"Michael R. Batchelor" <michaelb@uunet.uu.net.uucp> (02/19/90)
> > I believe that rec.radio.noncomm would deal with the _programming_ of > noncommercial _broadcast_ stations (88-92 mHz FM. primarily). > It seems pretty obvious to me that the discussion for this new group was woefully inadequate. I'm not a usenet guru, but I don't remember ANY serious discussion of this group. Much less a clear explanation of its proposed charter. I would say a call for votes is out of order just for lack of protocol. Creating the new group would probably cause a big stink. Please direct me to the discussion if I'm wrong. Michael -- Michael Batchelor / \113\101\067\132\116\132 uunet!wshb!mikebat!michaelb Back when *I* got *MY* license *WE* had to pass the code test. And I thought it was a damn stupid idea then too.
Phil Hughes <fyl@ssc.uucp> (02/21/90)
In article <32018@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, cccph@eel.cs.ucla.edu (Charles Hobbs) writes: > I believe that rec.radio.noncomm would deal with the _programming_ of > noncommercial _broadcast_ stations (88-92 mHz FM. primarily). > Examples: "Breaking" new music groups on college radio stations > Fund-raising techniques for non-comm radio stations > Announcements of new non-comm stations/programs > Censorship of non-comm programming. I like your description and the idea. r.r.s is a "reception" group. The difference between this and someone interested in the realities of non-commercial broadcasting is significant. It is also something I am very interested in discussing. In particular, I have ideas about a non-commerical station locally I would like to discuss with others in other areas. So, yes, I think it would be a useful group. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl (206)527-3385
Mark Zenier <markz@ssc.uucp> (02/24/90)
In article <283@mikebat.UUCP|, michaelb@mikebat.UUCP (Michael R. Batchelor) writes: | > I believe that rec.radio.noncomm would deal with the _programming_ of | > noncommercial _broadcast_ stations (88-92 mHz FM. primarily). | It seems pretty obvious to me that the discussion for this new group was | woefully inadequate. I'm not a usenet guru, but I don't remember ANY | serious discussion of this group. Much less a clear explanation of its | proposed charter. I would say a call for votes is out of order just | for lack of protocol. Creating the new group would probably cause a big stink. | | Please direct me to the discussion if I'm wrong. The discussion on rec.radio.noncomm was before and lead to the rec.radio.misc proposal. Some 3 to 5 weeks ago. It is legitimate. Given the amount of crap in news.groups, I'm not surprised anyone missed it. markz@ssc.uucp
Tim Pozar <@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU:pozar@hoptoad> (02/28/90)
> I believe that rec.radio.noncomm would deal with the _programming_ of > noncommercial _broadcast_ stations (88-92 mHz FM. primarily). Uh, noncommercial stations are not restricted to 88-92MHz. You'll find plenty of them between 92-108Mhz and the AM Standard Broadcast band (aka Medium Wave). A good example is KPFA-FM at 94.1MHz. Tim -- Tim Pozar Try also... Internet: pozar@toad.com Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
Steve Lamont <@BBN.COM,@duck:spl@mcnc.org.uucp> (02/28/90)
In article <10498@hoptoad.uucp> pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Pozar) writes: >> I believe that rec.radio.noncomm would deal with the _programming_ of >> noncommercial _broadcast_ stations (88-92 mHz FM. primarily). > > Uh, noncommercial stations are not restricted to 88-92MHz. >You'll find plenty of them between 92-108Mhz and the AM Standard >Broadcast band (aka Medium Wave). True. However the original poster didn't say that noncommercials were *restricted* to 88-92 MHz. Once upon a time, that part of the band was reserved for noncommercial stations -- educational broadcasters, primarily. In other words, you could be noncommercial anywhere on the band but you were specifically restricted by the terms of the license to be noncommercial if you were in the 88-92 MHz part of the band. These were generally low power operations and (I think) may have had some fairly low ceiling on their ERP. In these days of deregulation I don't know whether this is true any longer. Does anyone know that the current FCC Rules and Regulations say? Is the FCC now granting commerical broadcasters licenses in the old "Educational" part of the FM band? spl (the p stands for public broadcasting is in my blood...) -- Steve Lamont, sciViGuy (919) 248-1120 EMail: spl@ncsc.org NCSC, Box 12732, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 "I love you for your beauty; love me although I am ugly." Cervantes, _Don_Quixote_
Tim Pozar <@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU:pozar@hoptoad> (03/01/90)
In article <1699@speedy.mcnc.org> spl@duck.ncsc.org (Steve Lamont) writes: >In other words, you could be noncommercial anywhere on the band but you were >specifically restricted by the terms of the license to be noncommercial if you >were in the 88-92 MHz part of the band. Correct. I meant to point out in my posting, that there are plenty of non-commercial stations located at frequencies other than 88.1-91.9MHz. > >These were generally low power operations and (I think) may have had some >fairly low ceiling on their ERP. In these days of deregulation I don't know >whether this is true any longer. Does anyone know that the current FCC Rules >and Regulations say? Is the FCC now granting commerical broadcasters licenses >in the old "Educational" part of the FM band? No. I doubt that will ever change. re: low-power... Most non-commercial stations didn't have the bucks to go out and buy a new or used 1-50KW transmitter. The lowest power class of station was Class-D. This specified that you must run at least 10w Transmitter Power Output (TPO), but your Effictive Radiated Power (ERP) could be any level you want beyond that. Later, the FCC felt that there were too many 10watters that were just taking up allocations by sitting on them. They abolished the "D" class and told folks that they had to move into Class-A and generate at leasted 100watts. Manufacturers started to build 100 watt amps for their exciters. (One of the worse I've ever dealt with was a Harris 100K(Model number?). It used some pretty highly stressed RF xsistors. We were replaceing modules at least once every three months.) Tim -- Tim Pozar Try also... Internet: pozar@toad.com Fido: 1:125/555 PaBell: (415) 788-3904 USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108
Tim Pozar <@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU:pozar@hoptoad> (03/01/90)
This discussion points out the need for rec.radio.noncomm.
I wouldn't mind if it also discussed commercial radio as
well...
Tim
--
Tim Pozar Try also...
Internet: pozar@toad.com
Fido: 1:125/555
PaBell: (415) 788-3904
USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108