• 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

The Dark Side

I'm sorry, this article simply can't be accessed.

Is it possible that the admins here might make an exception for material published in this format? Perhaps it could be posted here in full?
 
I got it okay - but I couldn't help but wonder if the effort was worthwhile since the viewer is so cumbersome to use, at least via my browser. Someone e-mailed me a pdf version, and when I get a moment I'll peruse it in that format.
 
mmnassour said:
I'd love to know who is selling these publications these crappy readers..........
Click to expand...

Since the reader won't play on my iPod Touch, I have to assume that it is Flash based.

The article makes a good point about educating listeners. As the author stated, in the KATY/KRTH controversy, Glynn Walden took measurements of KRTH's IBOC emissions mask and found it to be in compliance. That coupled with a lack of proof of listener complaints from KATY (you know, the six required by the FCC) and CBS concluded it was off the hook.

I'm sure many of KATY's listeners are hearing some digital noise but don't know what it is or assume there's something wrong with their radio. If I owned KATY I would be tempted to ask listeners to call in if they have been hearing noise or experiencing ongoing reception problems, and plot where the complaints are coming from.

Yes, diplomacy is necessary when taking the first step of confronting the offending station but it seems to me that the station should also be shown the kind of proof the FCC requires, namely these listener complaints.
 
Actually I find that the viewer works quite well. However, it won't work on devices that don't have FlashPlayer installed, because it is, in fact, a Flash application.

Also, please note that there have been several recent FlashPlayer updates. If you haven't checked for updates lately, I strongly advise going to the Adobe web site and installing the latest version. This will probably make a huge difference in how well Flash applications work in your browser. Also note that there are different versions of FlashPlayer for FireFox and IE. If you use both browsers, you should update both versions.

Try this, and I think you'll agree that the application works very well.
 
Another one of these weird viewers. You know it's so cumbersome and problematic we're spending more time complaining about the delivery method than the content!

Wait, that sounds familiar… :D


(C'mon, someone had to make that comparison.)
 
This article addresses a very important subject. The fact that the listeners of the station that
is RECEIVING the interference assume that it is that station doing something wrong. They call
and say what changes did YOU make to YOUR station to cause the weakened signal, and added
interference.

When you tell the listener that it is not our station that is causing the problem, it is WXYZ,
two towns over. They have a hard time believing that, and ask us to fix it. I know it has
cost my station listeners.

The FCC needs to step up and do it's job! Interference is interference and it's hurting stations.

I know, keep dreaming the FCC will do something about it.....

Good article Carmine, thanks for the link. (I agree that is a rough format to read.)
 
TR1992, your observation is on the money. I have a Class A FM that is first adjacent to a grandfathered Class B running IBOC at -8 dB relative to Class B limits -- not -14 dB, not -10 dB, but -8 dB! It's impossible to get listeners to believe that the problem is a station 80 miles away that they've never heard of, much less get them to provide a credible complaint to the FCC. Listeners blame us and think we should just turn up our power; I wish we could.
 
Hope I haven't exceed as to how much can be quoted, but for those that can't pull up the PDF, here are the first two paragraphs:

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

As a Chief Engineer of an NPR station, and the
owner of a small market AM station, I had high hopes
that IBOC would be a positive step in the evolution of
terrestrial radio.

It certainly was initially touted as a way to bring AM
and FM radio to the next level for the future. Unfortunately,
I have learned that IBOC comes at a very high price
to first adjacent stations that are your neighbors on the
radio dial.

White Noise Hash

Rhode Island Public Radio operates WRNI-FM, a 2 kW
kilowatt Class A FM on 102.7, licensed to Narragansett Pier,
RI. It serves southern Rhode Island and WRNI-AM serves
northern Rhode Island.
WRNI-FM is a grandfathered, short spaced allocation
to WKLB-FM 102.5 in Waltham, Massachusetts. On
December 4, 2008, the licensee of WKLB-FM received an
Experimental Permit from the FCC to conduct tests at
higher IBOC levels.

When those tests started, the coverage area of WRNIFM
was dramatically reduced by white noise on 102.7.

The next paragraph reads:
"In come the complaints"

drt
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom