NAB: Nothing New In LPAM Petition
By Tony Sanders
Monday, November 21 2005
Monday, November 21 2005
Published on AllBusiness.com
The NAB said today in comments filed with the FCC that a new petition to develop a Low Power AM service offers "no data or analysis" to explain why an LPAM service is "any more technically feasible now than it was five years ago."
The NAB wrote in its filed comments that the FCC rejected pleas to develop an LPAM service five years ago because the nature of how AM radio works makes that service a "poor choice."
The NAB also argues that an LPAM service "threatens to undermine the Commission's efforts to clean up and improve the AM band" and says that such a service would create "channel congestion and interference."
Finally, the NAB says that "it would be particularly unwise" to create an LPAM service, just when there is a transition to digital radio. "Interference created by additional stations in the AM band, even low power stations, has the potential to delay, if not, cripple the digital transition by forcing receive [sic] manufacturers to reconsider product development."
The original petition was filed by the Amherst Alliance of Michigan. Today was the final day on which comments could be filed. Parties interested in reading the filed comments should reference RM-11287.
The NAB wrote in its filed comments that the FCC rejected pleas to develop an LPAM service five years ago because the nature of how AM radio works makes that service a "poor choice."
The NAB also argues that an LPAM service "threatens to undermine the Commission's efforts to clean up and improve the AM band" and says that such a service would create "channel congestion and interference."
Finally, the NAB says that "it would be particularly unwise" to create an LPAM service, just when there is a transition to digital radio. "Interference created by additional stations in the AM band, even low power stations, has the potential to delay, if not, cripple the digital transition by forcing receive [sic] manufacturers to reconsider product development."
The original petition was filed by the Amherst Alliance of Michigan. Today was the final day on which comments could be filed. Parties interested in reading the filed comments should reference RM-11287.
