• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Central Coast KMBY Monterey

michael hagerty said:
The photo is Verne. So he's back to just being "Chris Edwards". The original's dead now and can't sue.

This guy (two-thirds of the phrase I have in mind).

kmbyradio.com

KMBY Radio | 1240 AM & 95.9 FM | Monterey Bay, CA

kmbyradio.com kmbyradio.com

If you go to the website, you'll see a row of tabs across the top right---including "AM Shows" and FM Shows"---he splits the FM from the AM every Friday night from 8 to midnight for "Funked Up Fridays with Markalicious" on the FM, and it appears also on Wednesdays from 9-10 AM, where the AM carries "The Cyber Guys Fred and Chris" while the usual 6-10 AM morning show continues on the FM.

Both of those smack of barter shows---what are the rules, given that Verne holds the license via a non-profit?


Oh, and he carries the late (and in California) legendary Art Laboe---which he misspells "Leboe" on the website.




@BossRadioDJ (in the words of Conway Twitty), where are ya, son?
Click to expand...
I should defer to someone who deals with compliance issues, but I think as long as the stations are licensed for commercial operation, there shouldn’t be an issue as far as the FCC would be concerned. Originating a broadcast on a translator would be an issue of FCC concern, of course.

The station (stations?) is/are very deliberately trying to be a throwback to Top-40 formatics, even if the playlist is more aligned with classic hits. The announcers all seem to come across as “LOOK AT ME!! I’M A DEEEE-JAAAYYY!!” even though that approach is very much out of date, and ignores something that good personalities knew even when radio was more personality-forward than it is now: your job is to entertain, but not to BE the entertainment. The “look at me!” approach was rampant in small markets 35, 40, 45 years ago but that’s pretty much gone now…for the better.

Of course, it’s a throwback, but not everything about radio was great back in the Top-40 era.
 
KilowattKat said:
Is the FCC very responsive to complaints filed on their website?
Click to expand...

You’ll never know. When you submit a complaint, you get messages amounting to (1) don’t follow up with us, and (2) we won’t tell you the outcome of your complaint. It’s as if the message was, “Don’t bother us; we have paperwork to do and paper clips to count!” There probably are people who would be pests with minor complaints, but it came across to me as expressing a desire not to hear from the public at large. Working in the public sector means you have to deal with the public every once in a while even if the public can be annoying. Instead, what the FCC’s response to a complaint submission demonstrates is bureaucratic attitude at its finest. (I found all this out when I filed a complaint about KMXA’s weird tone on 1090 last year; there was eventually an STA regarding problems with that station’s nighttime facilities, but I have no idea whether my complaint was any kind of factor at all.)

I wouldn’t file a complaint on this particular situation anyway, as I don’t live in California any more and have no desire to become the Albert David of the Rocky Mountains.
 
Th
Mark Roberts said:
You’ll never know. When you submit a complaint, you get messages amounting to (1) don’t follow up with us, and (2) we won’t tell you the outcome of your complaint. It’s as if the message was, “Don’t bother us; we have paperwork to do and paper clips to count!” There probably are people who would be pests with minor complaints, but it came across to me as expressing a desire not to hear from the public at large. Working in the public sector means you have to deal with the public every once in a while even if the public can be annoying. Instead, what the FCC’s response to a complaint submission demonstrates is bureaucratic attitude at its finest. (I found all this out when I filed a complaint about KMXA’s weird tone on 1090 last year; there was eventually an STA regarding problems with that station’s nighttime facilities, but I have no idea whether my complaint was any kind of factor at all.)

I wouldn’t file a complaint on this particular situation anyway, as I don’t live in California any more and have no desire to become the Albert David of the Rocky Mountains.
Click to expand...
This particular KMBY situation is so blatant about violating the rule of an FM translator not allowed to originate separate programming from the primary station, that I felt it needed to be addressed, so I submitted a complaint. I'm not one to tattle tale, but with most broadcasters playing by the rules, and this outfit openly and KNOWINGLY breaking the rules, well ..

I'm sure a lot of AM/FM translator operators would love to split it into 2 different stations, to increase revenue, but instead follow the rules. KMBY shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
 
RF101 said:
The translator in question was approved today for a move to the northside of Mount Toro The antenna will give a much more narrow beam towards the Peninsula; two log-periodics with half-wave spacing. Salinas is no longer in the coverage area. The frequency changes from 95.9 to 106.7 . "K294DN" is the new callsign versus the former K240EV.

Click to expand...
It probably won't be as much of a presence in Santa Cruz, either.
 
I uploaded a 23-minute recording from Friday night, starting at 9:40 pm, switching back and forth between KMBY(AM) and K240EV. You get to hear it the way I heard it, a block from the beach in Santa Cruz. The FM quality is so-so; there's a bit of noise on AM that may have come from my audio recorder. IDs, or something resembling IDs, come at about 19m55s into the recording. Source receiver was a Qodosen DX-286. I have made no edits to this file; it's also a WAV file. Keep in mind that the program on AM and FM should have been the same, but it wasn't.

 
Would you send a copy to the FCC, please?
 
It gets weirder.

I'm going through the recordings I made on the Santa Cruz trip. On that untagged wav file that I posted a few days ago, at about 22 minutes, there's a legal ID voiced by "Markalicious". This was the broadcast on the FM translator that wasn't simulcast on the parent AM station, which was carrying a Monterey high-school football game. "Markalicious" starts with a legal ID for KMBY (which he's not on), KMBY-FM (which doesn't exist), and K240EV (which he is on, miracle of miracles) and then goes on to do the legal ID for stations in Fresno and Hanford, and an ID for a translator in South Fresno, whose calls are garbled as "KG272".

The South Fresno translator (K272GD) exists. The Fresno station does not appear to exist, judging by the listing of stations for Fresno generated at fccdata.org. A website for "kkdjradio.com" is mentioned and that site says "KKDJ" is broadcast on translators at 100.7 and 102.3.

FCC data on primary stations for translators doesn't always appear to be accurate, so I can't draw any conclusions there. But KKDJ are the call letters for a digital class-A TV station in Fresno. The Hanford station is given as "KNGS", which are the former calls for what's now KIGS, Radio Punjab. I tend to disbelieve that Radio Punjab would be carrying an R&B oldies show.

I don't think there's anything illegal about broadcasting a legal ID for a station you're not actually broadcasting on. But it's bizarre.
 
Mark Roberts said:
It gets weirder.

I'm going through the recordings I made on the Santa Cruz trip. On that untagged wav file that I posted a few days ago, at about 22 minutes, there's a legal ID voiced by "Markalicious". This was the broadcast on the FM translator that wasn't simulcast on the parent AM station, which was carrying a Monterey high-school football game. "Markalicious" starts with a legal ID for KMBY (which he's not on), KMBY-FM (which doesn't exist), and K240EV (which he is on, miracle of miracles) and then goes on to do the legal ID for stations in Fresno and Hanford, and an ID for a translator in South Fresno, whose calls are garbled as "KG272".

The South Fresno translator (K272GD) exists. The Fresno station does not appear to exist, judging by the listing of stations for Fresno generated at fccdata.org. A website for "kkdjradio.com" is mentioned and that site says "KKDJ" is broadcast on translators at 100.7 and 102.3.

FCC data on primary stations for translators doesn't always appear to be accurate, so I can't draw any conclusions there. But KKDJ are the call letters for a digital class-A TV station in Fresno. The Hanford station is given as "KNGS", which are the former calls for what's now KIGS, Radio Punjab. I tend to disbelieve that Radio Punjab would be carrying an R&B oldies show.

I don't think there's anything illegal about broadcasting a legal ID for a station you're not actually broadcasting on. But it's bizarre.
Click to expand...
KKDJ-CA and KMBY-LD are LPTV's but air completely different content than the radio counterpart. So, no cross-service is apparent. The TV versions of those stations are aired on Cocola Broadcasting TV Channels. The Licensee ownership is also completely different from the radio side.

KNGS call letters were assigned to Hanford after the loss of KNGS Coalinga in the matter of 03-152 FCC Enforcement Bureau vs William Zawila et. al.
 
mendotatech said:
KKDJ-CA and KMBY-LD are LPTV's but air completely different content than the radio counterpart. So, no cross-service is apparent. The TV versions of those stations are aired on Cocola Broadcasting TV Channels. The Licensee ownership is also completely different from the radio side.

KNGS call letters were assigned to Hanford after the loss of KNGS Coalinga in the matter of 03-152 FCC Enforcement Bureau vs William Zawila et. al.
Click to expand...

but there has been some partnership between cocola and vern chris edwards white before
 
Mark Roberts said:
It gets weirder.

I'm going through the recordings I made on the Santa Cruz trip. On that untagged wav file that I posted a few days ago, at about 22 minutes, there's a legal ID voiced by "Markalicious". This was the broadcast on the FM translator that wasn't simulcast on the parent AM station, which was carrying a Monterey high-school football game. "Markalicious" starts with a legal ID for KMBY (which he's not on), KMBY-FM (which doesn't exist), and K240EV (which he is on, miracle of miracles) and then goes on to do the legal ID for stations in Fresno and Hanford, and an ID for a translator in South Fresno, whose calls are garbled as "KG272".

The South Fresno translator (K272GD) exists. The Fresno station does not appear to exist, judging by the listing of stations for Fresno generated at fccdata.org. A website for "kkdjradio.com" is mentioned and that site says "KKDJ" is broadcast on translators at 100.7 and 102.3.

FCC data on primary stations for translators doesn't always appear to be accurate, so I can't draw any conclusions there. But KKDJ are the call letters for a digital class-A TV station in Fresno. The Hanford station is given as "KNGS", which are the former calls for what's now KIGS, Radio Punjab. I tend to disbelieve that Radio Punjab would be carrying an R&B oldies show.

I don't think there's anything illegal about broadcasting a legal ID for a station you're not actually broadcasting on. But it's bizarre.
Click to expand...
The 102.3 station in Fresno is no longer Verne White's station, it is owned by Gary Cocola, and will soon be a translator for KXEX 1550 AM
 
Mark Roberts said:
I explained my rationale upthread. tl;dr: the FCC's interface gives the strong appearance of not wanting to hear from the public.
Click to expand...
Hey, I actually received a reply back from the FCC.. . It's been assigned a ticket #, and I will be contacted if further information is required. My complaint is being reviewed by the appropriate bureau, blah, blah, blah.

Well see just how effective the FCC is at following through with complaints.
 
KilowattKat said:
Hey, I actually received a reply back from the FCC.. . It's been assigned a ticket #, and I will be contacted if further information is required. My complaint is being reviewed by the appropriate bureau, blah, blah, blah.

Well see just how effective the FCC is at following through with complaints.
Click to expand...

I hope they just give it to an eager newbie during a slow week. Can you imagine Verne having to answer actual official questions?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom