• 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

K240DS Garland

Its still on the air with programming and RDS, very impressive for a translator that's "rebroadcasting a station" that's not even on the air. So much for the "loop holes".
 
I'll be curious as to how long it stays on. The notice gave 20 days for them to respond. Anyone know if I could get a copy of their response through a FOIA request or something similar? I'd sure like to see how they answer it all.
 
Doesn't that type of thing show up under Imported Letters when you do a FM Station Query?

Also, their response has to be placed in their public inspection file.

You know, the one the inspector couldn't find.
 
radi0avenger said:
I'll be curious as to how long it stays on. The notice gave 20 days for them to respond. Anyone know if I could get a copy of their response through a FOIA request or something similar? I'd sure like to see how they answer it all.
Click to expand...

I'd bet they will use the typical fallback excuses of "We didn't know" "We were unaware" etc. etc.
 
Of course "they didn't know", in fact just six weeks ago K240DS applied for license renewal, certifying that the station was rebroadcasting KYFA.

According to the renewal form, "WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT (U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001), AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION LICENSE OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 312(a)(1)), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. CODE, TITLE 47, SECTION 503)."45

https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...t=25&appn=101543870&formid=303&fac_num=150493
 
I too was surprised at the uber-informative RDS they're running now, including a line about KYFA, song titles etc.
The afternoon "jock" wasgiving out the phone number and I picked out a reference or two about Garland and Rowlett.
I wonder if they started cleaning things up after the FCC visit? The problem is, how can they "translate" an extremely low power licensed station from 60-70 miles away that obviously may or may not be on the air and can't possibly be received over the air in Garland?

Decent audio processing.
 
317C50KW said:
I too was surprised at the uber-informative RDS they're running now, including a line about KYFA, song titles etc.
The afternoon "jock" wasgiving out the phone number and I picked out a reference or two about Garland and Rowlett.
I wonder if they started cleaning things up after the FCC visit? The problem is, how can they "translate" an extremely low power licensed station from 60-70 miles away that obviously may or may not be on the air and can't possibly be received over the air in Garland?

Decent audio processing.
Click to expand...

I'll bet they are using the "Poor Boy's STL" better known as Shoutcast and a PC at the transmitter. I've done a few quick and dirty links that way. Since there was only one listener (the transmitter) I could do 128k plus stream rates. Using AAC, the quality wasn't bad and would work in a pinch when the RF link failed...
 
The tricky part here is they are REQUIRED to repeat the off-air signal of the main station they are supposed to be re-transmitting (100% simulcast with the exception of a 30 second option to split for ID and sponsorship). I'm not in the market, so I cannot tell what the signal of the primary station is normally, like you guys are. There is a pretty good solution IF there's any signal to be had in the first place. It's a Broadcast Warehouse RBRX1, with a great antenna attached to it. It is one amazing piece of gear. But, it requires something to be there to work with. IP-based or sat. based hops aren't allowed on the comm band.
 
OKCRadioGuy said:
The tricky part here is they are REQUIRED to repeat the off-air signal of the main station they are supposed to be re-transmitting (100% simulcast with the exception of a 30 second option to split for ID and sponsorship). I'm not in the market, so I cannot tell what the signal of the primary station is normally, like you guys are. There is a pretty good solution IF there's any signal to be had in the first place. It's a Broadcast Warehouse RBRX1, with a great antenna attached to it. It is one amazing piece of gear. But, it requires something to be there to work with. IP-based or sat. based hops aren't allowed on the comm band.
Click to expand...

Howdy OKC,
The Garland translator has a "colorful" history here in DFW and has been ran "creatively" since day one. Search the DFW board and you will see this dates back years... With the off-air station located south of Sulphur Springs with an ERP of 250w and a 60dbu contour of 8 miles, there is no way this translator can repeat the "off-air" station within the laws of physics. It has been used as a stand alone LPFM pretty much since day one.
 
In reading this report.. is anyone else here surprised the FCC inspector found ANY kind of transmitting equipment in Quinlan?
I know in years past some of us on this board have done some searches for this phantom station and the supposed location of the KYFA transmitter is an empty field.
 
317C50KW said:
I too was surprised at the uber-informative RDS they're running now, including a line about KYFA, song titles etc.
The afternoon "jock" wasgiving out the phone number and I picked out a reference or two about Garland and Rowlett.
I wonder if they started cleaning things up after the FCC visit? The problem is, how can they "translate" an extremely low power licensed station from 60-70 miles away that obviously may or may not be on the air and can't possibly be received over the air in Garland?

Decent audio processing.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised at what you can get if you put the antenna at the top of a 400 foot tower!

However, I'd also be surprised if you could actually get KYFA at the 95.9 site, even with an antenna that high. Plus, even if you could pull it in, there would be times when other stations would overpower it, and it probably wouldn't sound as clean off-air as it apparently does, even if they could consistently get it over-the-air.
 
What is the end game here ?

Voluntary surrender of the station license and the translator ?

Or will it be a several year endeavor of "licensee has hired a new manager and expects to be in compliance in 90 days", over and over again ?
 
Or will it be a several year endeavor of "licensee has hired a new manager and expects to be in compliance in 90 days", over and over again ?
Click to expand...
Probably that will go over like a fart in church with the FCC.
 
boiseengineer said:
Or will it be a several year endeavor of "licensee has hired a new manager and expects to be in compliance in 90 days", over and over again ?
Click to expand...
Probably that will go over like a fart in church with the FCC.
Click to expand...

It does seem to me that the FCC has stepped up enforcement these days compared to the recent past. Lots of NOA's for EAS, Public File, and tower fence issues. Even a few "where's the studio" issues as well.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom