• 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 latest on the 104.9 SA translator

J

jd

Quoting from another thread on the board:

Kevan said:
Kent said:
If they put KKYX on the 104.9 translator, it should have no trouble crushing KBUC 92.5.
Click to expand...

Assuming that translator ever makes it to the air! :D
Click to expand...

The FCC has approved the application to relocate the transmitter to Datapoint. Paperwork indicates that the translator will become a "fill-in" for KKYX. Details of the proposed coverage can be found here:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS...?appn=101490016&qnum=5160&copynum=1&exhcnum=1

Note two things about this deal, however. K285EU is still licensed to Mendoza, a long way from San Antonio, and it's listed as being owned by Houston Christian Broadcasters (records show it as "licensed and silent"). An application to sell it to Cox is still listed as "accepted for filing" and there's no record of an actual consummation of a deal. And on that first point, I posted a while back that this smacks of a textbook "serial application" relocation (multiple hops) for a translator, something that the FCC supposedly frowns upon. In this case, though, it appears they've chosen to overlook it.

So the prediction is things will go as planned; the sale will take place, the translator will get on the air, and they'll simulcast KKYX (although that could change later). Probably the only thing that could mess things up is if another company, let's say, were to file an informal objection to the sale or relocation of the translator, with evidence that indicates this is indeed a case of "serial applications."
 
That's funny. How long does it take for the FCC to update things? I remember they use to simulcast KHCB in Houston on 104.7 in Mendoza. When they were broadcasting it was in Mono broadcast. It has been off the air for a few years now.
 
But the license says 104.9. Maybe they switched frequencies a few years ago and you lost track?

I never heard the signal.
 
jd said:
K285EU is still licensed to Mendoza, a long way from San Antonio, and it's listed as being owned by Houston Christian Broadcasters (records show it as "licensed and silent"). An application to sell it to Cox is still listed as "accepted for filing" and there's no record of an actual consummation of a deal. And on that first point, I posted a while back that this smacks of a textbook "serial application" relocation (multiple hops) for a translator, something that the FCC supposedly frowns upon. In this case, though, it appears they've chosen to overlook it.

So the prediction is things will go as planned; the sale will take place, the translator will get on the air, and they'll simulcast KKYX (although that could change later). Probably the only thing that could mess things up is if another company, let's say, were to file an informal objection to the sale or relocation of the translator, with evidence that indicates this is indeed a case of "serial applications."
Click to expand...

1. Translators don't actually have a "City of License", only an area they said they want to serve in the application. No 307b, no rulemaking, etc.

2. The translator has not moved since 2011, and now moves with a "waiver" of the minor change rule. That is by precedent now, so the issue with "serial applications" probably does not apply.

3. In the LPFM proceeding, a translators already located in a "metro" county is relatively unhindered in its movements within the "metro" area.

4. Apparently, no one in SA has has complained about the illegal translators there, so not likely any local radio group will complain about this. I doubt anyone wants to stir up trouble, or bring scrutiny that might come back to haunt them.
 
Kevan said:
But the license says 104.9. Maybe they switched frequencies a few years ago and you lost track?

I never heard the signal.
Click to expand...

They never switched frequencies as long as they were licensed to Mendoza they went dark a few years ago.
 
Yes, they did change frequencies, at least on paper. To address the issues brought up by Iused2nothat, (1) I'm aware that translators are licensed to areas to be served, not COL's. (2) I disagree with you that "serial applications" might not apply, but I'll agree that the translator probably hasn't physically moved since 2011 or maybe even earlier [see the retro quote below]. (3) The translator was not in a San Antonio "metro area" county at first; it supposedly was in one such county (Guadalupe) by its fourth location and in Bexar County by the time it was licensed from a site near Converse, which by then was its eighth location. (4) You make a good point. The big boys (Cox's competitors, specifically) would probably be the only ones who would dare file an objection.

To illustrate my point further, here's one of my posts from last year:

jd said:
KevanGC said:
As for 104.9, anyone have an idea when it'll be up in SA? Nothing on 104.9 here on the northside.
Click to expand...

I'll follow that up with another question. Has anyone ever heard this translator in the San Antonio area? For that matter, did the translator actually operate from each of its previous locations?

I don't have any vested interest or an axe to grind here, but this whole thing is suspicious. As I mentioned earlier, the FCC questioned whether a translator in Wisconsin had effected a "major" change in moving about 60 miles "by a succession of serial minor change applications." For that translator, it involved six locations, but in the case of the 104.9 Mendoza translator the relocation to the Cox complex would be its tenth location since it was originally licensed in Mendoza.

The following is a list of locations for the translator derived from the respective applications, showing the date the FCC accepted the application with the date it was licensed in parentheses. (Mileage is approximate.)

10/16/00 (09/10/01) original CP, 1 mile ESE of Mendoza
11/23/09 (12/04/09) 8 miles E of San Marcos
12/08/09 (12/16/09) 10 miles SE of San Marcos
03/23/10 (04/19/10) 11 miles E of New Braunfels
08/03/10 (09/17/10) 7 miles ESE of New Braunfels
12/30/10 (01/25/11) 7 miles E of Cibolo
03/14/11 (04/14/11) 1/2 mile SSE of Cibolo
05/17/11 (06/16/11) Converse, off Gibbs Sprawl Road
08/08/11 (09/15/11) San Antonio, Jones Maltsberger NE of Bitters
03/09/12 (pending) San Antonio, 8122 Datapoint

Does that resemble a "serial minor change" application list?
Click to expand...

As stated above, the translator owner applied for and received approval for licenses at all the locations described Applying for a license implies that construction was completed and the translator was actually operating (or able to operate) from the location given, does it not?

Links to all K285EU applications can be found at: http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_list.pl?Facility_id=87144
 
It would take some work to find the correlations, but I think some of those moves were caused by the many iterations of the 104.9 move-in to Austin.

As for LPFM protection, the question is whether it was in a metro county when the LPFM rulemaking came out.

Applying for a license implies that construction was completed and the translator was actually operating
Click to expand...
In the past, HCB's translator operations would give Claro a run for their money, but the new HCB DOE is a smart, by-the-book guy, and I hope he has them convinced to "Render unto Caesar".
 
Use a free signal like 94.5 or 96.7. Or perhaps 107.9?


And I just checked, no 104.9 on the air yet in SA.
 
Anonymouse said:
And I just checked, no 104.9 on the air yet in SA.
Click to expand...

Don't count on hearing it anytime soon.

Clear Channel has filed a "petition for reconsideration" of the FCC's approval for the latest relocation of the translator (referred to as the “Datapoint Drive Application”).

To see the details of the petition go to https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...xt=25&appn=101546714&formid=917&fac_num=87144 Then click on the exhibit at the bottom of the page.

The first few pages outline Clear Channel's specific objections to the grant of the latest construction permit. One will quickly see that much of the petition consists of prior correspondence and exhibits related to a Petition for Cancellation of License [for translator K285EU Mendoza], Request for Hearing Designation Order, and Petition for Reconsideration...not from Clear Channel but by Cox Radio. [It should be noted once again that Cox doesn't own the 104.9 translator; the application for the sale by Houston Christian Broadcasters has yet to be approved and is still listed as "accepted for filing."]

I didn't really intend to provide a "CliffsNotes" version of the saga; you'll have to read it yourself. That includes the the final two pages, a letter from March of 2012 describing Cox's decision to withdraw its protests about the translator and their plans to buy it. So as it turns out, Cox provided Clear Channel with a wealth of research into the history of the translator.
 
Short version: Cox gets kicked in the balls yet again by CC!

Might be just about time for them to wake up and make a move? LOL.
 
Maybe it doesn't matter that Clear Channel is the one blowing the whistle, it's the fact that someone is fighting the move and the sale. I find it ironic [or more to the point, "suspicious"] that Cox fought so hard to keep the translator from moving into San Antonio then decided it would be in their best interest to buy it, immediately after they dropped their complaints.

Nowhere in their Cox's pleadings did they mention that it appeared HCB had engaged in filing "serial minor change" applications to effect a "major" relocation from the translator's original site. Nor did Clear Channel in their current complaints, for that matter, but the FCC should have recognized what was going on all along. I'd consider this to be a textbook case of abuse, maybe one of the worst I've ever seen. As noted in the narratives at least one of the relocated transmitter sites was supposedly up and running in a matter of days and that was soon followed by another application to "move" again. It should be obvious to anyone that there were probably a lot of false statements along the way.

Say what you will about the FCC's procedures and their enforcement actions, but one basic truth remains: they don't like it when people lie to them.
 
So HCB is abusing the system? This is just, ironic. It's supposed to be a Christian group.

Sorry if you meant Cox was. Just seems a little confusing.
 
Thinking back I won't be surprised in the slightest if the FCC completely ignores CC's petition and does nothing to stop the moving translator.

After all they still let all of the illegal translators broadcast without doing anything to stop them. And this has been going on for years. Surely a couple unnecessary applications can't be that bad right alongside all this other stuff!
 
willdav713 said:
jd said:
See also Clear Channel's informal objection to the sale of the translator from Houston Christian Broadcasters to Cox Radio at: https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/w...xt=25&appn=101546712&formid=917&fac_num=87144 (Click on the exhibit at the bottom of the page.)
Click to expand...

Probably because 104.9 would interfere with 104.5?
Click to expand...

Would it? I thought the same about the Wild translator. I figured Magic's sidebands would reak havoc on 105.7, but they were co-existing quite well the last time I was over there in S.A. I'd be more afraid of KZEP's interference with the translator than the other way around, but I'd be willing to bet the two make it work somehow.
 
fredcantu said:
Here in Austin we have translators 0.4 away from 94.7, 95.5, 96.7, 98.1, 98.9, 102.3 and 103.5. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

I've never noticed any IBOC slopover problems with second adjacents. The digital sidebands aren't wide enough to be an issue. First adjacents, yes.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom