Does the upcoming LPFM/Translator NPRM invalidate LPFM Tool search results or just provide more opportunities?
The current production version of the LPFM Channel Search Tools (both the PC based and mobile) assume by default that all pending translator applications are still in place. This means that any proposed plan that would suggest a new LPFM opportunity would have application priority against any existing facility record (even if just a pending original construction permit application), the tool would only display fewer opportunities then what may be possible.
The current production version of the LPFM Channel Search Tools assumes FCC Rules changes to eliminate third adjacent channels and to provide advisories to listeners when LPFM stations would otherwise be short spaced on third adjacent channels (at co-channel distance for full power stations in New Jersey). The Tools also offer suggestions for channels likely to get a second adjacent waiver (those that are only short spaced by second adjacent) if no clear channels are found.
The Tools currently support a 10 watt and 100 watt non-directional service at 30m HAAT (the current LP-10 and LP-100 services) as well as a "concept" 250 watt at 30m HAAT service. In the long term, REC is supporting a concept we call LP-FLEX that would allow LPFM stations to use contour overlap and power/height limits similar to FM translators. Other options support other REC proposed changes such as elimination of IF protections (on LP-100 or less) and overlap protection to LPTV channel 6 (REC also proposes eliminating all protections to LPTV on channel 6 to bring LPFM on a level playing field with FM Translators).
As mentioned in our original release, the LPFM/Translator NPRM will be evaluated and we may add code to allow users of the Tools to select availability based on the different options proposed by the FCC. The Tool currently supports REC's "2x70" settlement proposal. We are not aware yet if that proposal is one of the four options listed.
