Cheap old radios have rights too, but apparently according to the FCC letter a translator of this type has none. A frequency change would be a big improvement.
-
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
Interference complaints against KKDJ (K259CF) & FCC letter
- Thread starter brucearmstrong65
- Start date
Cheap old radios have rights too, but apparently according to the FCC letter a translator of this type has none. A frequency change would be a big improvement.
How about applying for a freq. change to 108.1? Or in other words...........go away off the dial.
Or turn off the FM and just play MTV.
https://thebusinessjournal.com/revi...-71610689&mc_cid=c25b6174c8&mc_eid=ec8c2d9613
https://thebusinessjournal.com/revi...-71610689&mc_cid=c25b6174c8&mc_eid=ec8c2d9613
You must be referring to Part 15 of the FCC Rules.
1) The device must not cause harmful interference.
2) The device may receive interference, such that it may cause undesired operation of the unit.
That's gotta be a very broad statement.
There's also something of consequence here.
Regardless of where the transmitter is, or how well filtered it is, or how otherwise managed to stay exactly on frequency. You have a +/-200kHz bandwidth on either side of the FM frequency you are listening to. It is very natural for the first adjacent to interfere, especially within the distance of the first few blocks from a transmitter site. This would translate anywhere from a 1/4th to a 1/2 of a mile at the very worst.
It would be rather unreasonable to stay within 99.7 and not have the modulation deviate one iota from 99.7.
The NAB has lobbied against the expansion of the LPFM service, instead wanting to advocate for commercial "responsible" full-power stations that have an engineering department competent and capable of ensuring signals will not interfere. http://diymedia.net/nabnpr-on-lpfm-forked-tongues/1010
I know they are talking about LPFM, not translator stations. But the case could be made the same on that service too.
The argument that BOTT has is regardless of the station's licensed coverage and contour maps, 99.9's coverage reaches Fresno. In other words, they have listeners.
The position that BOTT appears to have is regardless of 99.7's actions, the station should completely and utterly shut down; they have no business being on the air.
The FCC's position currently is that 99.7 appears to be taking actions to correct the issue with listeners in the area of the supposed interference. The most recent article on the issue of abuses in the shutting-down of the translator stations are outlined here. https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/fcc-outlines-fm-translator-interference-changes
This all poses a question to the translator system in the United States as a whole. Should there be a contraction of translator and LPFM services in order to favor the band toward commercial full-power stations? Should the construction, permitting, and engineering of radio and television stations return to people who are licensed by the FCC?
In other words, should we reverse the actions of de-regulation within the scope of the FCC?
I have no answer to that, so I will leave it up for discussion.
1) The device must not cause harmful interference.
2) The device may receive interference, such that it may cause undesired operation of the unit.
That's gotta be a very broad statement.
There's also something of consequence here.
Regardless of where the transmitter is, or how well filtered it is, or how otherwise managed to stay exactly on frequency. You have a +/-200kHz bandwidth on either side of the FM frequency you are listening to. It is very natural for the first adjacent to interfere, especially within the distance of the first few blocks from a transmitter site. This would translate anywhere from a 1/4th to a 1/2 of a mile at the very worst.
It would be rather unreasonable to stay within 99.7 and not have the modulation deviate one iota from 99.7.
The NAB has lobbied against the expansion of the LPFM service, instead wanting to advocate for commercial "responsible" full-power stations that have an engineering department competent and capable of ensuring signals will not interfere. http://diymedia.net/nabnpr-on-lpfm-forked-tongues/1010
I know they are talking about LPFM, not translator stations. But the case could be made the same on that service too.
The argument that BOTT has is regardless of the station's licensed coverage and contour maps, 99.9's coverage reaches Fresno. In other words, they have listeners.
The position that BOTT appears to have is regardless of 99.7's actions, the station should completely and utterly shut down; they have no business being on the air.
The FCC's position currently is that 99.7 appears to be taking actions to correct the issue with listeners in the area of the supposed interference. The most recent article on the issue of abuses in the shutting-down of the translator stations are outlined here. https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/fcc-outlines-fm-translator-interference-changes
This all poses a question to the translator system in the United States as a whole. Should there be a contraction of translator and LPFM services in order to favor the band toward commercial full-power stations? Should the construction, permitting, and engineering of radio and television stations return to people who are licensed by the FCC?
In other words, should we reverse the actions of de-regulation within the scope of the FCC?
I have no answer to that, so I will leave it up for discussion.
Edmer,
They have filed for a change of frequency to 102.3 . And a power decrease from 180 w to 75 w. And they may have cleaned up the current signal, as it doesn't appear they are still over modulating. They were showing over 199% on a couple of mod monitors. Listening in the car, it doesn't sound like still at 200%, but a check on one of the mod monitors now shows the RF signal is below the mute level on the monitor. So either atmospherics is affecting propagation a few miles away, or they might have reduced on air power.
They have filed for a change of frequency to 102.3 . And a power decrease from 180 w to 75 w. And they may have cleaned up the current signal, as it doesn't appear they are still over modulating. They were showing over 199% on a couple of mod monitors. Listening in the car, it doesn't sound like still at 200%, but a check on one of the mod monitors now shows the RF signal is below the mute level on the monitor. So either atmospherics is affecting propagation a few miles away, or they might have reduced on air power.
I first looked up KKDJ and found an LPFM in the central coast of CA and thought, no way this is interfering with KCIV. Then I looked for K259CF and found the translator in question. So I'll ask the question; why does K259CF refer to itself as KKDJ? So if anyone Googles your station, they find a LPFM in Santa Maria. SMH.
I hope they do, but they won't. Because Fresno is not part of KIOO intended coverage area. But, we will see. I knew from the start this addition of this frequency would not work, and 104.3 KJWL for that matter too. I cannot understand putting a low powered transmitter in the middle of an area where the signal is the strongest where residents may not listen to music of this format. Example: 104.3 out of Biola? BAD IDEA!
Is 102.3 any better than 99.7? Seems that we've another cover issue that could come into play. Isn't that KBLO that's somewhat listenable in Fresno. Are they trading one problem for another?
K
kenrayc
Guest
KBLO is on the valley floor at only 360 ft and 19KW, and KIOO is on a hill at 1,250 ft. above Sea Level with 25KW, the line of sight of the signal is much closer to Fresno than KBLO, with my antenna at 25 ft KIOO is very clear in Clovis and KBLO sounds like a far distance station.
It would be less of a problem because KBLO has less listeners that 99.9 in Fresno. If KIOO was the only casualty K259CF would get to stay put.
K
kenrayc
Guest
I think 102.3, even with half power will get out there better, no adjacent and much less co-channel interference,
In a word... Branding. K259CF is included in the hourly ID.
the average person has NO idea what K259CF is or what it means.... the general public barely knows what the 4 call letters mean
True... But try KMJ, KFI, or KGO (You can even lump KRLA and KKOH (KOH) Some people recognize the letters as a brand. To the average person, they may not care what the callsign means. To you and me, the use of callsigns as branding may be of a confusing nature which in some respects the FCC has tried to put a lid on.
That's one hell of a radio you have!.........Pioneer Supertuner I take it?
It's nearly impossible for the average person to detect FM overmodulation on a consumer receiver. So, unless you have a calibrated modulation monitor, you generally can't tell.
The exception is when a station overmodulates so much that the bandwidth of the signal exceeds the bandwidth of the receiver, generally causing a clipping, scrunching noise. In older "traditional design" radios, the danger point was somewhere around 130% modulation, which would be +/- 100 kHz of occupied bandwidth.
Unlike AM, where exceeding 100% modulation causes carrier suppression, "100%" with FM modulation is an arbitrary standard based on the way FM is allocated.
With the addition of RDS and IBOC systems, it places more demand to accomodate modulation in the same space... at least as far as industry observation is concerned.
K
kenrayc
Guest
Clear Channel is the only one still using IBOC, not to many running out to buy HD radios, it's going the way of AM stereo, nobody cares, people would rather buy XM/Sirius receivers instead and yes it effect adjacent channels big time, before KBOS 94.9 and KFBT 103.7 (KRZR then) started using it, I was able to get KHOP 95.1 Modesto and KDJK 103.9 Mariposa( which is very weak, but line-of-sight to Fresno). I know these stations are not intended to serve the Fresno Market, but it does effect adjacent channels big time.
1. It's iHeart and has been for several years. 2. Most of the major chains are still using it, and even for smaller broadcasters, having HD streams is a convenient regulatory loophole that allows them to put programming on translators that isn't on their main signal.
- Status