February 14, 2018 at 12:18 pm #34862cbaravelliSpectator
You’re right. Thanx, semoochie.
Obviously, I’m still confused. With 10 FCC FM Classes and four Regional Bandplans it’s easy to be.February 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm #34871Andy BrownParticipant
Since there are no new Class C’s of any sort allowed in Zones I or Ia, it will probably not be named C4 unless they do not allow the new class in those two zones or they may add it as a C4 for Zone II and call it B2 in Zones I and Ia. Or as suggested call it Class A and if you can’t exceed 6 kW you become an A2 and if you can’t exceed 3 kW you become an A3.
Also, there are a lot of rules that are different for new stations (or major changes as this would be for existing Class A’s) in the reserved band (88 – 92) where many of the Class A’s are, anymore. In the reserved band, all classes in all zones use 60 dBu for primary coverage (this differs for B and B1 in the non reserved band 92 – 108 in Zone I and IA which use 54 dBu and 57 dBu, respectively). Also, in the reserved band, it’s all about contour overlap whereas in the non reserved band it’s mostly about distances in the station table. Non comms in the non reserved band live by non reserved band rules. The upper stations in the reserved band (91.5, 91.7, 91.9) have to deal with both depending on whether you’re showing protection to upper or lower adjacents. And . . . if you propose a station on one of these upper channels near Canada or Mexico, you’ll be drawing maps well into the wee hours. Been there. Done that. It’s awfully tedious and one easily can get confused.
73.215October 11, 2018 at 2:32 pm #39728Andy BrownParticipant
It’s clear from comments filed with the FCC that the lines being drawn on both sides are deep and arguments passionate.
If the FCC opens a C4 FM rulemaking, it will do so against the wishes of the National Association of Broadcasters. The group is on record as being against the idea and says such a change would bring additional interference to the band following the rapid expansion of FM translators.
The NAB and others in the industry have also expressed concern about another part of the NOI, a triggering system that could result in Class A stations with under-maximum facilities being involuntarily reclassified.
In reply comments to the C4 NOI, NAB wrote, “Both proposals should be dismissed because they will reduce the technical integrity of the FM band at a time when broadcasters already face interference that hinders service and their ability to compete in an increasingly crowded audio marketplace.”
It’s not clear if FCC Chairman Pai is as eager as he once appeared to be to move the football down the field for C4. He sparked the hopes for the creation of the new class with comments he made at the 2016 Radio Show in Nashville, Tenn.
Pai, a commissioner, but not yet chairman at the time, said that C4 was an idea worth considering, and he wished the commission would take the next step in the administrative process and issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
NAB said in its comments that the “SSR proposal could be especially problematic for FM translators, which are a critical component of radio service.”October 11, 2018 at 4:39 pm #39732semoochieParticipant
I need to revisit my previous post: ““C4 would be better identified as A2.” No because “A2” would suggest a lower class than “A” whereas “C4” would be higher. There is a plethora of “Class A” stations still limited to 3KW. It would make sense to rename those stations “Class A2”.” I didn’t notice at the time that not only was the previous poster going down the scale, he was also skipping a step. I should have said, “There is a plethora of “Class A” stations still limited to 3KW. It would make sense to rename those stations “Class A1”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.