[CRTech] Christian Radio Tech [MSG 81534]
[Thread Prev] [-- Thread Index --] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [-- Date Index --] [Date Next]
RE: FM Translators
To: "'CRTech'" <crtech@crtech.org>
Subject: RE: FM Translators
From: "Cameron Beierle" <manager@kacs.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:41:02 -0800
Content-language: en-us
Disposition-notification-to: "Cameron Beierle" <manager@kacs.org>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kacs-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=return-receipt-to:reply-to:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:organization:message-id:mime-version:thread-index :content-language:disposition-notification-to; bh=vkpXFEaHZqnNu1vqhUDTXADMyOpaNTbXm39DwM/apic=; b=r30z+rfr+2QTj7IeO06MFP1fRbjMFkrYMDb+N8ImI8tzO4fJb2HFjDvzHtd20xQHkF elmyK4WwYjVaQamB9FsF8vxUG0MOwXaahc0TJPpBb+5Kf3BCia5f+Q3fEbNPL1s64sJj Um2fJ9FUuF+CFD0k/r7iyqzQFjRjM6KtULa0ajkAkhiE1YNUbXeno3J9lz2U2MfjMa82 nH67SX1sMWGktKVG2qp/bC8fzGa+IVWuSk//5Demio4VhVQpS/7nl2imWdII8F6z6JUt 30K1EbtcK9kWzuQfDRcJ0EpVLUpxG14JdbTjdpa6qgFzakovOH3g54xsqNCQcy/uuW6X PL9g==
In-reply-to: <AB51A9A9EC341A479655F592221FE8BD770EC838@mbx028-e1-va-4.exch028.domain.local>
Organization: KACS
References: <55D7DD7E-5F93-4418-9FD8-5A5F75C13AC0@gmail.com> <AB51A9A9EC341A479655F592221FE8BD770EC838@mbx028-e1-va-4.exch028.domain.local>
Reply-to: <manager@kacs.org>
Return-receipt-to: "Cameron Beierle" <manager@kacs.org>
Thread-index: AQHTdcwL3/RYwZR9VkazGkPH051nh6NEwIhwgAAMuBA=


Do you think it likely that the FCC will change the long-standing rule that all translators are secondary signals, and therefore must not cause interference to primary full license signals?  Doesn’t seem that they will to me. Has been a principle ruling since translators began as I understand it.






From: Jack Epperson [mailto:Jack.Epperson@alphamediausa.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:04 AM
To: CRTech
Subject: RE: [CRTech] FM Translators


Con:  If there is any possibility of creating interference with an existing channel you could be chasing a wild goose.

Recent FCC ruling in North Carolina that just one unresolved complaint and they can make you turn it off. At least until the rules change.

We have a translator that is outside our 'protected' coverage at 90W and  27 miles away. Even though it says that this should work on paper, we still have a lot of listeners in that area that complain about interference from them. Their coverage is only a 6 mile diameter of staticky but listenable audio, then a 4 mile wide no-man’s land until our signal just gets steadily better as you move into our coverage area. Even at the far side of their signal you can still hear my channel better than theirs. Book says it work, but real life reality is challenged.



"Old engineers don’t die, they dielectric."



-----Original Message-----
From: KGBA Radio [mailto:kgbaradio@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:42 AM
To: crtech@crtech.org
Subject: [CRTech] FM Translators


Anyone have pro/con of having an FM Translator for an AM site? Seems like something to jump on if you have the opportunity.


Wondering in Southern California.

Michael Villero


100.1 FM / 1490 AM

El Centro, CA


For CRTech resources visit http://CRTech.org/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: crtech-unsubscribe@crtech.org List problems?? E-mail: TechStaff@CRTech.org

Follow-Ups: RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson <Jack.Epperson@alphamediausa.com>, 15 Dec 2017 20:43:51 -0000)
References: FM Translators
(KGBA Radio <kgbaradio@gmail.com>, 15 Dec 2017 17:42:04 -0000)
RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson <Jack.Epperson@alphamediausa.com>, 15 Dec 2017 19:03:52 -0000)
Prev by date: RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson, 15 Dec 2017 19:03:52 -0000)
Next by date: RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson, 15 Dec 2017 20:43:51 -0000)
Prev by thread: RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson, 15 Dec 2017 19:03:52 -0000)
Next by thread: RE: FM Translators
(Jack Epperson, 15 Dec 2017 20:43:51 -0000)