After the attempts of some to devise up an LPAM Service, of which in the original documents of the last petition in FCC Docket RM-11287. Some critics feel there is a lack of view, of realistic radio engineering and hence allot of complicated administration requirements to service such a scheme. It has been felt that something more realistic and easier to administer should be studied and proposed. Some kind of feasible LPAM Service is better than none is the consensus.
The suggested LPAM rule making in FCC Docket RM-11287 seems to also lack a view of how the FCC is going to fund the Administration needs of such a new service. Particularly in light of it's suggestion that the licenses should not be auctioned off to the highest bidders. Which is something that most all of us agree with. The FCC needs to handle licensing for LPAM itself. And so a schematic for FCC Service revenue should be suggested to the FCC for them to ponder. And the revenue generation should be profitable for them and thus in turn aid the cause of LPAM.
The majority of the comments so far weighed in here by others with the owner of this site is in favour of no auctioning, and is also in favor of the idea that a LPAM Service of some kind is better than no LPAM service at all.
Being as democratic in the project as possible, it is not possible to include every view into a requirement for a simple service scheme. Overly complicating the design of a LPAM Service will not serve the cause of LPAM if overly complicated petitions are sent in. Particularly ones that seem to contradict the vision of the petitions scheme from one page and comment to the next.
Extremely off the wall suggestion have been made. And so exotic views of how the service should be have also been suggested. However if those views do not fit in with the technical requirements of the science of radio technology, then those views should justifiably be tossed out.
The front page of this web site details some technical specification matters that you have to adhere to, although some suggestions have been made in some forums for things other than acceptable specifications for a good working LPAM Service. You can not go against type acceptance practices and sell that to the FCC. Such unfounded suggestions will be dead in the water from the get go. You want some good selling points and not bad ones.
Overly complicating the requirements for the Commission's Administrative end to handle this service, is not a good selling point. So let us be realistic and also simple and do a good job. If we fail it will not be because we did not have a good vision and a good service support plan. And it will not be because we did not have some very good technical specifications.
Who knows how many petitions it will take to establish LPAM? In those future petitions it should always be demonstrated to the FCC the potential for the revenue and so a revenue scheme should be included. Some sort of service support mechanism should be suggested for the Administration's needs in it's servicing requirements. The FCC is a business and the bottom line is the funding of it's services and the matter of man hours of labor involved for the service and the wages thereof. etc. If there is no realistic mechanism for financial support the service is infeasible to start up. It needs funding support. So you can not overly complicate the scheme of the service else it will not be economically feasible.
And it will not be economically feasible for the average interested person if the service has it's licenses auctioned off to the highest bidder. The LPAM service is not for a high powered station. And so, the licenses should not be anywheres near the same amount as higher powered stations. There should be a reasonable fee level established and the FCC needs to handle the licensing itself. And they can do so with enough financial support built into the LPAM Service. Which can be demonstrated in the text of the forth coming petition here at this site.