• 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

1110 and 107.9 Legal ID. Observations and questions

So yes, if they wanted to, they could move the WBT alone (not WBT-FM) calls to 107.9. But not while they are still on 1110. There hasn't been any rule changes making WBT-AM a legal set of call letters. So even though nobody at the FCC would really care if they ID'd 1110 as either WBT Charlotte or WBT-AM Charlotte (not both), Since they NEVER say WBT-FM Charlotte the 107.9 frequency isn't being legally ID'd. OR, do they sneak it in somewhere else? They could have dropped it in between two elements in a stopset
 
The FCC doesn't care. There hasn't been a citation of a station for misusing a suffix in an ID in decades. As long as "WBT" and "Charlotte" are both in the ID, it's de facto acceptable, if not de jure compliant with the rules.

Aural legal IDs are, as others here have noted, obsolete in most of the world and very possibly on the FCC's list of rules that may be eliminated sooner or later.
 
And before that, KUT signed on in 1958 as simply KUT.
So is Wikipedia wrong in this case? They say the station signed on as KUT-FM in 1958 and then dropped the -FM suffix in 1982.

I thought the whole reason why three-letter FM calls could be granted anew after the FCC stopped issuing them on AM in 1930 is that with the -FM suffix, it counts as a "five-letter" call sign.
 
So is Wikipedia wrong in this case? They say the station signed on as KUT-FM in 1958 and then dropped the -FM suffix in 1982.

I thought the whole reason why three-letter FM calls could be granted anew after the FCC stopped issuing them on AM in 1930 is that with the -FM suffix, it counts as a "five-letter" call sign.
Wikipedia is not a news source. Anyone can edit it.

This is from the FCC website:


Screenshot 2025-12-18 at 2.18.27 AM.png
 
So KUT dropped the -FM suffix in 1982, and prior to that, the Broadcasting Yearbook listed them as KUT-FM. So what did Wikipedia get wrong?

Wikipedia will always get wrong any "fact" that the editor puts in without checking it first, because Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia any moron can edit".
 
Wikipedia will always get wrong any "fact" that the editor puts in without checking it first, because Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia any moron can edit".
Again, what did Wikipedia get wrong in this case?

A "moron" named Thomas H. White of U.S. Early Radio History edited the article today, but only to add KUT to Wikipedia's list of radio stations with three-letter call signs.
 
Again, what did Wikipedia get wrong in this case?

A "moron" named Thomas H. White of U.S. Early Radio History edited the article today, but only to add KUT to Wikipedia's list of radio stations with three-letter call signs.

You asked a general question about Wikipedia's accuracy. I answered.

There are a lot of good editors there. I happen to have a vetted editor account myself. But Wikipedia is never going to be consistently reliable and accurate so long as anyone can edit, vetted account or not.

Example: My career started way back at the ill-fated KKOG-TV in Ventura in 1968-69. The owner and I were the only two people to have been there through the entire nine months of its existence, and since he passed away several years ago that leaves me as the authoritative source on the station. Imagine my dismay when I at one point found someone had constructed a list of fantasy news program titles "if the station had remained on the air". After I fixed it, I got his IP banned.

But that is just one example of the Wikipedia mantra causing more trouble than it is worth.
 
You asked a general question about Wikipedia's accuracy. I answered.
I didn't mean for it to be general, just specific to that one station's article.

There are a lot of good editors there. I happen to have a vetted editor account myself. But Wikipedia is never going to be consistently reliable and accurate so long as anyone can edit, vetted account or not.
The biggest threat to radio station history on Wikipedia is not some random yahoo vandalizing articles -- they have lower-hanging fruit to pick -- but rather corporate owners seeking to "streamline" an article to minimize a station's past and have it mostly serve as free promotion for its current format.

Or, sometimes a small-time station owner with delusions of grandeur trying to make himself and his station seem more important than it really is, calling their own station things like "a well-trusted local institution for generations".
 
I agree with all of that, but still get annoyed when people add their own personal fiction.

Or a "fact" that they didn't bother to check and then get wrong.

Or -- my biggest pet peeve -- giving credibility to urban legends.

Sorry I misinterpreted your question, but then I tend to have this conversation often when Wikipedia is mentioned.
 
"a well-trusted local institution for generations".
Hey, thanks for listening! 🎉

Just kidding, kev. The only thing you can rely on with us is that you'll almost always hear country music playing, and the trader show starts at promptly 5:30 weekdays.

8 in the morning on Saturdays.
 
My post got duplicated - why can't we delete but ONLY edit our own posts? Suppose I could click "report" and report myself :D
Because if people can edit their posts they can go and change things from what were originally said which defeats the whole purpose of standing by their words. Other board software platforms allow to set a brief editing window to fix typos etc, but this one does not.

And yes, reporting a double post even of your own is the preferred method to resolve.
 


Back
Top Bottom