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

From: Charlie Fraser

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:38 PM

Subject: [LPFM] Re: Studio Linking

Hi thanks for the reply see www.acreselectronics.co.nz for link
details and was thinking along the line of a analog to digital
converter as we dont have computer avalible as they use too much
battery power for the remote sites.
I have found reference to Dayton Audio analog to digital converter
but have not found a suplirer who will ship to NZ.
Regards Charlie

--- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au, "wireless.radio"
<happydayradio@...> wrote:
>
> What sort of 2.4GHz linking gear do you have?
>
> Vypress Tonecast is software that allows streaming of audio over
LAN -
> if you set up a wifi link, you can use this software at each end and
> it works extremely well.
>
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au, "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > I need some information and am sure some of you have already
solved the
> > problem so to save me from reinventing the wheel.
> > We have a problem with sending audio from one site to another, we
would
> > like to use the 2.4 gig linking equipment thats avalible locally
but
> > need to convert the Audio stream to digital signal but don't know
the
> > best or most ecconomical way to go about it any help appreciated
> > Charlie Fraser
> > Oamaru Heritage Radio 88.3
> > charlie@
> >
>

Have a look at the Barix instreamer/extreamer on www.barix.com

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I need some information and am sure some of you have already solved the
> problem so to save  me from reinventing the wheel.
> We have a problem with sending audio from one site to another, we would
> like to use the 2.4 gig linking equipment thats avalible locally but
> need to convert the Audio stream to digital signal but don't know the
> best or most ecconomical way to go about it any help appreciated
> Charlie Fraser
> Oamaru Heritage Radio 88.3
> charlie@...
>

It seems like you are trying to reinvent the wheel here. A cheap PC
already has an audio to digital converter built in - the soundcard
does this for you. Use one at each end of your 2.4GHz wifi system and
the Vypress Tonecast software and you have a quality stereo link.






--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi thanks for the reply   see www.acreselectronics.co.nz for link
> details and was thinking along the line of a analog to digital
> converter as we dont have computer avalible as they use too much
> battery power for the remote sites.
>  I have found reference to Dayton Audio analog to digital converter
> but have not found a suplirer who will ship to NZ.
> Regards Charlie
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "wireless.radio"
> <happydayradio@> wrote:
> >
> > What sort of 2.4GHz linking gear do you have?
> >
> > Vypress Tonecast is software that allows streaming of audio over
> LAN -
> > if you set up a wifi link, you can use this software at each end and
> > it works extremely well.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > > I need some information and am sure some of you have already
> solved the
> > > problem so to save  me from reinventing the wheel.
> > > We have a problem with sending audio from one site to another, we
> would
> > > like to use the 2.4 gig linking equipment thats avalible locally
> but
> > > need to convert the Audio stream to digital signal but don't know
> the
> > > best or most ecconomical way to go about it any help appreciated
> > > Charlie Fraser
> > > Oamaru Heritage Radio 88.3
> > > charlie@
> > >
> >
>

Hi thanks for the reply   see www.acreselectronics.co.nz for link
details and was thinking along the line of a analog to digital
converter as we dont have computer avalible as they use too much
battery power for the remote sites.
  I have found reference to Dayton Audio analog to digital converter
but have not found a suplirer who will ship to NZ.
Regards Charlie



--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "wireless.radio"
<happydayradio@...> wrote:
>
> What sort of 2.4GHz linking gear do you have?
>
> Vypress Tonecast is software that allows streaming of audio over
LAN -
> if you set up a wifi link, you can use this software at each end and
> it works extremely well.
>
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > I need some information and am sure some of you have already
solved the
> > problem so to save  me from reinventing the wheel.
> > We have a problem with sending audio from one site to another, we
would
> > like to use the 2.4 gig linking equipment thats avalible locally
but
> > need to convert the Audio stream to digital signal but don't know
the
> > best or most ecconomical way to go about it any help appreciated
> > Charlie Fraser
> > Oamaru Heritage Radio 88.3
> > charlie@
> >
>

What sort of 2.4GHz linking gear do you have?

Vypress Tonecast is software that allows streaming of audio over LAN -
if you set up a wifi link, you can use this software at each end and
it works extremely well.




--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Charlie Fraser" <charlie@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I need some information and am sure some of you have already solved the
> problem so to save  me from reinventing the wheel.
> We have a problem with sending audio from one site to another, we would
> like to use the 2.4 gig linking equipment thats avalible locally but
> need to convert the Audio stream to digital signal but don't know the
> best or most ecconomical way to go about it any help appreciated
> Charlie Fraser
> Oamaru Heritage Radio 88.3
> charlie@...
>

Hi All,
I need some information and am sure some of you have already solved the
problem so to save  me from reinventing the wheel.
We have a problem with sending audio from one site to another, we would
like to use the 2.4 gig linking equipment thats avalible locally but
need to convert the Audio stream to digital signal but don't know the
best or most ecconomical way to go about it any help appreciated
Charlie Fraser
Oamaru Heritage Radio 88.3
charlie@...

----- Original Message -----
From: Ross Levis
To: LPFM_Radio@...
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband frequencies


>That's right.  Who's watching movies on Blue Ray HD discs.  I think I'll be
>using DVD for several more >years.

I am. Love them. Purchased a PS3 to play them and can also use it to browse
the net and as a media player from my other networked computers especially
those running VISTA as it automatically finds all the media on my network.


Keith MCR

One thing we can learn from past experience is that things take a lot
longer to change than you might think.

I think WirelessRadio is right in saying that FM wills till be around
for some time.

Remember back in the 50s and 60s they predicted that in the year 2000
we'd all be travelling in personal transport bubbles that float around
in the sky.

While Apple ditched the floppy disk in the late nineties I still see
other brands shipping computers with floppy disks.

In the 80s we predicted a paperless office by the turn of the
century.  That never happened.

Electric cars have been "just around the corner" and "within 5-10
years" for about two decades now.

When FM became popular it was predicted AM would be wiped off the
dial.  Many stations still use AM.

Email was to have killed the postal system.  Postal services are
actually doing well thanks to eBay which has vastly increased the
amount of parcel movements.

We seem to have this poor ability to predict the pace at which things
change.  Yes, new technology is always advancing but its impact on the
real world happens at a much slower pace than we think.

Edwin.
Mix FM.



On 23/03/2008, at 11:06 PM, wireless.radio wrote:

> Yes, technology does change, and we must change with it. I think FM
> broadcast will be around for some time to come however. It's still a
> viable medium and not everyone wants to choose what they want to hear
> - some just enjoy listening to some "canned radio" for a while, and an
> announcer who comes on and chats for a bit.
> NZ is full of FM receivers and not everyone will want to rush out and
> purchase a satellite equipped unit - in the short term anyway.
>
> I started my time in broadcasting in the 80s - right in the depths of
> the analog days, and there I will stay. If it means operating an FM
> station for the rest of my days then so be it. It will be my shrine to
> "real radio".
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I strongly believe LPFM has nothing to worry about. Many stream on
> the Internet already. Or are we still focused on the old school way of
> delivering pre-determined live programming to listeners?
> >
> > Those comments you mentioned from TRN sound like telco's during the
> coax submarine cable era, satellite (DAB in my analogy) was just more
> cost effective then along came the future, fibre, light (pun intended)
> years head.
> >
> > On the contrary, change is the law of life. Control over radio
> listeners is becoming less and less with on-demand and commercial free
> programming on the Internet. Then there's the cellphone/mp3 player, I
> don't know many who haven't got this and most if they don't know are
> already asking how do I get my MP3's on my car stereo.
> >
> > There's an anoying word to commercial operators that comes to mind
> with looking possitively in to the future and IP convergence, being
> 'choice'.
> >
> > In 10 years time I hope to have IP on-demand. That's it. Not TV or
> radio in the conventional sense. Perhaps appart from live interactive
> education specialty programming etc... For everything else, portable
> entertainment and on-demand, what I want when I want it. Not at
> scheduled times like everyone had before the TV set. DVD and MP3
> today, tomorrow, IP on-demand.
> >
> > The day analogue switches off, won't be to soon in my opinion. It
> makes us hold on to old ideas and stagnate.
> >
> > In saying that, I believe it'll be a sad end to an era for the
> emotional attachment to broadcast memories.
> >
> > Gavin.
> >

Yes, technology does change, and we must change with it. I think FM
broadcast will be around for some time to come however. It's still a
viable medium and not everyone wants to choose what they want to hear
- some just enjoy listening to some "canned radio" for a while, and an
announcer who comes on and chats for a bit.
NZ is full of FM receivers and not everyone will want to rush out and
purchase a satellite equipped unit - in the short term anyway.

I started my time in broadcasting in the 80s - right in the depths of
the analog days, and there I will stay. If it means operating an FM
station for the rest of my days then so be it. It will be my shrine to
"real radio".





--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Gavin Stephens" <gstephens@...>
wrote:
>
> I strongly believe LPFM has nothing to worry about. Many stream on
the Internet already. Or are we still focused on the old school way of
delivering pre-determined live programming to listeners?
>
> Those comments you mentioned from TRN sound like telco's during the
coax submarine cable era, satellite (DAB in my analogy) was just more
cost effective then along came the future, fibre, light (pun intended)
years head.
>
> On the contrary, change is the law of life. Control over radio
listeners is becoming less and less with on-demand and commercial free
programming on the Internet. Then there's the cellphone/mp3 player, I
don't know many who haven't got this and most if they don't know are
already asking how do I get my MP3's on my car stereo.
>
> There's an anoying word to commercial operators that comes to mind
with looking possitively in to the future and IP convergence, being
'choice'.
>
> In 10 years time I hope to have IP on-demand. That's it. Not TV or
radio in the conventional sense. Perhaps appart from live interactive
education specialty programming etc... For everything else, portable
entertainment and on-demand, what I want when I want it. Not at
scheduled times like everyone had before the TV set. DVD and MP3
today, tomorrow, IP on-demand.
>
> The day analogue switches off, won't be to soon in my opinion. It
makes us hold on to old ideas and stagnate.
>
> In saying that, I believe it'll be a sad end to an era for the
emotional attachment to broadcast memories.
>
> Gavin.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: wireless.radio
>   To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:19 AM
>   Subject: Re: [LPFM] Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
>   From some discussion I have had with TRN, DAB (satellite radio) is
>   going to roll out some time in the next 5 years or so - but they plan
>   to continue to run terrestrial (FM) alongside it for at least 10 years
>   - "apparently". [Nothing is set in stone in the radio industry!]
>
>   Once the larger stations move away from FM, it will see a wholesale
>   freeing up of the FM band, but it's anyone's guess at this stage as to
>   what will happen with it.
>
>   It is possible that we will have a situation somewhat akin to the USA
>   - where low power operations are allocated a block below say 95MHz and
>   higher power stations are given frequencies above this.
>
>   In any case there is going to be a lot more room on the FM band. I
>   doubt it will be a "free for all" as there will still be many
>   broadcasters who can not afford to shift to satellite operations and
>   will continue to use FM as their platform.
>
>   The radio scene over the next 5 years is going to be an interesting
>   one, especially with the revision of all licences in 2011.
>
>   --- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@> wrote:
>   >
>   > 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@...
>   > <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "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%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>   > [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...
>   > <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> ]
>   > > On Behalf Of wireless.radio
>   > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
>   > > To: LPFM_Radio@...
>   <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>   >
>   > > Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
>   > frequencies
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > --- In LPFM_Radio@...
>   > <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>   > > <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.
>   > >
>   >
>

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

From: wireless.radio

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 9:19 AM

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

From some discussion I have had with TRN, DAB (satellite radio) is
going to roll out some time in the next 5 years or so - but they plan
to continue to run terrestrial (FM) alongside it for at least 10 years
- "apparently". [Nothing is set in stone in the radio industry!]

Once the larger stations move away from FM, it will see a wholesale
freeing up of the FM band, but it's anyone's guess at this stage as to
what will happen with it.

It is possible that we will have a situation somewhat akin to the USA
- where low power operations are allocated a block below say 95MHz and
higher power stations are given frequencies above this.

In any case there is going to be a lot more room on the FM band. I
doubt it will be a "free for all" as there will still be many
broadcasters who can not afford to shift to satellite operations and
will continue to use FM as their platform.

The radio scene over the next 5 years is going to be an interesting
one, especially with the revision of all licences in 2011.

--- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au, "Ross Levis" <ross@...> wrote:
>
> 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@yahoogroups.com.au
[mailto:LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au]
> On Behalf Of piratefm2007
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2008 1:31 a.m.
> To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
> Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
frequencies
>
>
>
> --- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "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@yahoogroups.com.au
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> [mailto:LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> ]
> > On Behalf Of wireless.radio
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
> > To: LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
<mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>
> > Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
> frequencies
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In LPFM_Radio@yahoogroups.com.au
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> > <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.
> >
>

Sorry, forget the other email addy, try this one, it works!! bheath.nz@...

Herb.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Herb" <foralaugh@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> If there is anyone on this list who either operates or owns an LPFM station
within
> Palmerston North, could you please contact me off list as I'm thinking of
starting one up
> and I think we might need to do a rejig of frequencies prior to cause the
least amount of
> distruption...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Herb.
>

Hi all,

If there is anyone on this list who either operates or owns an LPFM station
within
Palmerston North, could you please contact me off list as I'm thinking of
starting one up
and I think we might need to do a rejig of frequencies prior to cause the least
amount of
distruption...

Cheers,

Herb.

From some discussion I have had with TRN, DAB (satellite radio) is
going to roll out some time in the next 5 years or so - but they plan
to continue to run terrestrial (FM) alongside it for at least 10 years
- "apparently". [Nothing is set in stone in the radio industry!]

Once the larger stations move away from FM, it will see a wholesale
freeing up of the FM band, but it's anyone's guess at this stage as to
what will happen with it.

It is possible that we will have a situation somewhat akin to the USA
- where low power operations are allocated a block below say 95MHz and
higher power stations are given frequencies above this.

In any case there is going to be a lot more room on the FM band. I
doubt it will be a "free for all" as there will still be many
broadcasters who can not afford to shift to satellite operations and
will continue to use FM as their platform.

The radio scene over the next 5 years is going to be an interesting
one, especially with the revision of all licences in 2011.







--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Ross Levis" <ross@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "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%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> [mailto:LPFM_Radio@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au> ]
> > On Behalf Of wireless.radio
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 March 2008 9:48 p.m.
> > To: LPFM_Radio@...
<mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
>
> > Subject: [LPFM] Re: Commercial licence holders using guardband
> frequencies
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In LPFM_Radio@...
> <mailto:LPFM_Radio%40yahoogroups.com.au>
> > <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.
> >
>

Yup, all shut up shop. Don't know why though....

Professionally Tacky wrote:
> Does anyone know what has happened to Eccentric FM out in Howick?
> Apparently they were shut down... and I still cant get hold of memories
> FM, theyre still overpowering and killing out our range nag nag nag :p
>
>
>

Does anyone know what has happened to Eccentric FM out in Howick?
Apparently they were shut down... and I still cant get hold of memories
FM, theyre still overpowering and killing out our range nag nag nag :p

regards,
Kermath

MoshBox Radio
106.7 FM Auckland
""professionally tacky""

----- 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

--- 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.
>

--- 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?

--- 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.

--- 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.

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.
> >
>