KPFK translator/XHTIM

[Big 121]

90.7 from Tijuana is being re-broadcast from KPFK's Woodson site. This has been an on/off problem for KPFK since it signed on last year.
Does anybody have pictures of this translator? Is it on wheels?

 

[SDRadio]

I'll make a trek up there and snap a few. I should be able to do this in the next couple of weeks.

 

[jprg]

You can find photos of the repeater for KPFK at www.donmussell.smugmug.com

 

[Big 121]

Nice link, jprg.The generator has no wheels. 40 years ago, the Mt only had a few repeaters and the Nat. Weather Service. Its bristling with services now.

 

[SML]

The input to the translator was set for a signal level from Tijuana that would allow a deep null, using phase cancellation, thus allowing KPFK to come through cleanly and consistently. The signal level from Tijuana has changed (increased), and it appears that the previous null is no longer sufficient. We are in the process of adding more filtering to allow KPFK to be rebroadcast clearly again. This is the same problem we had when Diaz ran his station on 90.7, but the variations were more weather related at a distance. In this case, we have line of sight to both Mt Wilson and Tijuana. The KPFK signal is constant, so the variation is to the south.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Oh no! A cheating Mexican station? Watch out or you'll have David Gleason all over you.

 

[Big 121]

1. XHTIM is just "appropiating" the unused KSIQ watts.
2. KPFK should feed the translator with something reliable, like a T-1 line... oh,never mind.
A cartoon from the old Electronics Illustrated shows a disgruntled FCC agent confronting an illegal CB shack; the operator says yes, it's overpowered
and yes,the antenna is illegal: it's also 1200' inside MEXICO.
Check frame #26 of Don's photos. That's how a pro weatherproofs the Heliax/Belden junction...

 

[davideduardo]

Oh no! A cheating Mexican station? Watch out or you'll have David Gleason all over you.

There is a big difference between something illegal and something that is legal in one country but not legal in an adjacent country. But it seems that is a distinction you just can't make.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Oh no! A cheating Mexican station? Watch out or you'll have David Gleason all over you.

There is a big difference between something illegal and something that is legal in one country but not legal in an adjacent country. But it seems that is a distinction you just can't make.

No, incorrect Mr. Gleason. I understand there are different laws in different countries. For instance, it's illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia but not in Mexico, the U.S. and numerous other countries. What I also understand is that violation of an existing treaty (or simple failure to enforce said treaty) between Mexico and the U.S. is a failure to hold as law the treaties and agreements signed to by both countries in an effort to allow everyone a fair and level playing field and a right to coverage without harmful interference of each countries broadcast entities. When an operator operates at variance to their authorization in their advantage and thus causes harmful interference to another operator operating within their assigned authorization, the one operating at variance then becomes illegal and therefore a *cheater*.

It's actually a very simple concept you seem unable to grasp.

 

[radio-darn]

Having been a party to US/Mexico treaty negotiations in the US and Mexico City (not involving radio) I know first hand that a treaty is a compromise agreement at best. US law and US interpretation of a treaty does not apply to other parties to a treaty. As wikipedia succinctly notes, "No one party to a treaty can impose its particular interpretation of the treaty upon the other parties," and "In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law."

Whatever the Mexican government permits its stations to do is legal as they are free to interpret the treaties as they see fit. The FCC no doubt has many staffers who bitch and moan because the SCT doesn't do business they way they do, but the fact is the this is the way treaties work and the US-Mexico border FM agreement is what it is and Mexico's interpretation of it has not - as best I can determine - resulted in any US State Department formal protests and it appears that US government accepts the status quo. Southern California broadcasters have been whining about this for a couple of decades, but it is what it is: Mexico is not the United States and has its own laws.

 

[davideduardo]

No, incorrect Mr. Gleason. I understand there are different laws in different countries. For instance, it's illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia but not in Mexico, the U.S. and numerous other countries. What I also understand is that violation of an existing treaty (or simple failure to enforce said treaty) between Mexico and the U.S. is a failure to hold as law the treaties and agreements signed to by both countries in an effort to allow everyone a fair and level playing field and a right to coverage without harmful interference of each countries broadcast entities. When an operator operates at variance to their authorization in their advantage and thus causes harmful interference to another operator operating within their assigned authorization, the one operating at variance then becomes illegal and therefore a *cheater*.

It's actually a very simple concept you seem unable to grasp.

The fact is that NARBA is inoperative; Mexico and the US operate on "agreements" and a bi-national commission to mediate.

Radio-darn's explanation is concise and to the point. Read it.

If degrees (or the definition) of tolerance, caused by enforcement or lack of same, creates different standards that is no different from the "definition" of FCC rules by administrative law. for example, the FCC never had "rules" about the percentages of news, PA and Other programming and the number of commercials, but administrative law established the expectations the commission had and for several decades in the 60's and 70's stations followed those ranges.

Canada long interpreted treaties as not obstructing the licensing of 50 kw station on US regional channels; the US resisted this for many decades before changing (and the change had more to do with the definition of "major change" and strike applications than engineering). Different nations, different viewpoints, even within a treaty.

If Mexico's enforcement establishes licensed powers to be investigated only if more than 100% over licensed values (hypothetical case), then stations understand that a 75% increase in power will not generate sanctions, and, thus, is legal. No different than the 70 MPH speed limit on the 10 means you can go 85 and not get a ticket going towards AZ.

I owned two licensed AMs which operated a full 5 kHz off the assigned frequency for several years.

But, more to the point I am making: I had one AM licensed to 805 kHz and which was precisely on 805. Yet I got a direct letter from the FCC in the US saying I was interfering with WGY in violation with international treaties. I took the letter to the Director of Telecommunications, Radio Division, and together we did a letter in English telling the FCC to suck wind. The copy to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs produced a protest to the US Ambassidor objecting to intervention in the internal affairs of a a sovereign nation.

So you see that there tends to be even an official view that FCC rules are the "best rules" and that any nation that enforces with greater tolerance or regulates with different standards is simply wrong.

There is no international law that dictates that Mexico follow US standards, and the current agreement does constitute law in any event.

The FM agreement states, "Agreement between the government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States relating to the FM broadcasting services... the parties, desiring to continue their mutual understanding and cooperation concerning FM broadcasting and recognizing the sovereign right of both countries in the management of their telecommunications..."

In other words, Mexico is a sovereign nation and agreed to try to coordinate things with the US, but, at the end of the day, can do whatever it really wants to do. That's all the agreement guarantees.

 

[davideduardo]

There is no international law that dictates that Mexico follow US standards, and the current agreement does constitute law in any event.

That should be "the current agreement does not constitute law..."

 

[RadeoEngineer]

The bottom line to all of this verbal masturbation and parsing of words is that it's OK for Mexico to violate its agreements with the U.S. at will and cause interference to U.S. stations that comply with the agreement, knowing if they just upped their power to blow out the Mexican interference the FCC would be handing out citations without hesitation, while the SCT claims sovereign right for their border blaster cheaters to do anything they want.

Yeah, I get it.

 

[davideduardo]

The bottom line to all of this verbal masturbation and parsing of words is that it's OK for Mexico to violate its agreements with the U.S. at will and cause interference to U.S. stations that comply with the agreement, knowing if they just upped their power to blow out the Mexican interference the FCC would be handing out citations without hesitation, while the SCT claims sovereign right for their border blaster cheaters to do anything they want.

Yeah, I get it.

You are getting closer. And you seem to see that Mexico has all the right in the world to apply whatever interpretation it likes to any agreement, at its convenience.

The same goes for every foreign nation in the world. They have no obligation to do what is in the US' best interests... something that even a lot of US presidents, particularly from Monroe to the first Roosevelt, did not quite get either.

You might, as a little civics exercise, look at how closely the US followed its agreements with Ecuador when it allowed Peru to come in and take 1/3 of its territory. Just one example that shows that treaties and agreements are subject to interpretation, convenience and the whims of the governing bodies.

Mexico is still annoyed that the US allowed many, many AMs to be built that protected other US AMs by sending all their night power over Mexico... did the US ever revise the night operations of those stations?

There is no Ohm's Law for diplomacy and international relations. This is not science, and there are no absolutes. Diplomacy is closer to an art form, and like much art, what is attractive to some is ugly to others.

Now maybe you get it.

 

[BecTero]

So if XHTIM can blast whatever watts it wants to, it must mean its "open season" on all L.A. area radio frequencies!!

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Mr Gleason, as you well know, there is an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that both parties negotiated and signed in good faith regarding allocations. That includes frequencies, classes, power levels, directionality and other matters of compliance. If it's your position that Mexican licensees can at will ignore said agreement because they are a sovereign nation, then we have no disagreement. The only disagreement we seem to have is that it's called "cheating".

 

[RadeoEngineer]

And to quote Victor Diaz, "Maybe Mexican watts are different from American watts." You bet they are Mr. Diaz. RIP

 

[davideduardo]

So if XHTIM can blast whatever watts it wants to, it must mean its "open season" on all L.A. area radio frequencies!!

Yeah, if they want to.

Just as the US blasted the AM band in Mexico in the 30's and 40's.

There is no binding law, just an agreement to cooperate.

Of course, in the case of KPFK, it's important to keep in mind that it is protected to the extent of its conforming class B status, not its grandfathered power. Mexico has no obligation to protect US signals that require no protection in the US itself. Of course, again, Mexico has no obligation to protect any US signal unless it decides it's in its own self interest to do so... the nature of all treaties.

 

[davideduardo]

""

Mr Gleason, as you well know, there is an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that both parties negotiated and signed in good faith regarding allocations. That includes frequencies, classes, power levels, directionality and other matters of compliance. If it's your position that Mexican licensees can at will ignore said agreement because they are a sovereign nation, then we have no disagreement. The only disagreement we seem to have is that it's called "cheating".

Among diplomats, a different attitude towards compliance is called "interpretation."

My comparison with speed limits and actual enforcement applies, again.

Mexico interprets the "absoluteness" of the agreement with more tolerance to margins than you do, and that is their right.

Your attitude is called "jingoism."

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Re: ""

Mr Gleason, as you well know, there is an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that both parties negotiated and signed in good faith regarding allocations. That includes frequencies, classes, power levels, directionality and other matters of compliance. If it's your position that Mexican licensees can at will ignore said agreement because they are a sovereign nation, then we have no disagreement. The only disagreement we seem to have is that it's called "cheating".

Among diplomats, a different attitude towards compliance is called "interpretation."

My comparison with speed limits and actual enforcement applies, again.

Mexico interprets the "absoluteness" of the agreement with more tolerance to margins than you do, and that is their right.

Your attitude is called "jingoism."

Yeah, I figured ad hominem attacks were coming.

You clearly don't know me if you're attempting to suggest I hold any racist bias toward anyone. I am as non "jingoistic" as they come. For you to imply such is a cheap shot of the greatest magnitude.

You continuously try to justify the illegal operations of numerous Mexican border stations with terms like "sovereignty" and "interpretation" and "absoluteness of the agreement" and "more tolerance to margins." This is nothing but spin on the fact that there are once again known numerous Mexican border stations that simply operate outside of their assigned parameters, at will, with no enforcement of the agreements between the U.S. and Mexico as to assignments. How many are there in the American border zone? KSIQ? Who else?

If there is anyone that presents a jingoistic attitude, I submit it is you, Mr. Gleason.