Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

The technical side of broadcasting. Think IBOC is a sham? Talk about it here! How about HDTV? Post DX reports here as well.
CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by CK-722 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:11 pm

Common use of FM and TV towers.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.239

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.635

For situations like WLAV-FM, if a competitor makes it difficult to collocate or otherwise relocate, increased received interference should be allowable under a new subclause of Section 73.213.

In this example, as long as WWDV didn't receive interference over land, WLAV-FM could increase ERP/HAAT toward WWDV.
Last edited by CK-722 on Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11870
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by MWmetalhead » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:26 pm

The dummies at Cumulus thought they (a) would be able to find land to lease or purchase in Ada Twp *and* (b) would miraculously receive local zoning approval for a new tower to be built! :lol

First of all, land in Ada Twp is very expensive.

Second of all, local residents would fight any zoning variance request to permit construction of a new tower tooth & nail!

Construction of the nearby MSP tower in the late 90's required a change in state law to circumvent local control (and that law change only applied to public safety communications towers).

All of that said, the WGVU-TV site east of Allendale is a darn good site. I agree that Cumulus probably should've tried harder to obtain authorization to send more power in the direction of Holland and Saugatuck.



CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by CK-722 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:42 pm

If you noticed, the 48 dBu F(50, 10) contour of the old site did not reach the far shore of Lake Michigan. Not even that close. The DA pulls the contour way in from what it was. Keep in mind also that the field strength of WWDV at the Lake Michigan shoreline is considerably above 70 dBu, way above the protected contour. My calculation is 91.3 dBu at the shoreline for WWDV. It would thus take an 85.3 F(50,10) contour from WLAV, way above the 48 dBu contour, to interfere more than 6 dB below WWDV. FCC utilities were used to calculate these.

The anti tower NIMBYs and the government operated tower restriction make it even more difficult to relocate. If you want to find a government tower on vfrmap.com, just look for towers that are exactly 500 feet in most cases. 499 feet is a usually privately owned tower. Note that the FAA uses English units on tower heights AGL, and elevations and tower tops on Aeronautical Charts. Structure registration uses metric units however.

http://vfrmap.com

For Kent County International, enter GRR. Pellston, PLN. Traverse City, TVC, etc.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11870
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by MWmetalhead » Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:46 pm

That VFR mapping tool is pretty cool! :)

I wonder who owns the 499' tower a few miles SE of Cedar Springs in Kent County? I had no idea that one even existed.



CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by CK-722 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:20 pm

It's actually 500 feet, not 499 feet. 152.4 meters. State of Michigan.

Put in 43 12 00 N 85 31 00 W into this link. Choose 5 km radius, Click registration number.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/asrn-within-radius

Source of error? Who knows.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

CK-722
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:53 pm

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by CK-722 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:37 pm

I was at a family picnic at a county park near Cedar Springs, probably in the mid 1960s. WLAV 1340 barely came in on our transistor radio! I was used to the conductivity of SE Michigan, and I was surprised. I remember that WOKY came in though, nearby anyway.

There was a small lake, so it was probably Myers Lake County Park.


Is THAT where they got the idea for the 486-SX?

Same (x, y, z), different (t)

Your bullet missed my trial balloon.

RTN Price. Not guaranteed. As of 12:30, 157.71 Down 0.22.

Artificial Intelligence is a Child that needs a Parent to guide it through.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11870
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by MWmetalhead » Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:49 am

It's actually 500 feet, not 499 feet. 152.4 meters. State of Michigan.
Thank you!

That's a cool database.

It appears that Cedar Springs tower went up around the same time as the Ada Twp tower (near intersection of Honey Creek Rd and 3 Mile Rd); both are likely used for Michigan State Police radio traffic.



statmanmi
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:07 am

NOPE ! Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by statmanmi » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:24 am

Hi CK-722 and All,

I saw this FCC announcement about both Sections 73.239 and 73.635 being eliminated as of this week Tuesday (8/4/2020), recalled this thread, and realized the final answer is now:

NOPE!

“...removing outdated and unnecessary requirements.”

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments ... -106A1.pdf

Enjoy! ~~ Statmanmi
CK-722 wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:11 pm
Common use of FM and TV towers.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.239

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.635

For situations like WLAV-FM, if a competitor makes it difficult to collocate or otherwise relocate, increased received interference should be allowable under a new subclause of Section 73.213.

In this example, as long as WWDV didn't receive interference over land, WLAV-FM could increase ERP/HAAT toward WWDV.



statmanmi
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:07 am

Kent County towers ... Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by statmanmi » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:55 am

Hi MWMetalhead,

Kent County has been getting other new, noticeable towers over the last couple of years—compliments of Kent County taxes & 911 phone fees.

November’s addition went up quickly in Alto. Take a look south off I-96 as you pass the M-50 exit (SW quadrant) and you’ll see the 400+ footer, owned & registered to the Kent County Dispatch Authority: https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSea ... ey=2705647

I’m also always surprised by this 300+ footer close to the country road in the trees of the sheriff department’s camp/range site that’s almost into Montcalm County which apparently went up in mid-2018 (also for Kent County Dispatch):
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSea ... ey=2704436

All part of a county-wide upgrade and standardization, explained on this site:
https://accesskent.com/Sheriff/surcharge.htm

With this being a succinct excerpt:

“This complete radio system replacement involves the re-use of 5 existing radio towers and one water tower, lease agreements to operate equipment on 2 existing tower sites owned by private entities, and the construction of 4 new tower sites.”

I just had the SUCCESSFUL thought to use the FCC Tower Query page included in the Rabbitears.info site to arrive at this map & listing (link may take a few seconds to load):

https://www.rabbitears.info/tower.php?r ... &mapshow=Y

The ~250 footer on the zoo property adjacent to I-196 just went up last month, I’m seeing in its registration:
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSea ... ey=2713862

I noticed it a couple of weeks ago as my son was driving us somewhere, and wondered if it was new. Guess I’m geeking out about towers too much.

Cool stuff! ~~ Statmanmi

MWmetalhead wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:49 am
It's actually 500 feet, not 499 feet. 152.4 meters. State of Michigan.
Thank you!

That's a cool database.

It appears that Cedar Springs tower went up around the same time as the Ada Twp tower (near intersection of Honey Creek Rd and 3 Mile Rd); both are likely used for Michigan State Police radio traffic.



kc8yqq
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:15 am

Re: Are Section 73.239 and Section 73.635 Being Enforced?

Post by kc8yqq » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:10 am

Another great tool I use for tower hunting and also what station is broadcasting from a drive-by tower, is Google Earth (download) with the FCCInfo.com plugin. All of this is free.

There are several ways to search stations (AM, FM, and TV). By clicking in a checkbox, it will show ASR Towers and you can even zoom in on them. If you want to trace Broadcast Microwave paths, there's a checkbox for that too.

If you want more info for any of this, click on the teardrop on the map and you will get a pop-up. Clicking in the pop-up will take you to the same screens you see in FCCInfo.com.

I'm a road geek also, and use this for following roads too.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic