I think we still have a couple more go arounds, but eventually this may end up in the world of litigation and money, money, money.
CC would be in a better position if ratings and cash flow had tanked after moving to the short antenna. Still this is the difference in value between a Class A AM station and a Class B, which is significant. Moreover, there is no assurance a reduced signal will not eventually harm KFI as a business. It's hugely important to note that presently KFI has protection from interference as a Class A station. If they are downgraded, coverage that is OK now (from the short tower) will be destroyed by new interference allowed towards a Class B station.
Nighttime coverage for nearly all AM stations is determined by interference, and if KFI downgrades, suburban nighttime coverage will eventually have objectionable interference. So it's not a question of whether they can be heard in Phoenix, Arizona, it's a question of whether it can be heard clearly in Palmdale or San Bernardino.
Commentary:
What bugs me most about this is the inconsistent nature of political public policy and opinion. If a beloved yet non-code compliant structure is destroyed in an accident, it will be rebuilt without delay, if the owner was willing.
I don't think a non-compliant structure that is politically incorrect or unpopular should be prohibited from reconstruction after an accident. Fair and equal application of this policy would have a significant effect on real estate and business investment, and harm the economy in many areas. For example, what if several thousand homes destroyed in the wildfires are prohibited from being rebuilt? I expect some may argue for this, but the outcry will be huge and the homes will be rebuilt anyway. Unfortunately KFI does not have this degree of support, although the basic public policy question is the same.
It's correct for new construction to be required to meet today's policies, but existing structures should be allowed to be maintained, repaired or reconstructed in kind, at the discretion of the owner. That's simply the right thing to do, good public policy and good for business. If society doesn't want homes or towers built in bad places, stop new construction. I believe a structure should have the right to exist and recover from accidents or acts of God.
Now let me pose this question... if a plane destroys the tower of a grandfathered Mt. Wilson FM station, should the station be required to rebuild it as a compliant Class B station?
I think the FCC would be reasonable, and understand the difference between an accident or act of God and the willfull action of an owner. There are limits though, one World Trade Center FM had to provide new contour protection when relocating to the Empire State Building.
CC would be in a better position if ratings and cash flow had tanked after moving to the short antenna. Still this is the difference in value between a Class A AM station and a Class B, which is significant. Moreover, there is no assurance a reduced signal will not eventually harm KFI as a business. It's hugely important to note that presently KFI has protection from interference as a Class A station. If they are downgraded, coverage that is OK now (from the short tower) will be destroyed by new interference allowed towards a Class B station.
Nighttime coverage for nearly all AM stations is determined by interference, and if KFI downgrades, suburban nighttime coverage will eventually have objectionable interference. So it's not a question of whether they can be heard in Phoenix, Arizona, it's a question of whether it can be heard clearly in Palmdale or San Bernardino.
Commentary:
What bugs me most about this is the inconsistent nature of political public policy and opinion. If a beloved yet non-code compliant structure is destroyed in an accident, it will be rebuilt without delay, if the owner was willing.
I don't think a non-compliant structure that is politically incorrect or unpopular should be prohibited from reconstruction after an accident. Fair and equal application of this policy would have a significant effect on real estate and business investment, and harm the economy in many areas. For example, what if several thousand homes destroyed in the wildfires are prohibited from being rebuilt? I expect some may argue for this, but the outcry will be huge and the homes will be rebuilt anyway. Unfortunately KFI does not have this degree of support, although the basic public policy question is the same.
It's correct for new construction to be required to meet today's policies, but existing structures should be allowed to be maintained, repaired or reconstructed in kind, at the discretion of the owner. That's simply the right thing to do, good public policy and good for business. If society doesn't want homes or towers built in bad places, stop new construction. I believe a structure should have the right to exist and recover from accidents or acts of God.
Now let me pose this question... if a plane destroys the tower of a grandfathered Mt. Wilson FM station, should the station be required to rebuild it as a compliant Class B station?
I think the FCC would be reasonable, and understand the difference between an accident or act of God and the willfull action of an owner. There are limits though, one World Trade Center FM had to provide new contour protection when relocating to the Empire State Building.
