KILE 1560 Denied PTA

[Mike_O]

KILE 1560 Bellaire was denied their application for Program Test Authority today, 10/24/05, which was filed on 10/12/05 along with their application for a license for the 50,000 watt daytime site. The License application was Accepted for Filing, but KILE is nearly two months past the expiration date of their Contruction Permit.

The FCC has been very strick about a station either signing on the air or making modifications of facilities in the three year period. More than a few stations have been deleted or denied the upgrade because they missed the expiration date. I don't know if hurricanes Katrina or Rita or problems with the new transmitter is going to allow any leniency from the FCC. I have a feeling that the answer is no and KILE will be SOL with nine sticks standing in a site well south of the city. The only stations that might be able to use the towers with a reconfiguration of the signal is KBRZ 1460 Freeport if they wanted to upgrade their power and cover more of the Houston area with the Radio Aleluya programming that originates on KFTG 88.1, a station with a five mile coverage radius. KLVL 1480 will greatly restrict the power 1460 could send into much of Houston with the 3kW daytime signal. Not sure if much of a nighttime signal could be sent over Houston from the south to the north, northeast? KANI 1500 Wharton is an outside shot, but double trouble with much of a signal over Houston protecting the 5mV/m signal of KLVL 1480 AND KYND 1520, plus send a signal west to cover the City of License. The tower configuration may make it difficult to use for 1500.

KILE may be stuck at 800 watts from the site west of the 288 Freeway and south of West U in Houston. I doubt the FCC will grant KILE another CP for 50kW daytime.

Mike O

 

[Tonytoga]

WHAT A BUNCH OF BUNK!!! Get it straight Mike or don't post

One of the things I hate about these blogs is that there isn't any requirement that you know the facts before posting something. Those who through ignorance or who have some kind of ax to grind can say anything and there is no one to edit out obvious mistakes. And while sites like this are visited by a relative few, incorrect information can be disseminated that left unchallenged, can do a great deal of damage to people who don't deserve it. The above post fits that bill precisely.

I've mentioned before that I have followed the KILE saga for a number of years because in my opinion, the RAFTT boys represent a nearly extinct breed: people who are interested in AM radio and who are obviously willing to put much time and money on the line to develop AM facilities, (do you see Clear Channel, Infinity, or even Salem or Cumulus doing that? I don't; literally hundreds of CC AM's could be technically improved but they haven't done a thing to a single one).

RAFTT hasn't always been successful and in my opinion, has made some pretty stupid mistakes (some of the things they have proposed in their nearly six year long attempt at getting full power night authority have just been wacky [can you say, 10 tower array?]......which reminds me, their latest night application was again rejected by the FCC just a couple of weeks ago), and the format they've had on the station for years simply sucks but in my opinion, by-and-large, they represent something unique in these times of boilerplate everything in radio. They continually take little, dead junky AM's and recreate them into metropolitan radio stations worth quite a bit to the people they sell them to, (Incidentally, did you see they bought another AM in southeast Missouri a few months back? What do you want to bet they plop another move-in into St. Louis? They did it back in to 2000-2001 with KRFT 1190 kHz).

When this 50 kW IS finally finished (and there is little doubt in my mind that it soon will be), some really good operator (if there are any left) will have an opportunity to pick up a facility they can do a great deal with. And when you consider this station came to town from a 500 watt operation a hundred miles away, that's an accomplishment. Do you know of ANY other 50 kW move-ins on AM anywhere in the US? I don't.

Those are my OPINIONS............here are the facts:

Like you Mike, I watch the FCC's sites pretty much on a daily basis and when I clicked onto the FCC's CDBS page and saw the "Denial" of Program Test Authority (PTA), I wondered what was going on. I couldn't find my RAFTT contact so I contacted RAFTT's consulting engineer and here is what I found out:

If you look at the CDBS page, you'll see that the file date on the "BL" or license request is BL-20050902ACP which means the application was filed September 2nd...........NOT October 12th as you suggest in your post. There is a companion filing with no prefix, just the file number: 20050902ACQ which was a request for PTA. The consulting engineer (who signed off on the Form 302) said the PTA application wasn't sought by RAFTT (more on that in a bit).

I also found that the reason the application had a September 2nd file date instead of one prior to August 29th (the day the CP should have expired) is that when the Application was originally tendered ON AUGUST 25TH to the Pittsburgh FCC office (which is where ALL paper filings with fee requirements must be filed).......RAFTT inadvertently left off their FRN number (that's an FCC issued account number for those who don't know) and instead of simply looking it up in their data base and jotting it down on the cover page as you might expect them to, the "proud" and "hardworking" FCC employees there simply stuck the application into an envelope and mailed the application back to RAFTT (via snail mail, of course) seeking the number before they would cash the filing fee check and give the application a file number. That was the reason for the September 2nd file date. No harm, no foul.

"But, what about the fact that the 50 kW transmitter wasn't working and there weren't directional readings in the application," I asked. "Simple," was the reply. "We used the Phasetek defense," said the engineer. "Phasetek is a phasor manufacturer that is notorious for not delivering on time and they've gotten so many licensees in trouble at the end of time on CP's that the people at the FCC now call it the Phasetek defense. The Commission knows it happens and that licensees have no control over such situations and under those circumstances, they give licensees some slack when they get near the end of their CP and a vendor hasn't performed. (BLEEP)'s site was essentially completed by mid-August; we were just waiting on the transmitter people to perform." Makes sense to me.

As a result of the problems RAFTT has had with the new BE transmitter (which the engineer says is very much closer to working correctly with each passing week), the Commission staff has cut them some slack. It's that simple.

As for the denial of PTA...........the engineer said he didn't even ask for PTA because of the transmitter problems........when the Form 302 was tendered. Apparently the Commission staff simply assumed PTA was part of the request and on its own posted the PTA request. The next guy who picked up the form apprarently saw no 50 kW DA readings and denied the Program Test Authority that RAFTT hadn't asked for in the first place. The engineer said the 50 kW directional readings will be ready sometime late this week or perhaps next, and it will be then that RAFTT asks for PTA. In the meantime, AS IS CLEAR ON THE CDBS website, the Broadcast License request or "BL-20050902ACP" application is still listed as "Accepted For Filing" and is still pending.

It took some digging but I found the real situation and didn't post until I knew what was really going on. All of that said, there is no reason to even discuss who else might make use of the site.............that's not gonna happen.

 

[Mike_O]

Nice to meet you on the board too

> One of the things I hate about these blogs is that there
> isn't any requirement that you know the facts before posting
> something. Those who through ignorance or who have some
> kind of ax to grind can say anything and there is no one to
> edit out obvious mistakes. And while sites like this are
> visited by a relative few, incorrect information can be
> disseminated that left unchallenged, can do a great deal of
> damage to people who don't deserve it. The above post fits
> that bill precisely.

Golly Gee Gosh I don't know where to start. I have only pissed off one other person to the extent that I have you to the best of my knowledge. Your personable post was indeed an eye opener.

First, I have no ax to grind with KILE. They are just another low power brokered station on AM that serves a segment of the population. Nothing new or special in Houston.

Second, what "damage" has been inflicted upon KILE for reporting what was in Public FCC Records? That RAFTT is incompetent and can not get an upgrade on the air in three years, especially when land and zoning did not play an issue in this matter?

This is from the FCC Authorization to The RAFTT Corporation for BP-20020506AAT and selected portions. Grant date: August 28, 2002. This permit expires 3:00a.m. local time, 36 months after the grant date specified above. The Construction Permit expired at 3am August 28, 2005. From a portion of paragraph two: Pursuant to these rules, this construction permit will be subject to automatic forfeiture unless construction is complete and an application for license to cover is filed prior to expiration. See Section 73.3598.

Equipment and program tests shall be conducted only pursuant to Sections 73.1610 and 73.1620 of the Commission's Rules.

What did they not understand about the above?

Radio-Locator.com has deleted the 50,000 watt Construction Permit and now only lists the 800 watt daytime parameters.

You gave the reasons why the PTA was Denied. The fact that the application for License to Cover was "Accepted for Filing" does not surprise me, it does not mean that it will be approved. It will likely spend around three or four months making it's way through the process of Approval or Denial.

I never mentioned that KILE runs the station until 10pm every night year round, which would be in violation of Post Sunset Authority, if KILE has PSSA {see Section 73.99} or if KILE is authorized Pre Sunrise Authority for that matter. I see in KILE's schedule that they program until midnight and have for sometime now. I have not checked to see if KILE stays on the air until midnight now or still signs off at 10pm. I will check out the station tonight to see when they leave the air, which should be 9pm tonight. The fact that KILE 1560 Bellaire, Texas is sharing a frequency with two Class A stations, WQEW New York and KNZR Bakersfield puts further restraints on a PSSA and PSRA for KILE.

I never made mention of the failed sale to SkyWave Broadcasting, Inc of Fort Worth for $9.75M or $7.75M without nighttime authority of 10,000 watts or higher. I have no idea what the reason was for the approved Assignment of License to fall through and it had no bearing on RAFTT being past the experation date of their Construction Permit for BP-20020506AAT and not filing for a License to Cover and Program Test Authority in a timely manner.

I have called RAFTT before, about two years ago and talked to a person that was supposedly in charge and knew about the station. There was a discussion at that time about KILE staying on the air every night of the year until 10pm. The person I spoke with did not know about PSSA or PSRA or even the power the station operated with daytime, I didn't even pursue the power(s) used PSRA or PSSA.

I do not have time to call every station to verify what should be correct data from the FCC records. I have contacted the FCC to find out the reason for STA's {Special Temporary Authority} on numerous times and reported the answers on this board. If time permits this afternoon, I will contact the FCC about the failure of RAFTT to make the expiration date and see if they will give me any information on the FCC's intent to cut KILE about three months slack. I'll also check out the PSSA and PSRA Authority for KILE.

I am glad that you were able to get the actual facts behind the Denial for the Program Test Authority, it is an interesting piece of information.
>
> I've mentioned before that I have followed the KILE saga for
> a number of years because in my opinion, the RAFTT boys
> represent a nearly extinct breed: people who are interested
> in AM radio and who are obviously willing to put much time
> and money on the line to develop AM facilities, (do you see
> Clear Channel, Infinity, or even Salem or Cumulus doing
> that? I don't; literally hundreds of CC AM's could be
> technically improved but they haven't done a thing to a
> single one).

The RAFTT "boys" are doing what a great many on this board would love to do if they had the financial resources and a station to purchase. There are also "Mom & Pop" operations around the country that do upgrade their stations if they can afford to do so. True, they are a dying breed.

I agree completely with you about CC, Infinity, Salem, and Liberman. Liberman is sitting on some of the most upgradable AM stations in the Houston area and not a one of the "big boys" are doing a damn thing to upgrade their AM stations to cover the city and suburbs. Only a handful of stations serve the suburbs at night and the situation should have been rectified years ago. Houston is rapidly losing any chance of upgrading the AM stations in the metro area as the metroplex has been very active upgrading AM stations and blocking cochannel Houston stations from any meaningful upgrade to the north. I don't know why these companies have neglected to improve the coverage of their stations or the few stations that have CP's to upgrade or add nighttime service is mediocre at best.
>
> RAFTT hasn't always been successful and in my opinion, has
> made some pretty stupid mistakes (some of the things they
> have proposed in their nearly six year long attempt at
> getting full power night authority have just been wacky [can
> you say, 10 tower array?]......which reminds me, their
> latest night application was again rejected by the FCC just
> a couple of weeks ago), and the format they've had on the
> station for years simply sucks but in my opinion,
> by-and-large, they represent something unique in these times
> of boilerplate everything in radio. They continually take
> little, dead junky AM's and recreate them into metropolitan
> radio stations worth quite a bit to the people they sell
> them to, (Incidentally, did you see they bought another AM
> in southeast Missouri a few months back? What do you want
> to bet they plop another move-in into St. Louis? They did
> it back in to 2000-2001 with KRFT 1190 kHz).

RAFTT's quest for a nighttime license has been interesting to say the least. The FCC threw one out because KILE would have sent too much power over Cuba per the NARBA Treaty, which is a sorry joke. Cuba hasn't adhered to the Treaty in years and Mexico and Canada only use the Treaty when they object to something the US plans on doing like nighttime IBOC. I have stated here before that Mexico said they would not honor the treaty as it unfair to Mexico in allocations. Canada does not recognize American FM stations in their country and Toronto has at least three cochannel stations with Buffalo, less than 60 air miles away. The latest on 106.5 will block a station from Buffalo that was clearly audible in downtown Toronto.

The FCC's denial of a construction permit to any station because of Cuba is ludicrous. Just as bad is the lack of assistance that the FCC has given any stations that are severely affected by Cuban stations that overpower US stations. Any station that has lost service coverage because of Cuban stations should be allowed the power and pattern to overcome the interference, even if it means breaking, excuse me, breaching the 50,000 watt limit.

RAFTT should have know better on the 5000 watt nighttime application though. They have already had one of their applications denied because of interference to XEPRO in the Yucatan and yet RAFTT applies once again with the same interference to the same station - Stupid, just plain Stupid. Maybe, just maybe the 100 watt non-directional nighttime application will be approved. It will have little impact on the city or surrounding areas though. I honestly wonder how they ever got the 50,000 watt daytime application approved on a crowded frequency with a second adjacent in Galveston {KGBC 1540 1kW with a CP for 2.5kW} and a first adjacent in Navasota {KWBC 1550 250 watts daytime}. I honestly don't believe the FCC would approve the application again, if KILE would have to reapply for the upgrade.
>
> When this 50 kW IS finally finished (and there is little
> doubt in my mind that it soon will be), some really good
> operator (if there are any left) will have an opportunity to
> pick up a facility they can do a great deal with. And when
> you consider this station came to town from a 500 watt
> operation a hundred miles away, that's an accomplishment.
> Do you know of ANY other 50 kW move-ins on AM anywhere in
> the US? I don't.
>
> Those are my OPINIONS............here are the facts:
>
> Like you Mike, I watch the FCC's sites pretty much on a
> daily basis and when I clicked onto the FCC's CDBS page and
> saw the "Denial" of Program Test Authority (PTA), I wondered
> what was going on. I couldn't find my RAFTT contact so I
> contacted RAFTT's consulting engineer and here is what I
> found out:
>
> If you look at the CDBS page, you'll see that the file date
> on the "BL" or license request is BL-20050902ACP which means
> the application was filed September 2nd...........NOT
> October 12th as you suggest in your post. There is a
> companion filing with no prefix, just the file number:
> 20050902ACQ which was a request for PTA. The consulting
> engineer (who signed off on the Form 302) said the PTA
> application wasn't sought by RAFTT (more on that in a bit).
>
>
> I also found that the reason the application had a September
> 2nd file date instead of one prior to August 29th (the day
> the CP should have expired) is that when the Application was
> originally tendered ON AUGUST 25TH to the Pittsburgh FCC
> office (which is where ALL paper filings with fee
> requirements must be filed).......RAFTT inadvertently left
> off their FRN number (that's an FCC issued account number
> for those who don't know) and instead of simply looking it
> up in their data base and jotting it down on the cover page
> as you might expect them to, the "proud" and "hardworking"
> FCC employees there simply stuck the application into an
> envelope and mailed the application back to RAFTT (via snail
> mail, of course) seeking the number before they would cash
> the filing fee check and give the application a file number.
> That was the reason for the September 2nd file date. No
> harm, no foul.

It would not have killed the FCC employee to fill in the FRN number, but it is ultimately RAFTT's responsibility to have all their t's crossed and i's dotted when dealing with the FCC. The people at RAFTT should know that by now and the consultant they are using should also be well aware of that fact. Some of RAFTT's applications have been sloppy at best.

You are correct and I stand corrected that the application, BL-20050902ACP for a License to Cover was indeed dated September 2nd and not filed on October 12, 2005 as I stated, but that the October 12th date was the date the FCC accepted the application.
>
> "But, what about the fact that the 50 kW transmitter wasn't
> working and there weren't directional readings in the
> application," I asked. "Simple," was the reply. "We used
> the Phasetek defense," said the engineer. "Phasetek is a
> phasor manufacturer that is notorious for not delivering on
> time and they've gotten so many licensees in trouble at the
> end of time on CP's that the people at the FCC now call it
> the Phasetek defense. The Commission knows it happens and
> that licensees have no control over such situations and
> under those circumstances, they give licensees some slack
> when they get near the end of their CP and a vendor hasn't
> performed. (BLEEP)'s site was essentially completed by
> mid-August; we were just waiting on the transmitter people
> to perform." Makes sense to me.
>
> As a result of the problems RAFTT has had with the new BE
> transmitter (which the engineer says is very much closer to
> working correctly with each passing week), the Commission
> staff has cut them some slack. It's that simple.
>
> As for the denial of PTA...........the engineer said he
> didn't even ask for PTA because of the transmitter
> problems........when the Form 302 was tendered. Apparently
> the Commission staff simply assumed PTA was part of the
> request and on its own posted the PTA request. The next guy
> who picked up the form apprarently saw no 50 kW DA readings
> and denied the Program Test Authority that RAFTT hadn't
> asked for in the first place. The engineer said the 50 kW
> directional readings will be ready sometime late this week
> or perhaps next, and it will be then that RAFTT asks for
> PTA. In the meantime, AS IS CLEAR ON THE CDBS website, the
> Broadcast License request or "BL-20050902ACP" application
> is still listed as "Accepted For Filing" and is still
> pending.
>
> It took some digging but I found the real situation and
> didn't post until I knew what was really going on. All of
> that said, there is no reason to even discuss who else might
> make use of the site.............that's not gonna happen.
>
I'm glad you were able to dig up all the information on the PTA and application. Will the FCC allow RAFTT nearly three months past the expiration date of the CP? I still have my doubts, but do sincerely hope that they do approve the License to Cover.

I can hardly wait for what I'm sure will be a most cordial reply.

Mike O

 

[Mediafrog]

New KILE transmitter testing?

> As a result of the problems RAFTT has had with the new BE
> transmitter (which the engineer says is very much closer to
> working correctly with each passing week), the Commission
> staff has cut them some slack.

According to some postings in Glenn Hauser's DX Listening Digest, KILE was heard blasting into Illinois around twilight a few days ago. Is the 50kw facility now being tested? (That info courtesy Neil Kazaross via DXLD)

 

[ChuckTiller]

Re: Nice to meet you on the board too

Are you sure you got that all covered, my man? Don't leave anything out. LOL

 

[Mike_O]

Re: Nice to meet you on the board too

> Are you sure you got that all covered, my man? Don't leave
> anything out. LOL
>
Chuck, barely got started. When you get your ass jumped like that you cover all you can. I hope that I researched my answer to you enough. Didn't check with the FCC though to make sure I didn't give you misinformation. I didn't even know about the post, I got a call from a friend out of state telling me about someone kicking my ass on the board.

Good to hear from you.

Mike

 

[jras20]

Re: Nice to meet you on the board too

I'm glad that someone like Mike can get things done! I know he knows a hell of a lot more about radio than I do, I learned everything from him CW, Bruce and a few others. one thing I like about these boards is that you keep on learning new stuff!
<P ID="signature">______________
jras20</P>

 

[fybush]

Re: WHAT A BUNCH OF BUNK!!! Get it straight Mike or don't post

> I've mentioned before that I have followed the KILE saga for
> a number of years because in my opinion, the RAFTT boys
> represent a nearly extinct breed: people who are interested
> in AM radio and who are obviously willing to put much time
> and money on the line to develop AM facilities, (do you see
> Clear Channel, Infinity, or even Salem or Cumulus doing
> that? I don't; literally hundreds of CC AM's could be
> technically improved but they haven't done a thing to a
> single one).

And you, sir, in turn, are demonstrating your ignorance as well, at least where Clear Channel is concerned.

Say what you will about their programming and local management strategies, their engineering (especially at the corporate level) is top-notch. They have one of the best allocations guys in the business, and they've been very careful with acquisitions over the years, especially AMs. You don't see a lot of major upgrades coming out of CC, because for the most part they've avoided buying dogs in the first place.

When it makes economic sense, they've done some major projects - turning 1150 Los Angeles into a 50 kW full-market signal (from an impaired 5 kW regional), the pending move of 1210 from Guymon OK to Oklahoma City, the pending move-in of 1200 into Boston, the pending upgrade of 1360 in San Diego, just to name a few. What they don't do is waste money on projects that will yield less than a full-market signal; those stations will likely eventually be sold off.

If you've ever visited a CC AM site (and I've been to hundreds), you'll see that the gear is up to date, the ground system's intact and functioning, the tower fences are up and ASRNs are posted, and whatever changes need to be made at sunset and sunrise get made. You simply don't see the FCC fines against CC stations for those sorts of technical infractions, because the company and its engineers run a clean, tight ship in most of their markets. How many other companies would have both the resources and the engineering creativity to keep KTRH on the air by retuning the KBME site, as they did after Rita when KTRH had generator problems? Nothing against RAFTT, about whom I know almost nothing - but recent history (Katrina, Rita, Wilma) shows that when it comes to providing critical service after a major emergency, there's something to be said for the huge resources that the big guys can bring to the table.

Oh yeah, the CC engineers dot the i's and cross the t's on all their FCC applications, too.

As for Infinity, they run a similarly clean shop at their AMs, most of which are already huge signals with little or no room for improvement. Salem spent millions of dollars just on engineering work alone during last year's AM major change window to file for a series of changes to its stations in Los Angeles, San Diego and Honolulu that will result in signal improvements all around. They've also done some big projects lately in Seattle and Philadelphia. Cumulus is, well, Cumulus.

<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2006 JUST RELEASED! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>

 

[jd]

Re: WHAT A BUNCH OF BUNK!!! Get it straight Mike or don't post

> > I've mentioned before that I have followed the KILE saga
> for
> > a number of years because in my opinion, the RAFTT boys
> > represent a nearly extinct breed: people who are
> interested
> > in AM radio and who are obviously willing to put much time
>
> > and money on the line to develop AM facilities, (do you
> see
> > Clear Channel, Infinity, or even Salem or Cumulus doing
> > that? I don't; literally hundreds of CC AM's could be
> > technically improved but they haven't done a thing to a
> > single one).
>
> And you, sir, in turn, are demonstrating your ignorance as
> well, at least where Clear Channel is concerned.

Well stated, Scott. I noticed that glaring error when I first read
the post. Clear Channel has it together when it comes to engineering.
And in Mike's defense he was posting information in good faith and
didn't deserve an acerbic retort. I guess time can change everything,
since the last time I saw Tony he didn't strike me as a jerk.

 

[kendro]

Re: WHAT A BUNCH OF BUNK!!! Get it straight Mike or don't post

Just a question. Is Dave O. still in engineering group at the CC cluster?