• 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

95X vs. WRVO Translator

A

audio4tv

There is a thread in the Rochester/Buffalo Board on the new WRVO translator at 95.7 in Geneva. It cuts a pretty big hole in their coverage in that area, which was quite good until the beginning of the month.
 
W2JUV_AL said:
The protected contour of 95X does not extend to Geneva.
In fact, it does not even come close.
Click to expand...
While this is true, all it takes is one listener to complain, and if WRVO can't fix it, say goodbye to the translator. However, how many listeners does 95X have that way, anyhow? I think most people in the area listen to The Fox or WCMF.
 
I did some reading of 47CFR-74.1203 in regard to interference from translators and Audio4tv, You Are Correct!

Seems like signal contours only come into play in that the FCC won't ACCEPT an application for a translator if their predicted interference contour overlaps the protected contour of the class B1 (WAQX). Sure seems like Geneva and Syracuse are much too close for co-channel signals on 95.7. What was WRVO thinking?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom