• 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

Defective translator applications

J

jd

It's kind of a slow day, so I resorted to grading papers. That's right, seeing what's wrong in some applications. First up was one in Mexia on 92.1, K221FI, which involves a move from west of town to right in the center of town. No big deal, but the application says they'll be rebroadcasting KYFP Livingston. Well, that's wrong by about 84 miles, since KYFP is in Palestine. Let's see if the FCC catches that.

Now for an example closer to Dallas-Fort Worth, curiously close as a matter of fact. 250-watt translator K278BO 103.5 in Mineral Wells has applied for a new antenna site for "economic" reasons. Currently they operate from a tower north of Mineral Wells, while the new site would be on an existing tower WNW of Weatherford (and would relay KYQX 89.5 Weatherford). Note that the translator is already quite close to the minimum distance to adjacent channel KVIL (excuse me, "103.7 Lite FM"); in fact, it clears the required distance (65 miles) by just 3 miles.

Here are the apparent errors: the proposed site is located just 56 miles from 103.7, making it short-spaced by approximately 9 miles. It gets even more confusing since the application lists new coordinates but shows the same tower registration number, and it states that no interference will be caused.

Would there be interference if the translator moves to the site near Weatherford? Probably. Will the FCC kick the application back? We shall see.
 
Then of course is the famous K240DS, which translates a station nearly 60 miles away on 89.9 which is first adjacent to 90.1, KERA, and if K240DS were playing by the rules this would be practically impossible since the 89.9 station broadcasts with half the power of K240DS and at 1/3rd the antenna height.

i'm still waiting for the FCC to look into that one!
 
jd said:
Here are the apparent errors: the proposed site is located just 56 miles from 103.7, making it short-spaced by approximately 9 miles. It gets even more confusing since the application lists new coordinates but shows the same tower registration number, and it states that no interference will be caused.

Would there be interference if the translator moves to the site near Weatherford? Probably. Will the FCC kick the application back? We shall see.
Click to expand...

You may know more about this than I do, but my understanding of translators is that there is no "short-spacing" per se. I've seen several translators indicate they'd be short-spaced but show diagrams and drawings indicating that they either won't cause interference in-spite of of short-spacing or that they would only cause interference over unpopulated areas. Those have been accepted in the past. There was one that I seem to remember was in a similar situation in Knoxville that would have found itself next or second-adjacent to WIVK but indicated interference would be over unpopulated farmland. The FCC allowed it, and, as far as I know, it's still broadcasting.
 
radi0avenger said:
My most recent bit with k240ds. Not to hijack the thread JD. I wish the FCC would pay more attention to all of these "little guys"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-vxR5DKAA


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UPDATE:

As I understand it, Mr. Bill Wright (who is now the licensee of 95.9FM) has installed a directional receiving antenna on the tower of 95.9 aimed east towards Emory and has a receiver in the transmitter building tuned to 91.5FM. It all looks well and good (I have seen photos) except for two things.

1) When traveling east on Hwy 276 towards Emory, a signal from Denison on 91.5 (KYFB at 4,500watts) is received on the west side of lake Tawakoni well before you are within range of KYFA at 200 watts. The KYFA signal is only audible AFTER you are across the lake on the east side. This is demonstrated on radi0avenger's video but they were going west from Emory back towards Garland when they lost the signal as they crossed the lake. It may be possible, but I don't see how the KYFA signal could be picked up sixty miles away without the stronger KYFB signal interfering in between the two (91.5 and 95.9) transmitter sites.

2) I was in Emory a few weeks ago listening to KYFA-FM on 91.5 (the supposed parent station of K240DS) while sitting next to the transmitter, the one in the video. I had a friend in Richardson to whom I was talking with by cell phone while he was listening to K240DS on 95.9FM at the same time. Both stations were airing the same audio but there was a more than noticeable delay of the programming between the two signals (1 to 1.5 seconds). If 95.9FM was rebroadcasting 91.5FM this could be understandable but the programming on 91.5 was the one lagging behind. The only way this is possible is if the 91.5 transmitter is taking the feed from the 95.9 studios, which is also feeding the 95.9 transmitter ***OR*** Mr. Wright has figured out how to invert the time/space continuum!!!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
 
Kent said:
You may know more about this than I do, but my understanding of translators is that there is no "short-spacing" per se.
Click to expand...

That's correct; the FCC is interested in real world interference issues over mileage between translators and other facilities. The mention of a "spacing" requirement was made in regard to this particular case, using information from the application for the current site. The distance outside of the potential interference area (which showed it to be "clear" by 5km, about 3 miles) was established by the original channel study. No such study for the proposed site was included with the current application and it can be assumed that a theoretical "short-space" might exist.
 
radi0avenger said:
My most recent bit with k240ds. Not to hijack the thread JD. I wish the FCC would pay more attention to all of these "little guys"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-vxR5DKAA
Click to expand...

Although the sign on their fence says that they're a friendly broadcaster. ;D It would be nice if the FCC would take action against stuff like this.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom