com
>
> The content of this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged. If it is not intended for you, please email the sender
immediately and destroy the original message.
>

#5636

From: "Herb" <foralaugh@...>
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:29 am
Subject:: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

lpfm_bandit

Offline

Yep, a really interesting thread...

From what I see, RGB (Rhema, etc...) operate LPFM mainly in small
localities of less than say 5000. Where the population is bigger
(Wanganui, for example) it should be possible to have a frequency
engineered for use.

I really think RSM/Govt should adopt the Aussie LPFM approach... No
full-time networks allowed - satellite/terrestrial. Meaning every
station had to be completely local, staffed by locals. The 2 stations
per 25K rule, in my view, should still apply. These two stations could
be the same programme, or different content on each frequency. This
would reduce frequency squatting and network broadcasters using LPFM
at the same time.

If a network, eg: RGB wanted to go LPFM, they would be required to
have it staffed locally, and content different to what's played
nationally 24/7. Govt would make more money this way, as it would
force networks to have new frequencies engineered.

My thoughts...
Herb.



--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
wrote:
>
> Perhaps operating a second transmitter on the same channel with
entirely different programming is an option. This would be enough to
encourage a commercial operator to get around to leasing a frequency
of sorts or realise LPFM frequencies are not suitable for commercial use.
>
> Yes I agree frequency squatting is something detestable.
>
> Gavin.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jesse Archer
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:50 PM
>   Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
>   Interesting conversation.
>   Personally, I have no issue with commercial operators using LPFM
frequencies *where* they don't have frequencies.
>
>   Probably the biggest guardband user from the 'biggies' would be
RBG - however, they are a non-profit organization....so do they count
under the argument here?
>
>   One of the reasons RSM still allows 'networking' of LPFM -
[meaning, I could set up hundreds of LPFMs across NZ (using the 25km
rule of course) and it would be fine] - is the political power R.B.G.
hold here because of their use of the LPFM's.
>
>   My recommendation here: Lets NOT complain. The less RSM hear from
us lot complaining, the more likely they'll get sick of LPFM
broadcasting and take it away. I've heard a few RSM inspectors get
quite frustrated with the stupid things some current operators have
been doing - power beyond their recommended level, dodgy gear - one
lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air for
a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was coming
from.
>
>   I'm happy with how LPFM is setup at the moment, wouldn't want a
thing to change.
>
>   Only thing that annoys me is people who sit on 3-4 frequencies in
one area broadcasting services that are already adequately catered
for. (this excludes Tx site operators who house LPFM equiptment on
their hills for other external broadcasters)
>   I call this 'frequency hogging'.
>
>   My 2c: Focus on one program/station and getting it to serve your
audience the best it can.
>
>
>   Regards,
>   Jesse
>
>   -----------------------------------------------------------------
>   JESSE ARCHER | PROGRAM DIRECTOR | UGM NEW ZEALAND
>   Office: 07 985 6176 | Cellphone: 027 371 4624
>   jesse@... | www.ugmradio.com
>
>   The content of this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If it is not intended for you, please email the sender
immediately and destroy the original message.
>

#5635

From: "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
Date: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:59 am
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

kiwi_rock_24

Offline

Perhaps operating a second transmitter on the same channel with entirely different programming is an option. This would be enough to encourage a commercial operator to get around to leasing a frequency of sorts or realise LPFM frequencies are not suitable for commercial use.

Yes I agree frequency squatting is something detestable.

Gavin.

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

From: Jesse Archer

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:50 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

Interesting conversation.
Personally, I have no issue with commercial operators using LPFM frequencies *where* they don't have frequencies.

Probably the biggest guardband user from the 'biggies' would be RBG - however, they are a non-profit organization....so do they count under the argument here?

One of the reasons RSM still allows 'networking' of LPFM - [meaning, I could set up hundreds of LPFMs across NZ (using the 25km rule of course) and it would be fine] - is the political power R.B.G. hold here because of their use of the LPFM's.

My recommendation here: Lets NOT complain. The less RSM hear from us lot complaining, the more likely they'll get sick of LPFM broadcasting and take it away. I've heard a few RSM inspectors get quite frustrated with the stupid things some current operators have been doing - power beyond their recommended level, dodgy gear - one lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air for a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was coming from.

I'm happy with how LPFM is setup at the moment, wouldn't want a thing to change.

Only thing that annoys me is people who sit on 3-4 frequencies in one area broadcasting services that are already adequately catered for. (this excludes Tx site operators who house LPFM equiptment on their hills for other external broadcasters)
I call this 'frequency hogging'.

My 2c: Focus on one program/station and getting it to serve your audience the best it can.

Regards,
Jesse

-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE ARCHER | PROGRAM DIRECTOR | UGM NEW ZEALAND
Office: 07 985 6176 | Cellphone: 027 371 4624
jesse@....nz | www.ugmradio.com

The content of this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If it is not intended for you, please email the sender immediately and destroy the original message.

#5634

From: "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@...>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:38 pm
Subject:: Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

ohr883

Offline

My 2c worth 2 is If the station is registered with the charities
commission then it is a not for profit group and has no taxable
income. Therefore I do not see a problem as long as ALL the rules
are complied with.
Charlie "Oamaru Heritage Radio Trust".

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., Jesse Archer
<jesse.archer@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting conversation.
> Personally, I have no issue with commercial operators using LPFM
frequencies *where* they don't have frequencies.
>
> Probably the biggest guardband user from the 'biggies' would be
RBG - however, they are a non-profit organization....so do they
count under the argument here?
>
> One of the reasons RSM still allows 'networking' of LPFM -
[meaning, I could set up hundreds of LPFMs across NZ (using the 25km
rule of course) and it would be fine] - is the political power
R.B.G. hold here because of their use of the LPFM's.
>
> My recommendation here: Lets NOT complain. The less RSM hear from
us lot complaining, the more likely they'll get sick of LPFM
broadcasting and take it away. I've heard a few RSM inspectors get
quite frustrated with the stupid things some current operators have
been doing - power beyond their recommended level, dodgy gear - one
lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air
for a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was
coming from.
>
> I'm happy with how LPFM is setup at the moment, wouldn't want a
thing to change.
>
> Only thing that annoys me is people who sit on 3-4 frequencies in
one area broadcasting services that are already adequately catered
for. (this excludes Tx site operators who house LPFM equiptment on
their hills for other external broadcasters)
> I call this 'frequency hogging'.
>
> My 2c: Focus on one program/station and getting it to serve your
audience the best it can.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jesse
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  JESSE ARCHER | PROGRAM DIRECTOR | UGM NEW ZEALAND
> Office: 07 985 6176 | Cellphone: 027 371 4624
> jesse@... | www.ugmradio.com
>
> The content of this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If it is not intended for you, please email the sender
immediately and destroy the original message.
>

#5633

From: Jesse Archer <jesse.archer@...>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:50 am
Subject:: Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

air1radionz

Offline

Interesting conversation.
Personally, I have no issue with commercial operators using LPFM frequencies *where* they don't have frequencies.

Probably the biggest guardband user from the 'biggies' would be RBG - however, they are a non-profit organization....so do they count under the argument here?

One of the reasons RSM still allows 'networking' of LPFM - [meaning, I could set up hundreds of LPFMs across NZ (using the 25km rule of course) and it would be fine] - is the political power R.B.G. hold here because of their use of the LPFM's.

My recommendation here: Lets NOT complain. The less RSM hear from us lot complaining, the more likely they'll get sick of LPFM broadcasting and take it away. I've heard a few RSM inspectors get quite frustrated with the stupid things some current operators have been doing - power beyond their recommended level, dodgy gear - one lpfm in Tauranga knocked 89.0 Radio Hauraki (at the time) off air for a good few hours before RSM figured out where the broadcast was coming from.

I'm happy with how LPFM is setup at the moment, wouldn't want a thing to change.

Only thing that annoys me is people who sit on 3-4 frequencies in one area broadcasting services that are already adequately catered for. (this excludes Tx site operators who house LPFM equiptment on their hills for other external broadcasters)
I call this 'frequency hogging'.

My 2c: Focus on one program/station and getting it to serve your audience the best it can.

Regards,
Jesse

-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE ARCHER | PROGRAM DIRECTOR | UGM NEW ZEALAND
Office: 07 985 6176 | Cellphone: 027 371 4624
jesse@... | www.ugmradio.com

The content of this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If it is not intended for you, please email the sender immediately and destroy the original message.

#5632

From: "Steve" <steve.jepson@...>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:36 am
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] Digest Number 1322

kiwihamsteve

Offline

Personally I don't think so there are many areas were only 1 LPFM freq is in use

so I don't see a problem with other broadcasters having a LPFM transmitter as well

for coverage holes or fillers

Steve

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

From: LPFM_Radio@...

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:26 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Digest Number 1322

New Zealand LPFM Radio Broadcasting

Messages In This Digest (3 Messages)

1.1.
Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies From: wireless.radio

1.2.
Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies From: Edwin Hermann

1.3.
Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies From: Ross Levis

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.1.

Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

Posted by: "wireless.radio" happydayradio@... wireless.radio

Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:33 pm (EST)

It is becoming apparent that more and more commercial operators are
"double dipping" and utilising guardband frequencies in addition to
their licenced frequencies - often to get their program into regions
where no commercial frequencies are available.
This is TOTALLY unacceptable.
Guardband frequencies were not designed for this - nor is it ethical
for an operator who is already on the air to take over a frequency
that should be available for LPFM operators and those who are unable
to purchase a commercial frequency.
This is not an issue that requires policing as such - it simply
requires a policy change (addition of ONE clause in the regulations)
for it to be effective. If it was then found that a commercial
operator was using a guardband frequency it would be a simple matter
of a phonecall by RSM to the offending operator advising them to cease
the use of the frequency.

Given the fact that commercial operators (read "paying clients") are
pandered to by RSM because of the almighty dollar, it seems in some
respects that they have tacit approval to use these frequencies. This
has to stop.

I urge all LPFM operators to lobby the RSM to stop the use of
guardband frequencies by any operator who currently uses a commercial,
high-power or community frequency.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3)

1.2.

Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

Posted by: "Edwin Hermann" edwin.h@... mix_fm_wellington

Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:32 pm (EST)

I would take this further and request a clause that prevents operators
of LPFM stations from having any revenue at all.

On 16/03/2008, at 7:33 PM, wireless.radio wrote:

> It is becoming apparent that more and more commercial operators are
> "double dipping" and utilising guardband frequencies in addition to
> their licenced frequencies - often to get their program into regions
> where no commercial frequencies are available.
> This is TOTALLY unacceptable.
> Guardband frequencies were not designed for this - nor is it ethical
> for an operator who is already on the air to take over a frequency
> that should be available for LPFM operators and those who are unable
> to purchase a commercial frequency.
> This is not an issue that requires policing as such - it simply
> requires a policy change (addition of ONE clause in the regulations)
> for it to be effective. If it was then found that a commercial
> operator was using a guardband frequency it would be a simple matter
> of a phonecall by RSM to the offending operator advising them to cease
> the use of the frequency.
>
> Given the fact that commercial operators (read "paying clients") are
> pandered to by RSM because of the almighty dollar, it seems in some
> respects that they have tacit approval to use these frequencies. This
> has to stop.
>
> I urge all LPFM operators to lobby the RSM to stop the use of
> guardband frequencies by any operator who currently uses a commercial,
> high-power or community frequency.
>
>
>
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3)

1.3.

Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

Posted by: "Ross Levis" ross@... rosslevis

Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:55 pm (EST)

There are plenty of commercial LPFM operators on this list that will
disagree.

I'm not making any money, in fact it's costing me $250 a month to be on the
air due to a leased transmission site. There is no point transmitting
directly from home due to my location and lots of hills. I've been thinking
about getting some sponsors to help pay this cost, but that will be deemed
revenue.

Perhaps non-profit would be better, but then RSM would need to study our
financial returns, which would cost them more time and money that they never
recover, so that's not going to happen. It's costing them enough as it is,
and it may not take much for them to close the guardbands altogether.

Ross.

From: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au]
On Behalf Of Edwin Hermann
Sent: Sunday, 16 March 2008 8:32 p.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

I would take this further and request a clause that prevents operators of
LPFM stations from having any revenue at all.

On 16/03/2008, at 7:33 PM, wireless.radio wrote:

It is becoming apparent that more and more commercial operators are
"double dipping" and utilising guardband frequencies in addition to
their licenced frequencies - often to get their program into regions
where no commercial frequencies are available.
This is TOTALLY unacceptable.
Guardband frequencies were not designed for this - nor is it ethical
for an operator who is already on the air to take over a frequency
that should be available for LPFM operators and those who are unable
to purchase a commercial frequency.
This is not an issue that requires policing as such - it simply
requires a policy change (addition of ONE clause in the regulations)
for it to be effective. If it was then found that a commercial
operator was using a guardband frequency it would be a simple matter
of a phonecall by RSM to the offending operator advising them to cease
the use of the frequency.

Given the fact that commercial operators (read "paying clients") are
pandered to by RSM because of the almighty dollar, it seems in some
respects that they have tacit approval to use these frequencies. This
has to stop.

I urge all LPFM operators to lobby the RSM to stop the use of
guardband frequencies by any operator who currently uses a commercial,
high-power or community frequency.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (3)

Recent Activity

1

New Members
Visit Your Group

Y!7 Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

Yahoo!7 Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar

---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

#5631

From: "Ross Levis" <ross@...>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:55 am
Subject:: RE: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

rosslevis

Offline

There are plenty of commercial LPFM operators on this list that will disagree.

I’m not making any money, in fact it’s costing me $250 a month to be on the air due to a leased transmission site. There is no point transmitting directly from home due to my location and lots of hills. I’ve been thinking about getting some sponsors to help pay this cost, but that will be deemed revenue.

Perhaps non-profit would be better, but then RSM would need to study our financial returns, which would cost them more time and money that they never recover, so that’s not going to happen. It’s costing them enough as it is, and it may not take much for them to close the guardbands altogether.

Ross.

From: LPFM_Radio@... [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...] On Behalf Of Edwin Hermann
Sent: Sunday, 16 March 2008 8:32 p.m.
To: LPFM_Radio@...
Subject: Re: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

I would take this further and request a clause that prevents operators of LPFM stations from having any revenue at all.

On 16/03/2008, at 7:33 PM, wireless.radio wrote:

It is becoming apparent that more and more commercial operators are
"double dipping" and utilising guardband frequencies in addition to
their licenced frequencies - often to get their program into regions
where no commercial frequencies are available.
This is TOTALLY unacceptable.
Guardband frequencies were not designed for this - nor is it ethical
for an operator who is already on the air to take over a frequency
that should be available for LPFM operators and those who are unable
to purchase a commercial frequency.
This is not an issue that requires policing as such - it simply
requires a policy change (addition of ONE clause in the regulations)
for it to be effective. If it was then found that a commercial
operator was using a guardband frequency it would be a simple matter
of a phonecall by RSM to the offending operator advising them to cease
the use of the frequency.

Given the fact that commercial operators (read "paying clients") are
pandered to by RSM because of the almighty dollar, it seems in some
respects that they have tacit approval to use these frequencies. This
has to stop.

I urge all LPFM operators to lobby the RSM to stop the use of
guardband frequencies by any operator who currently uses a commercial,
high-power or community frequency.

#5630

From: Edwin Hermann <edwin.h@...>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:31 am
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

mix_fm_welli...

Offline

I would take this further and request a clause that prevents operators of LPFM stations from having any revenue at all.

On 16/03/2008, at 7:33 PM, wireless.radio wrote:

It is becoming apparent that more and more commercial operators are
"double dipping" and utilising guardband frequencies in addition to
their licenced frequencies - often to get their program into regions
where no commercial frequencies are available.
This is TOTALLY unacceptable.
Guardband frequencies were not designed for this - nor is it ethical
for an operator who is already on the air to take over a frequency
that should be available for LPFM operators and those who are unable
to purchase a commercial frequency.
This is not an issue that requires policing as such - it simply
requires a policy change (addition of ONE clause in the regulations)
for it to be effective. If it was then found that a commercial
operator was using a guardband frequency it would be a simple matter
of a phonecall by RSM to the offending operator advising them to cease
the use of the frequency.

Given the fact that commercial operators (read "paying clients") are
pandered to by RSM because of the almighty dollar, it seems in some
respects that they have tacit approval to use these frequencies. This
has to stop.

I urge all LPFM operators to lobby the RSM to stop the use of
guardband frequencies by any operator who currently uses a commercial,
high-power or community frequency.

#5629

From: "wireless.radio" <happydayradio@...>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:33 am
Subject:: Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies

wireless.radio

Offline

It is becoming apparent that more and more commercial operators are
"double dipping" and utilising guardband frequencies in addition to
their licenced frequencies - often to get their program into regions
where no commercial frequencies are available.
This is TOTALLY unacceptable.
Guardband frequencies were not designed for this - nor is it ethical
for an operator who is already on the air to take over a frequency
that should be available for LPFM operators and those who are unable
to purchase a commercial frequency.
This is not an issue that requires policing as such - it simply
requires a policy change (addition of ONE clause in the regulations)
for it to be effective. If it was then found that a commercial
operator was using a guardband frequency it would be a simple matter
of a phonecall by RSM to the offending operator advising them to cease
the use of the frequency.

Given the fact that commercial operators (read "paying clients") are
pandered to by RSM because of the almighty dollar, it seems in some
respects that they have tacit approval to use these frequencies. This
has to stop.

I urge all LPFM operators to lobby the RSM to stop the use of
guardband frequencies by any operator who currently uses a commercial,
high-power or community frequency.

#5628

From: "piratefm2007" <piratefm2007@...>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:34 pm
Subject:: Re: console

piratefm2007

Offline

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "ceejay7777" <ceejay7777@...>
wrote:
>and only you would know :)


> It's a Tandy with a paint job !!!!!
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "piratefm2007"
> <piratefm2007@> wrote:
> >
> > hi again, forgot to post the url,
> > http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=145212841
> >
> > i will ship to aussie,nz and usa.
> >
> > cheers andy
> >
>

#5627

From: "ceejay7777" <ceejay7777@...>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:08 am
Subject:: Re: console

ceejay7777

Offline

It's a Tandy with a paint job !!!!!

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "piratefm2007"
<piratefm2007@...> wrote:
>
> hi again, forgot to post the url,
> http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=145212841
>
> i will ship to aussie,nz and usa.
>
> cheers andy
>

#5626

From: "piratefm2007" <piratefm2007@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:44 am
Subject:: console

piratefm2007

Offline

hi again, forgot to post the url,
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=145212841

i will ship to aussie,nz and usa.

cheers andy

#5625

From: "piratefm2007" <piratefm2007@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:42 am
Subject:: console

piratefm2007

Offline

hi all, just a note to say im selling a small onair console ideal for
LPFM, its mono and comes with supply, brand new, a wee beauty, cheers :)

#5624

From: "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:53 am
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] Poll results for LPFM_Radio

kiwi_rock_24

Offline

I would be quite interested in what systems people would look at or consider using in the next 12-24 months rather than just what they currently have (still excluding pipe dreams obviously). What people need really shows their direction and what is working or what's not going to cut the mustard later if they're neglecting something they'd like to do.

Gavin.

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

From: LPFM_Radio@...

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:43 AM

Subject: [LPFM] Poll results for LPFM_Radio

The following LPFM_Radio poll is now closed. Here are the
final results:

POLL QUESTION: What radio automation software does your station currently use?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Station Playlist, 8 votes, 44.44%
- A.B.J., 0 votes, 0.00%
- SAM (any version), 3 votes, 16.67%
- mAirList, 0 votes, 0.00%
- DirEttore, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Winamp, 1 votes, 5.56%
- DRS 2006, 0 votes, 0.00%
- OtsAV, 1 votes, 5.56%
- Windows Media Player, 1 votes, 5.56%
- Something you cooked up yourself, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Other, 4 votes, 22.22%

For more information about this group, please visit
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio

For help with Yahoo!7 Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/l/au/yahoo7/groups/original/ownmod/web/index.html

#5623

From: LPFM_Radio@...
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:43 pm
Subject:: Poll results for LPFM_Radio

LPFM_Radio@...

The following LPFM_Radio poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: What radio automation software does your station currently use?

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Station Playlist, 8 votes, 44.44%
- A.B.J., 0 votes, 0.00%
- SAM (any version), 3 votes, 16.67%
- mAirList, 0 votes, 0.00%
- DirEttore, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Winamp, 1 votes, 5.56%
- DRS 2006, 0 votes, 0.00%
- OtsAV, 1 votes, 5.56%
- Windows Media Player, 1 votes, 5.56%
- Something you cooked up yourself, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Other, 4 votes, 22.22%



For more information about this group, please visit
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio

For help with Yahoo!7 Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/l/au/yahoo7/groups/original/ownmod/web/index.html

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (17)

#5622

From: "Michael Rowse" <mike@...>
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2008 8:00 am
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] East Tamaki interference 106.7 FM <<MOSHBOX RADIO>>

valdusradio

Offline

Heya Kerm, Just sent you a text with a contact name and number.

See how ya get on with him.

Mike

On 8/03/2008 8:49:45 p.m., Professionally Tacky (moshboxradio@...) wrote:
> Does anyone have direct contact with Memories FM in South Auckland/
> Manurewa? I have tried to email them a couple of times now and no
> response..
>
> I think it might be them playing the oldies music and cutting out most
> of our signal here in Howick..
>
> If anybody knows them or how else to contact them, pleasee let us know,
>
> Thanks heaps!
>
> Kermath

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#5621

From: "Professionally Tacky" <moshboxradio@...>
Date: Sat Mar 8, 2008 7:49 am
Subject:: Re: [LPFM] East Tamaki interference 106.7 FM <<MOSHBOX RADIO>>

moshbox

Offline

Does anyone have direct contact with Memories FM in South Auckland/
Manurewa? I have tried to email them a couple of times now and no
response..

I think it might be them playing the oldies music and cutting out most
of our signal here in Howick..

If anybody knows them or how else to contact them, pleasee let us know,

Thanks heaps!

Kermath

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (9)

#5620

From: Eddie O'Strange <blue.smoke@...>
Date: Tue Mar 4, 2008 2:56 pm
Subject:: Oz: Countdown to Digital Radio

planet42nz

Offline

COUNTDOWN TO DIGITAL RADIO

The countdown has begun for the introduction of digital radio in Australia, to begin January 1, 2009. Under the legislation, it is anticipated that stage one will see an initial roll-out of services in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. Digital radio delivers text, images, extra advertising information, crystal-clear sound and bonus channels.

"This is one of the most significant milestones in Australian broadcasting history," said Joan Warner, chief executive officer (CEO) of the national industry body, Commercial Radio Australia. "It is a repositioning for the 21st century of Australia's most used form of electronic media and places Australia at the forefront of world broadcasting trends."

Digital radio broadcasts will be free-to-air, meaning that listeners will tune in much the same as they do now. However, rather than tuning to a set frequency, listeners will tune to a pre-set station and the digital radio will deliver the best available signal. Individual stations will decide how they will use the power of the new technology, but digital radio has the potential to offer everything from 'rewind radio' to real time traffic images and downloadable songs.

Listeners will need a digital radio receiver to take advantage of the new service. Leading manufacturers, suppliers and retailers are planning to have a full range of products on offer in the lead-up to Christmas '08.

The commercial radio industry, ABC and SBS have joined forces to establish the necessary infrastructure to deliver digital radio to Australian listeners. Tens of millions of dollars are being invested by broadcasters in the initial rollout with hundreds of millions more for a complete national rollout over the following few years.

- www.themusic.com.au [Tues 4th March 2008]
_________________________________________________

#5619

From: LPFM_Radio@...
Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 9:56 pm
Subject:: New poll for LPFM_Radio

LPFM_Radio@...

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
LPFM_Radio group:

What radio automation software does your station currently use?

   o Station Playlist
   o A.B.J.
   o SAM (any version)
   o mAirList
   o DirEttore
   o Winamp
   o DRS 2006
   o OtsAV
   o Windows Media Player
   o Something you cooked up yourself
   o Other


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio/surveys?id=12727919

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo!7 Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (20)

#5618

From: "Michael Rowse" <mike@...>
Date: Sat Mar 1, 2008 9:51 pm
Subject:: Re: Reducing output signal

valdusradio

Offline

Hey guys,

I just realised that I never actually thanked everyone for their ideas
on reducing the signal output. Shame on me. So....thanks everyone! We
have decided to go with the long length of coax option as it will also
allow us a bit of flexibility of where the TX is located in the
studio. We were able to pick up 100m of RG58A/U from Spectron
(www.spectron.co.nz) for just over $100 including GST. We had to get
100m because that was the smallest quantity they sell. Once again,
thanks - its great to belong to a newsgroup that is so knowledgeable
and willing to assist.

Mike

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Michael Rowse" <mike@...> wrote:
>
> Heya guys,
>
> Anybody got any bright ideas on how to reduce the signal coming out of
> the back of the transmitter? We have a one watt transmitter but wish
> to reduce it down to approx 300mW so as not to interfere with another
> close station. (we are going to be using this TX as a link system)
> Would some kind of attenuator do the trick or is there another method?
> The cheaper the better.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Mike
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (17)

#5617

From: "Professionally Tacky" <moshboxradio@...>
Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:11 pm
Subject:: 106.7 FM in Manurewa is constipating us :( wah wah

moshbox

Offline

I have located the area where the overpowering signal is coming from
and is suffocating my coverage... Does anyone know who this might be?
There still is no ID's on the station and can be picked up from deep
Papakura all the way through to Howick and beyond!!

They have definetly started upping the wattage as it has started
crawling into howick and sometimes even cutting out my station
completely :( The broadcasting location of this unidentified station is
defiently Manurewa side.

Also Howick in the Park cancelled today coz of the weather, pls come
check out our LPFM stand next week sat if your in the area :)

Cheeers!

MOSHBOX RADIO
106.7FM East Auckland