J
JohnsGoat
Guest
Anyone else in the selden area notice that radioX interferes with q104.3?
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1
1290wgli
Guest
> > Anyone else in the selden area notice that radioX
> interferes
> > with q104.3?
> >
> Well, that makes sense...the 104.5 translator is in Selden.
> I also think Selden is outside of Q104.3's protected
> contour.
>
Yeah, Q-104 fans east of 58 are kinda out of luck. Too bad so sad.
> interferes
> > with q104.3?
> >
> Well, that makes sense...the 104.5 translator is in Selden.
> I also think Selden is outside of Q104.3's protected
> contour.
>
Yeah, Q-104 fans east of 58 are kinda out of luck. Too bad so sad.
> Anyone else in the selden area notice that radioX interferes
> with q104.3?
It really isn't Radio-X, but rather the repeater on 104.5 FM. If there are interference issues it is ultimately the responsibility of the owner/operator/licensee of the translator. However, since it is Radio-X being carried on it, they are the primary target if/when issues arrise with the translator.
> with q104.3?
It really isn't Radio-X, but rather the repeater on 104.5 FM. If there are interference issues it is ultimately the responsibility of the owner/operator/licensee of the translator. However, since it is Radio-X being carried on it, they are the primary target if/when issues arrise with the translator.
Not quite; If 104.3 gets complaints even from beyond the service contour because of this translator, then the translator is still at risk. Its a secondary service, remember...
Either the translator operator could solve interference complaints, or move to another channel... as long as it falls into the definition of a minor change... Or, go off.
Either the translator operator could solve interference complaints, or move to another channel... as long as it falls into the definition of a minor change... Or, go off.
1
1290wgli
Guest
> Not quite; If 104.3 gets complaints even from beyond the
> service contour because of this translator, then the
> translator is still at risk. Its a secondary service,
> remember...
> Either the translator operator could solve interference
> complaints, or move to another channel... as long as it
> falls into the definition of a minor change... Or, go off.
>
But the interference is expected. We're not talking out of band emissions down the other side of the band, this translator is a first adjacent, what did everyone expect when you went to get it licensed? Obviously if there was any true concern about serving this area, CC would have moaned when this was an APP (and if they did care, and sat on their hands, shame on them). Remember, CC recently applied for a translator on 97.3 or 97.7 (don't remember which) just so they could sit on it to protect WALK, so they are paying attention.
I have not heard anything out of the ordinary from the new translator. Actually, I think the interference to Q 104 is not as bad as I originally thought it would be when this was a CP (Power 105 gets chewed by Party much worse in Holbrook than Q-104; QXR sounds noisy because of 96.1).
I would be surprised if this was ordered off the air.
> service contour because of this translator, then the
> translator is still at risk. Its a secondary service,
> remember...
> Either the translator operator could solve interference
> complaints, or move to another channel... as long as it
> falls into the definition of a minor change... Or, go off.
>
But the interference is expected. We're not talking out of band emissions down the other side of the band, this translator is a first adjacent, what did everyone expect when you went to get it licensed? Obviously if there was any true concern about serving this area, CC would have moaned when this was an APP (and if they did care, and sat on their hands, shame on them). Remember, CC recently applied for a translator on 97.3 or 97.7 (don't remember which) just so they could sit on it to protect WALK, so they are paying attention.
I have not heard anything out of the ordinary from the new translator. Actually, I think the interference to Q 104 is not as bad as I originally thought it would be when this was a CP (Power 105 gets chewed by Party much worse in Holbrook than Q-104; QXR sounds noisy because of 96.1).
I would be surprised if this was ordered off the air.
My name is Michael Celenza I own a broadcast consulting business for over 10 years and own the translator on 104.5. In response to your posting regarding interference to WAXQ they are ONLY PROTECTED to their 54DBu (50,50) contour. In order to get our licence for this frequency we had to prove that my translators interfering contour 48 DBu (50,10) would not overlap with WAXQ protected contour 54DBU (50,50).We meet and exceed all FCC rules in this matter if you have anymore question contact me at [email protected]. <P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by MikeCel on 12/04/05 10:54 PM.</FONT></P>
Sorry, Mike. While *you* had to protect WAXQ in the allocation process, they can still come back and claim interference in which case, you need to react.
May I draw your attention to 74.1203(a)(1)&(3) which makes no mention of protected contours.
WAXQ has protection. Your translator is a secondary service, and does not. But, I agree with Mike E - I doubt WAXQ is worried about coverage out your way - else they would have filed a petition to deny back during your public notice period.
May I draw your attention to 74.1203(a)(1)&(3) which makes no mention of protected contours.
WAXQ has protection. Your translator is a secondary service, and does not. But, I agree with Mike E - I doubt WAXQ is worried about coverage out your way - else they would have filed a petition to deny back during your public notice period.
J
JohnsGoat
Guest
Well that does suck since Im a fan of both stations.
F
Freestyleluva103
Guest
> Well that does suck since Im a fan of both stations.
> Heard The station the other day while working out in Westhampton, sounds great. Any plans to have a translator out east of exit 72 or the south fork? Just wondering
> Heard The station the other day while working out in Westhampton, sounds great. Any plans to have a translator out east of exit 72 or the south fork? Just wondering
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.