Receiving Translator interference...what to do?

[Schroedingers Cat]

In the case of WIOT, some of the interference complaints were in areas which were terrain shadowed from WIOT at the edge of their Class B 54 dBu protected contour. That is why they held more weight than a complaint outside the protected contour. There are translators popping up almost daily, and smaller owners also need to be vigilant. In the Detroit area, there are also Canadian stations and translators appearing. Make sure if it is a foreign station, your complaint is filed immediately on their application, to the FCC International Bureau. The treaty needs to be reviewed, including all related footnotes, and ALL aspects of the treaty must be complied with. Review the treaty as engineers yourself, and also get Consulting Engineers and Communications Attorneys involved if necessary. Once it is licensed, there is less recourse if it is a foreign station or translator.

 

[boiseengineer]

July 2012
FM Translator K257BT
Cave Junction, Oregon Channel 254D


Exhibit 1
Description: REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING

EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED. THE TRANSLATOR IS CO-CHANNEL TO A NEW FULL POWER FM STATION, KCMD, GRANTS PASS, OREGON, WHICH FILED ITS INITIAL COVERING LICENSE APPLICATION ON JULY 23, 2012. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TRANSLATOR IS RECEIVING INTERFERENCE FROM KCMD. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SERVICE FROM THE TRANSLATOR THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO RECEIVING FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION IS REQUESTED.

Attachment 13

July 2012
FM Translator K257BT
Cave Junction, Oregon Channel 254D

Purpose of Application
The instant application proposes to modify the licensed operation of FM translator K257BT Cave
Junction, to operate on third-adjacent Channel 254D. This modification has proven to be
necessary following the recent activation of new FM station KCMD on Channel 257A at the nearby community of Grants Pass, cochannel with the current translator operation....

 

[w9wi]

CONSEQUENTLY, THE TRANSLATOR IS RECEIVING INTERFERENCE FROM KCMD. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SERVICE FROM THE TRANSLATOR THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO RECEIVING FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION IS REQUESTED.

Interesting phrasing "...the translator is receiving interference from KCMD..."

This would be nowhere near the first time I've seen a station (translator or otherwise) complain, in an FCC filing, of interference, when that station is clearly not entitled to protection under the rules.

 

[Kmagrill]

CONSEQUENTLY, THE TRANSLATOR IS RECEIVING INTERFERENCE FROM KCMD. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SERVICE FROM THE TRANSLATOR THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO RECEIVING FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF THE APPLICATION IS REQUESTED.

Interesting phrasing "...the translator is receiving interference from KCMD..."

This would be nowhere near the first time I've seen a station (translator or otherwise) complain, in an FCC filing, of interference, when that station is clearly not entitled to protection under the rules.

Although translators are not protected from interference, they can ask for changes if they are experiencing interference, especially from a new full service station. Aside from the usual minor changes, the FCC will typically permit, on a case by case basis, major changes if interference mitigation from a new facility is the reason.

 

[bossbill]

Regardless of contour overlap, etc., a listener receiving interference from a translator or booster can ask the licensee to correct the problem, and is free to submit a compaint to the commission. The commission will then ask the licensee to correct the problem.

RE: solicitations... KXXO at one point encouraged listeners to complain about a booster in Olympia whch was only causing problems close to the booster transmitter. We bought several receivers to solve that problem. The issue was not interference to KXXO, only that KXXO didn't want competition in the market.

In Aberdeen, WA a listener to a Seattle FM complained about interference from a KPLU translator. Licensee istalled a receiver and low-power transmitter in complainant's home so he could receive his Tom Lykis.

 

[Kmagrill]

RE: solicitations... KXXO at one point encouraged listeners to complain about a booster in Olympia whch was only causing problems close to the booster transmitter. We bought several receivers to solve that problem. The issue was not interference to KXXO, only that KXXO didn't want competition in the market.

In Aberdeen, WA a listener to a Seattle FM complained about interference from a KPLU translator. Licensee istalled a receiver and low-power transmitter in complainant's home so he could receive his Tom Lykis.

Many translator operators don't know that the FCC considers soliciting complaints as an act that "poisons the well", so they don't point out the solicitations to the FCC. The reason for the policy basically hinges on the term "regularly used signal" in 74.1203 (a)(3). If a translator interferes with a regularly used frequency, then presumably, the listener does not need to be solicited since they should already be aware of the problem. If they have to be solicited, then it taints the reported interference since it demonstrates that they were not previously aware of the problem. The question at hand is not if a translator causes interference. Rather, it's if the translator causes interference to someone that had been a regular listener prior to the translator going on the air.

In any event, it may be cheaper and easier to resolve complaints than to engage in a legal battle at the FCC, even if the translator can prevail.