Interference Question

[Andy_Brown]

Re: RFI response and cures

> > The rules state, "(d) Following the one year period of
> > full financial
> > obligation to satisfy blanketing complaints, licensees
> > shall provide
> > technical information or assistance to complainants on
> > remedies for
> > blanketing interference."
>
> > This means ALWAYS. Whereas the station may not be
> > financially responsible,
> > they are still mandated TO RESPOND to every interference
> > complaint, no matter
> > the time frame of complaint and program test authority
> > (age of license).

> That's right! Although there are some misconceptions in
> other posts about the FCC requirements. Also some good
> troubleshooting ideas in some of the posts.
>
>
> I've done RFI resolution for many years. What does it take
> for a station to "RESPOND"? Depending on the circumstances
> and the client station a "response" could be anything from a
> RFI housecall to my form letter and mailing (approved by the
> client's legal department). I've made hundreds of RFI house
> calls a year (including some PA systems) and they vast
> majority of cases are NOT covered by the FCC and are not the
> fault of the radio station - it's hard to convince the
> neighbors that the problem is theirs (but that's the PR
> part). Some stations do want to be good neighbors while
> others just don't care.

Thanks for being able to see through the cloud of defensive smoke
some of the responses have fomented. They obviously ignored the initial
post, choosing rather to twist my response into something they could pounce on.
The fact that the original post said "Here's the other problem...there are other churches within the vicinity that are complaining of the same situation" went largely ignored but indicates potential problems with the broadcast transmission system, and certainly warrants a response from the licensee should they be contacted. The fact that several responses made it sound like I proposed the licensee should replace the church's Bogen with a Crown are absurd, but are expected from this group.

Having been down the legal route on interference before, the best advice is for a licensee to RESPOND to any interference complaint. Used to be that an entry in a supplemental log was required (30 years ago?).
<P ID="signature">______________
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
~George Carlin</P>

 

[Andy_Brown]

> You are incorrect. The rules apply to interference to
> licensed services. (IE: Blanketing interferece to TV or
> other Radio stations). It DOES NOT apply to PA systems or
> phones, or anything of the sort.
>

Again, you are totally missing the point and going defensive.
Without responding to an interference inquiry, how does one know
if the symptom is caused by "excluded" equipment? Go back and read
the first post, and my first response. I contend and the rules are
clear that the licensee is obligated to respond. I never said "foot
the bill." If everyone in the neighborhood has an interference problem
where they didn't have one before, what makes you (and the rest of the
neighsayers) so cocksure that there is no problem in the transmission
system. Just because the monitor points are good and the sampling loop
numbers are in line and the phasor cabinet isn't glowing cherry red, what
makes you so sure there isn't a problem? Sounds irresponsible on your part.
What is the deal with so many engineers lacking the social ability to deal
with people who don't have technical backgrounds? Are you one of them?

You are making numerous assumptions unstated in the question and
forgetting that non tech people drop by this forum for answers that
aren't all junked up with mV/m and dBU and whether or not the church
is within some theoretical contour, etc. is not the issue. <P ID="signature">______________
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
~George Carlin</P>

 

[Andy_Brown]

Re: Um, Check out 73.88...

> I don't think anyone is saying that. What most here seem to
> be saying is simply that there is no legal obligation to do
> anything (which is correct).

You are confusing fiduciary with legal. Call the Audio Services
division and ask them,
and I think you will be surprised at what they tell you. Responding
does not mean being the ultimate solution provider or financier.
As a licensee, you must deal with the public if at the very least
to ascertain the facts. It's good business sense and good engineering.

> I can't speak for others, but I know that 99% of the time
> I'll help in the spirit of being a good neighbor.
>
> Now, I tend to be a little less helpful if the first
> sentences contain the phrases "you must" and "I'll call the
> FCC".

I said "respond in kind" not MUST, and mentioned FCC notification
as a last resort if the licensee "blew you off." Can't anyone
around here read?

>there is no quicker way
> to lose the cooperation of the station's management then to
> get on the phone and start making demands with the threat of
> calling the FCC.

And where did I say that? Did you bother to ever read my first post,
or did you just respond to one of the follow up posts? Hah!
<P ID="signature">______________
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
~George Carlin</P>

 

[Andy_Brown]

> Again, simply not true. I'll bold the important part

Spare me. There is a lot more to the issue of interference than
just 73.318

Broadcast licensees have a responsibility to the public far beyond that single rule.

As more than one counsel has said to me, it's not the rule per se, it's the
interpretation thereof.

<P ID="signature">______________
Electricity is really just organized lightning.
~George Carlin</P>

 

[UncleAL]

Re: RFI response log book

> Having been down the legal route on interference before, the
> best advice is for a licensee to RESPOND to any interference
> complaint. Used to be that an entry in a supplemental log
> was required (30 years ago?).
>

I keep a log book of RFI cases. From intake, (the original complaint) through any telephone calls (attempts or messages), mailings and etc. on to resolution (whatever that may be). I save the CLOSED case files. Those records have come in handy at many levels.

AL<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Uncle AL on 04/15/06 09:56 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[radiosaur]

> > Again, simply not true. I'll bold the important part
>
> Spare me. There is a lot more to the issue of interference
> than
> just 73.318
>
> Broadcast licensees have a responsibility to the public far
> beyond that single rule.
>
> As more than one counsel has said to me, it's not the rule
> per se, it's the
> interpretation thereof.
>

I'll spare you, but you are still mistaken.

Should the station go over there with a handful of bypass caps and/or toroids?

Probably.

Do they HAVE to? Nope.

<P ID="signature">______________
Never hold a cat and a dustbuster at the same time.</P>

 

[RadioDoc]

Re: Um, Check out 73.88...

> You are confusing fiduciary with legal. Call the Audio
> Services
> division and ask them,
> and I think you will be surprised at what they tell you.
> Responding
> does not mean being the ultimate solution provider or
> financier.
> As a licensee, you must deal with the public if at the very
> least
> to ascertain the facts. It's good business sense and good
> engineering.

There is no confusion. As a licensee I have no legal obligation to do anything. Doesn't mean I won't or I shouldn't. It means I have no obligation.

> > I can't speak for others, but I know that 99% of the time
> > I'll help in the spirit of being a good neighbor.
> >
> > Now, I tend to be a little less helpful if the first
> > sentences contain the phrases "you must" and "I'll call
> the
> > FCC".
>
> I said "respond in kind" not MUST, and mentioned FCC
> notification
> as a last resort if the licensee "blew you off." Can't
> anyone
> around here read?

Keep up comments like that, and you won't be posting here for long.

>
> >there is no quicker way
> > to lose the cooperation of the station's management then
> to
> > get on the phone and start making demands with the threat
> of
> > calling the FCC.
>
> And where did I say that? Did you bother to ever read my
> first post,
> or did you just respond to one of the follow up posts? Hah!
>

Again, dial it down a notch.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[RadioDoc]

> > You are incorrect. The rules apply to interference to
> > licensed services. (IE: Blanketing interferece to TV or
> > other Radio stations). It DOES NOT apply to PA systems or
>
> > phones, or anything of the sort.
> >
>
> Again, you are totally missing the point and going
> defensive.
> Without responding to an interference inquiry, how does one
> know
> if the symptom is caused by "excluded" equipment? Go back
> and read
> the first post, and my first response. I contend and the
> rules are
> clear that the licensee is obligated to respond. I never
> said "foot
> the bill." If everyone in the neighborhood has an
> interference problem
> where they didn't have one before, what makes you (and the
> rest of the
> neighsayers) so cocksure that there is no problem in the
> transmission
> system. Just because the monitor points are good and the
> sampling loop
> numbers are in line and the phasor cabinet isn't glowing
> cherry red, what
> makes you so sure there isn't a problem? Sounds
> irresponsible on your part.
> What is the deal with so many engineers lacking the social
> ability to deal
> with people who don't have technical backgrounds? Are you
> one of them?
>
> You are making numerous assumptions unstated in the question
> and
> forgetting that non tech people drop by this forum for
> answers that
> aren't all junked up with mV/m and dBU and whether or not
> the church
> is within some theoretical contour, etc. is not the issue.
>

Now you're the one making the stretch. If one church 1/2 mile away is having problems, while the people next door aren't, how can you be sure we have a problem?

Nobody is being defensive, except for you. We are simply trying to state the facts. Nobody here suggested that the station in question should not do anything. Just that you could call or write the FCC all day, and it won't resolve anything.

As the Moderator of the forum, I know EXACTLY who stops by here. Again, it looks like you were proven incorrect and you choose to use personal attacks to try and prove your point. You've misunderstood most of the replies here, and choose to attack the people who write them

You are certainly entitled to state your opinion here, but you are dancing on a fine line with attacking the people making the posts. It's not allowed. <P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[DFWRadioJock]

> Now you're the one making the stretch. If one church 1/2
> mile away is having problems, while the people next door
> aren't, how can you be sure we have a problem?

FWIW the original post did state the same problem was affecting another chruch about a half mile away. I would "suspect" this is indeed a "possible" problem being caused by the radio station in question.

But yes, other variables could be at play here.

I remember hearing about an existing station that had installed a brand new transmitter connected to a brand new antenna that was mounted on a brand new tower. It played a lot havoc with OTA Television signals on several different channels on numerous TV's within the area. There were also reports of the station's audio bleeding into telephones as well. The most interesting complaint I remember hearing about, was the station's signal was also causing one person's garage door opener to repeatedly activate. Gotta love the power of radio!

 

[RadioDoc]

> > Now you're the one making the stretch. If one church 1/2
> > mile away is having problems, while the people next door
> > aren't, how can you be sure we have a problem?
>
> FWIW the original post did state the same problem was
> affecting another chruch about a half mile away. I would
> "suspect" this is indeed a "possible" problem being caused
> by the radio station in question.
>
> But yes, other variables could be at play here.
>
> I remember hearing about an existing station that had
> installed a brand new transmitter connected to a brand new
> antenna that was mounted on a brand new tower. It played a
> lot havoc with OTA Television signals on several different
> channels on numerous TV's within the area. There were also
> reports of the station's audio bleeding into telephones as
> well. The most interesting complaint I remember hearing
> about, was the station's signal was also causing one
> person's garage door opener to repeatedly activate. Gotta
> love the power of radio!
>

True! It's amazing what RF can do to unshielded consumer electronics!<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[TXengineer]

> I remember hearing about an existing station that had
> installed a brand new transmitter connected to a brand new
> antenna that was mounted on a brand new tower. It played a
> lot havoc with OTA Television signals on several different
> channels on numerous TV's within the area. There were also
> reports of the station's audio bleeding into telephones as
> well. The most interesting complaint I remember hearing
> about, was the station's signal was also causing one
> person's garage door opener to repeatedly activate. Gotta
> love the power of radio!
>

That sounds like WAER in Syracuse when they took the bandpass filter off their antenna system when they upped the power.

 

[C414]

Re: RFI response and cures

The fact that several
> responses made it sound like I proposed the licensee should
> replace the church's Bogen with a Crown are absurd, but are
> expected from this group.


Actually, they're running all QSC. No bogen there....<P ID="signature">______________
Failure to plan on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.</P>

 

[nuzguy]

If you ever get a look at the erngineering set up at the station involved in this matter, you'll be surprised that its signal isn't heard on toasters and can openers.

 

[Neal]

Re: Um, Check out 73.88...

NO HE IS NOT KIDDING.... Talking with other consultants and FCC lawyers. 73.88 rule basically Pertainsto New stations with CP.s and not yet fully licensed.However we are all in agreement that its in the stations best interest to "help" resolve , but "not required" to help resolve the interference. oK Guys... everyone seems to be throwing stuff around FCC Rules ect. As a broadcast Engineer and a Concert audio Engineer I think I can point you in the Right Directiom.I also Own a sound company with REAL sound systems. One of which can handle audiences upto 20k people. First off the .001 or .01 caps on the outputs of the amps is not a bad Ideasecond.. I would place Torriods on Every cable going to the Amps..Third and most important. I would make sure that there is a proper ground system and Everything in the system be Connected to that ground. I just built a New 10kw AM station. less than 1000 feet from the tower is a Gaming center with a roller Rink. I was Killing the DJ system in the place. with only the amps on. I discovered there was no grounding in the Electrical system of the building. The Company that owns the station paid to have a ground system installed to correct the problem. I did all of the above,and with the amps cranked wide open and the mixer chanels all up. you cannot here the radio station anymore through the DJ's rig Now Here we go into the FCC Rules. and WHY the Station Owners paid To solve the above problem.The FCC Rules Clearly state that all part 15 devices Must accept interference. However I pointed out in my opening statement that Part 73.88 is understood by the FCC too be For NEW stations with CP's and not yet Fully licensed.. that a Station is Responsible for solving any and all interference Complaints within the First Year of the stations operation.. This is Why I was Required to solve the DJ issue with this NEW Station. as for that 1kw station interfereing with the local Churches.. If that Station has been there more than 1 year.. It is no longer the responsibility Of the station owners to resolve the issue... but again Its in their Best interest to try and "help" resolve this they are "Not required" to resolve this. However If the Stations Engineer is a good guy ,and the churches are willing To Pay him for his time. Im sure the Issue can be resolved.Putting it Bluntly the Churches are #@$#% out of luck. its their problem... Their part 15 devices(amps) have to accept the interference. Neal

> Excuse me??? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!! If the AM is only> a KW and the church is picking up the station on their> wiring, there is NOTHING requiring the station to fix the> problem UNLESS they are operating illegally (I assume this> is a station that has existed for a while at this site)..but> to make such a blanket statement as you did above is totally> ludicrous.> Legally, they are required by Part 73 to correct any illegal> problem...but other than that, ANY RF overload, etc> situation is NOT their problem to fix.Sec. 73.88 Blanketing interference. The licensee of each broadcast station is required to satisfy all reasonable complaints of blanketing interference within the 1 V/m contour.

 

[PaulBWalkerJr]

We had problems with the phones at WQMA, running only 250Watts caused a serious bleedover issue.Surpisingly, the phones at WTIR worked well.... and that was 5 whole blazing kilowatts

 

[AKLes]

Theological Implications

Here's the problem....we're getting complaints from the church that the AM station is bleeding through on their sound system. It's not LOUD loud, but it's loud enough to be heard when there's no audio passing through the system (mixing console is in full mute). Here's the other problem...there are other churches within the vicinity that are complaining of the same situation.Whose responsibility is this to correct? I'm thinking it may be the station, but am not for sure. Is there a device that would plug inline that filters this type RFI and if so, what is it???

To have a problem like that with just 1 kW nearby (even as much as 5 kW) suggests that God is trying to tell the church something. Maybe they ought to carefully consider what they're preaching and maybe pray a fervent request that they be liberated from this demon.Couldn't hurt.