• 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

translators and upgrades

M

Mainedude2007

hopefully this goes here, if not the mods can move it...

I have a friend who's a OM and we were discussing an interesting situation thats arose with one of his stations. It seems a translator has gone on the air on the same frequency 75 or so miles away. Under the current license the translator fits (the full power as is is a C3 at 6kw), but under the upgrade that was granted back in 2/07 (C2 at 15kw) the translator would overlap with the protected contour. the translator dates back to 2004 but has a modification to the CP in april of this year and as of a couple weeks ago is on the air.

My question is, does this translator have to be shut down or can it be forced to move or.....?
 
Mainedude2007 said:
My question is, does this translator have to be shut down or can it be forced to move or.....?
Click to expand...

(Well, maybe it would fit better under "Engineering" but since may become a concern for more and more stations, it might be appropriate here, too.)

The answer to your question would seem to be yes, but surprisingly the "burden of proof" actually may rest with the station. The applicable FCC rule reads: "Interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by the FM translator or booster station, regardless of the quality of such reception."

That seems to be pretty cut and dry, but there have been cases where the FCC ruled that a station must provide evidence not only that interference does (or would) exist, but also that they have actual listenership within the translator's 1mVm contour. Here's one ruling that illustrates this: www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/letter/1998--06--30--newca.html That seems to be at odds with the rule, but the key words are "regularly used signal." Apparently the FCC used that clause to shift the burden from the translator to the station that's experiencing interference.

When the station you mentioned filed for their upgrade their studies would have shown the existence of the translator and therefore they knew that interference was a real possibility. But now it may become a case of having to prove their coverage is being harmed, and if so, the translator would be "required to remedy such interference or cease operation in accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 74.1203." The remedy might involve changing frequency, power or physical location or by employing a directional antenna.

Something is really wrong with this picture, if a licensed station can be forced to prove there's a problem before any action is taken, regardless of what the rules say.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom