New "D"s for Chula Vista and South San Diego

[badjef]

Is there any protection offered north of the border for the X's?

There are new apps for 105.7 licensed to Chula Vista and South San Diego. Certainly challenging a strong Walrus signal.

Conversely, What type of protection, do the San Diego stations have south of the border?

These LPFMs could turn into little mosquitos.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[fybush]

There's no cross-border protection for FMs. The Walrus has no protection from interference on US soil, and vice versa for US FMs on Mexican soil. (Same deal for Canada.)

But I suspect the apps you're seeing in the database go back to the "Great Translator Invasion" of 2004, and predate the current Walrus facilities. Even if the 105.7 apps on the US side could get past the bureaucratic gridlock in which most of the '04 apps are mired, they wouldn't be of much value if they're drowned out by the Mexican signal.

 

[badjef]

There's no cross-border protection for FMs. The Walrus has no protection from interference on US soil, and vice versa for US FMs on Mexican soil. (Same deal for Canada.)

But I suspect the apps you're seeing in the database go back to the "Great Translator Invasion" of 2004, and predate the current Walrus facilities. Even if the 105.7 apps on the US side could get past the bureaucratic gridlock in which most of the '04 apps are mired, they wouldn't be of much value if they're drowned out by the Mexican signal.

Why would the American FCC even entertain the idea of a Chula Vista [email protected]? Let alone accept the applications?
I can understand a church wanting to use it as a glorified Part15 for special occasions, but why bother?

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Scott, having worked in San Diego for 30 years, and for both XETRA and Jefferson Pilot, I have to disagree with you that there are no cross border protections. There is a cross border agreement, though it's only enforced north of the border. South of the border they don't have to show you any stinkin' badges. I did have some minor success on one or two occasions of getting relief from south of the border interference, but generally, if they don't want to comply there's no one to make them comply. I don't pay enough attention any more to know what might be happening with D's around the border, but there is an agreement, and it's supposed to protect both country's broadcast facilities. That it doesn't is not indicative of a lack of an agreement; it is indicative of the Mexican's willingness to openly cheat.

I hear Gleason firing up his PC. Let the fireworks begin.

 

[fybush]

Radeo, I agree with you completely that there's an agreement...but what it's designed to protect is each side's reception of its own facilities. Remember the kerfuffle over 105.7 when it signed on? The specific problem at issue was impaired reception on US soil of the US-licensed Hemet station because of an uncoordinated relocation of the Ensenada 105.7.

Real-life scenario along the northern border: the FCC allocated 92.1A to the Buffalo suburb of Amherst, just 80 miles from 80 kW class C1 CKPC-FM Brampton ON, also on 92.1. The only thing the Amherst proposal had to show was that reception of CKPC-FM within its protected contour on Canadian soil would not be affected. Even though CKPC-FM is easily audible on US soil, its reception receives no protection here. Same deal for the Buffalo signals on 92.9, 93.7, 94.5, 98.5, 99.5 and 106.5 that have had Canadian signals pop up on co- or adjacent channels - as long as the Buffalo signals are protected on US soil, Canada can do what it wants on those channels on its own turf. Several stations that have used those channels in Canada have subsequently had to change frequency because the incoming interference from the US was too much to overcome.

As for the 105.7 San Diego apps? I believe they were filed before the present Walrus facilities existed. Even if they weren't, as long as they clear US protection rules, the FCC has no authority to tell an applicant, "that's a stupid proposal that will be overcome by Mexican interference."

 

[davideduardo]

I hear Gleason firing up his PC. Let the fireworks begin.

Nah, if you don't understand by now that sovereign nations are free to implement and regulate (and even ignore) "agreements" in their own way, I can't say anything more.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

I hear Gleason firing up his PC. Let the fireworks begin.

Nah, if you don't understand by now that sovereign nations are free to implement and regulate (and even ignore) "agreements" in their own way, I can't say anything more.

Then please explain to me what the value of an agreement is. When someone, be it an individual or your "sovereign nation" signs an agreement, and then doesn't adhere to same, isn't there a term one would use for that?

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Scott I'm talking about stations with authorizations for directional antennas that are supposed to be running 400 watts north that are running 10kW omni, and another authorized for 1kW operating 20, because as Victor Diaz would tell us "Maybe Mexican watts are different from American watts." Then there's the 50kW AM that's supposed to switch to a night pattern but has never had the capability of doing so. And the list goes on.

 

[davideduardo]

Then please explain to me what the value of an agreement is. When someone, be it an individual or your "sovereign nation" signs an agreement, and then doesn't adhere to same, isn't there a term one would use for that?

Some international agreements have a limiting value as opposed to an absolute value. They prevent egregious behaviour, but sometimes don't stop more minor violations of the letter or the spirit of an agreement.

Another issue is how important the central government of each signatory nation feels the matter is. If they see the agreement as a formality an low in overall diplomatic priority, they won't push for absolute compliance as that would reduce the dry powder available for more pressing issues.

 

[davideduardo]

...because as Victor Diaz would tell us ...

I'd like to know how Víctor Díaz can tell us anything today.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Just more spin Gleason on the illegal operations of several Tijuana area broadcasters. And that's a direct quote from Victor from a few years ago when he ran XLNC well above its authorization.

 

[600kogo]

These days John, if the mexican government went after the broadcasters (Jaime Bonilla, and other crooks) the drug dealers will shoot at them for going after their officials. So they would prefer to take their bribes from Bonilla and crew and move on.

Just what I see from Mexico

 

[davideduardo]

Just more spin Gleason on the illegal operations of several Tijuana area broadcasters. And that's a direct quote from Victor from a few years ago when he ran XLNC well above its authorization.

Again, I'll mention the stretch of I-10 from Whitewater to Indio. It's marked 70 MPH but the traffic flows at around 80 to 82, and the more hasty drivers are in the 85 MPH range. In 10 years of driving that piece of road at least twice a week, I have never seen anyone pulled over unless they were well above 85.

The law says "70." Drivers generally go 80 up to 85, because there is no enforcement in that +15 MPH range.

Yes, it's illegal to go over 70. But the government does not enforce the letter of that law... it's a tolerance zone.

If Mexico has different enforcement standards, and stations operate in a manner which would not be tolerated in the US, you still can't judge by US standards because those stations are within the "tolerance zone" their own country has, de facto, established.

 

[badjef]

Just more spin Gleason on the illegal operations of several Tijuana area broadcasters. And that's a direct quote from Victor from a few years ago when he ran XLNC well above its authorization.

Again, I'll mention the stretch of I-10 from Whitewater to Indio. It's marked 70 MPH but the traffic flows at around 80 to 82, and the more hasty drivers are in the 85 MPH range. In 10 years of driving that piece of road at least twice a week, I have never seen anyone pulled over unless they were well above 85.

The law says "70." Drivers generally go 80 up to 85, because there is no enforcement in that +15 MPH range.

Yes, it's illegal to go over 70. But the government does not enforce the letter of that law... it's a
tolerance zone.

If Mexico has different enforcement standards, and stations operate in a manner which would not be tolerated in the US, you still can't judge by US standards because those stations are within the "tolerance zone" their own country has, de facto, established.

70 plus or minus 20%, I presume?
So, when it comes to Mexican enforcement of radio, I guess it's +-3db.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Just more spin Gleason on the illegal operations of several Tijuana area broadcasters. And that's a direct quote from Victor from a few years ago when he ran XLNC well above its authorization.

Again, I'll mention the stretch of I-10 from Whitewater to Indio. It's marked 70 MPH but the traffic flows at around 80 to 82, and the more hasty drivers are in the 85 MPH range. In 10 years of driving that piece of road at least twice a week, I have never seen anyone pulled over unless they were well above 85.

The law says "70." Drivers generally go 80 up to 85, because there is no enforcement in that +15 MPH range.

Yes, it's illegal to go over 70. But the government does not enforce the letter of that law... it's a tolerance zone.

If Mexico has different enforcement standards, and stations operate in a manner which would not be tolerated in the US, you still can't judge by US standards because those stations are within the "tolerance zone" their own country has, de facto, established.

Most absurd argument I've ever read from you. XHTIM was authorized for a directional antenna with 400 watts north and runs omni with 10 kW. XHPRS was authorized 50kW day with a nighttime pattern change they've never been able to make. XLNC was authorized for 1 kW and has run well above that for years. Just these three examples show clear violations of their authorizations and failure to enforce the agreement with the United States that Mexico negotiated and signed. Those are only three examples. There are many more if we want to get into the Bonilla facilities. If you read the Mexican rules for broadcast stations, they are very close to the same rules we operate under in the U.S. The difference is Mexico cheats. Stop trying to make it sound like its some ridiculous cultural difference Gleason. You're silly and wrong.

 

[davideduardo]

Stop trying to make it sound like its some ridiculous cultural difference Gleason. You're silly and wrong.

This has nothing to do with culture. It's about the importance each nation places on enforcement of specific regulations. That was the point of my example of speed limit enforcement on a US highway in California: if there is loose enforcement, there will be a significant amount of "pushing the limits."

Just consider it fortunate we don't have Italy or Spain or Argentina on our border... places where regulation is so lax that high profile, high power stations exist without licenses... where the equivalents of counties and cities license stations at will... where power is used as a weapon to take possession of a dial position. They all have rules, but either no budget or no interest in enforcement so the result is total chaos as opposed to relatively few incidents of international impact.

It's amusing that in the 60's and 70's, Mexico used to complain about the totally uncoordinated licensing of stations in Guatemala in a period where AMs were going from longwire antennas to 10 to 20 kw in non-directional verticals, often on frequencies used in southern Mexico by stations limited in power by NARBA. Mexico eventually just gave higher powers to the affected stations... just as the US did when Cuba abrogated NARBA. Of course, the US "made it right" by calling the excess powers (like 5000 watts on 1240 non directional at night) STA's.

 

[radio-darn]

...because as Victor Diaz would tell us ...

I'd like to know how Víctor Díaz can tell us anything today.

Then apparently you never read the book Victor published in 2004, The Spirit: That Stranger Inside Us:

Are we immortal? A brilliant nuclear physicist presents solid scientific evidence that we are. In simple terms non-scientists can understand, Jean Charon offers us positive proof that our bodies may die, but our Spirits live on forever.

I am sure that to this day Victor enjoys a cosmic giggle watching US engineers get their panties in a bunch because of Mexican watts.

 

[RadeoEngineer]

Stop trying to make it sound like its some ridiculous cultural difference Gleason. You're silly and wrong.

if there is loose enforcement, there will be a significant amount of "pushing the limits."

Now your getting it, but still parsing.

 

[Radio-X]

When I went to Tijuana at 19 (well before the drug wars got real hot) I brought back some Valium for the plane ride home from SD. All I had to do was walk up to the pharmacy, put $20 American on the counter, and asked for it by name. No Dr. consultations, no ID to show, and the scariest part was bringing them back to Estados Unidos. That same night I went to a bar where for $3 US you could have a bottle of top-shelf tequilla brought to you and you could drink as much as you want directly from the bottle in one huge gulp!

Why do I say this? Valium is a controlled drug in Mexico and I seriously doubt the legality of passing liquor around at the bar and not paying for the entire bottle. However, money greases squeaky wheels down there...and when la policia are far more worried about gang wars and saving their own tails, enforcement of relatively "minor" rules and regs just slip through the cracks.

Just like its illegal for a Tijuana pharmacist to sell prescription sleeping aids over the counter, it is illegal for a Tijuana radio owner to crank those Mexican watts up. However, in most cases they both know where their bread is buttered (USA) and are willing to throw a few bones to any noisy inspector that starts asking questions. The US govt really couldn't give a hoot because they're busy building a big fence that will supposedly keep the illegal aliens and La Zetas from "invading" the country.

Radio-X

 

[davideduardo]

When I went to Tijuana at 19 (well before the drug wars got real hot) I brought back some Valium for the plane ride home from SD. All I had to do was walk up to the pharmacy, put $20 American on the counter, and asked for it by name. No Dr. consultations, no ID to show, and the scariest part was bringing them back to Estados Unidos. That same night I went to a bar where for $3 US you could have a bottle of top-shelf tequilla brought to you and you could drink as much as you want directly from the bottle in one huge gulp!

That's not unusual... and years ago, not even, for the most part, illegal.

When I lived in Ecuador, here are the things I could do at age 17:

- Go to a drug store and describe any bad feeling I had and get prescription medications with no doctor consult.
- Go to a drug store and get pain killers like Darvon, which is of the Vicodin type.
- Go to a bar and order a drink.
- Go to a corner store and buy a bottle.
- Patronize a legal house of ill repute.

Later, when I had some radio stations, I had one licensed to 805, which had a bad het from a foreign station on 800 at night... I moved to 810 without requesting permission. Nobody said anything for years. Among other things, I also increased the power of one of my FMs three times without notifying the government and moved the transmitter site about 3000 feet higher without a permit... because nobody cared.