feedback.pdxradio.com » Portland Radio

  1. I thought KRRC was going to be booted out by the Cumulus move in?

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 06:47 PM #
  2. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    They are, which is why they must find a new frequency or discontinue broadcasting.

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 09:56 PM #
  3. Yep, I thought so. As I recall from the FCC rules, KRRC is technically a full power FM, not LPFM. They cannot be displaced or ask for displacement. Cumulus has to protect them with normal commercial mileage separations, even though the station has a noncommercial license. But, that can't happen as I see the KNRQ contour encompasses KRRC's. I must be missing something here. Perhaps the rules enabled KNRQ to bump class D's. Time for bed!

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 10:41 PM #
  4. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    They are a non commercial Class D license.

    They are full service, but not full power. Non commercial stations on reserved channels in the commercial band are bound to commercial spacing rules unlike non coms in the non com band.

    http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=66303

    Licensee: THE REED INSTITUTE
    Service Designation: FM 'Full Service' FM station or application
    Channel/Class: 250D Frequency: 97.9 MHz Licensed
    File No.: BLED-20031022AAU Facility ID number: 66303
    CDBS Application ID No.: 695708

    45° 28' 51.00" N Latitude Site in Canadian Border Zone
    122° 37' 50.00" W Longitude (NAD 27) Distance to Border: 312.0 km

    Polarization: Horizontal Vertical
    Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 0.0082 0.0082 kW ERP
    Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 4. 4. meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT
    Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 54. 54. meters AMSL
    Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 15. 15. meters AGL

    A Class D is considered under the rules the same as LPFM which has two classes, LP10 and LP100.
    Class D's were eliminated and brought in to the LPFM service although in the database they retain
    their Class D status, but have to conform to LPFM rules when making a major change (or minor change for that matter).

    As far as their short spaced/contour overlap issues, see Exhibit 18 at http://tinyurl.com/74f3bv5

    Posted on February 1, 2012 - 10:54 PM #
  5. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    One correction: They are not on a reserved commercial channel (some channels in the commercial band are designated reserved for non commercial use) and the rules they follow for spacing are as stated in 73.509 b.

    (at bottom of this post)

    There are some special rules about grandfathered Class D's that I didn't find until it was too late to edit my post.

    § 73.512 Special procedures applicable to Class D noncommercial educational stations.

    http://tinyurl.com/8xeqrbm

    [below is edited for brevity]

    (a) All Class D stations seeking renewal of license for any term expiring June 1, 1980, or thereafter shall comply with the requirements set forth below and shall simultaneously file an application on FCC Form 340, containing full information regarding such compliance with the provisions set forth below.

    (1) To the extent possible, each applicant shall select a commercial FM channel on which it proposes to operate in lieu of the station's present channel. The station may select any commercial channel provided no objectionable interference, as set forth in §73.509(b), would be caused. The application shall include the same engineering information as is required to change the frequency of an existing station and any other information necessary to establish the fact that objectionable interference would not result. If no commerical channel is available where the station could operate without causing such interference, the application shall set forth the basis upon which this conclusion was reached.

    (d) Class D noncommercial educational (secondary) stations (see §73.506(a)(2)) will be permitted to continue to operate only so long as no interference (as defined in §73.509) is caused to any TV or commercial FM broadcast stations. In the event that the Class D (secondary) station would cause interference to a TV or commercial FM broadcast station after that Class D (secondary) station is authorized, the Class D (secondary) station must cease operation when program tests for the TV or commercial FM broadcast station commence. The Class D (secondary) station may apply for a construction permit (see §73.3533) to change to another frequency or antenna site where it would not cause interference (as defined in §73.509). If the Class D (secondary) station must cease operation before the construction permit is granted, an application for temporary authorization (pursuant to §73.3542) to operate with the proposed facilities may be submitted; where appropriate, such temporary authorization can be granted.

    § 73.509 Prohibited overlap.

    http://tinyurl.com/7ue45a6

    (b) An application by a Class D (secondary) station, other than an application to change class, will not be accepted if the proposed operation would involve overlap of signal strength contours with any other station as set forth below:

    Frequency separation Contour of proposed station Contour of any other station
    Co-channel 0.1 mV/m (40 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu).

    200 kHz 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu).
    400 kHz 10 mV/m (80 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu).
    600 kHz 100 mV/m (100 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu).

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 12:04 AM #
  6. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    I thought a Class D was not allowed to change its class, after given that window of opportunity many years ago. At the time, they could apply to change to a Class A, by increasing power to at least 100 watts or do nothing and risk the whims of full power stations.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 12:48 AM #
  7. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    The rules are pretty convoluted, Semoochie. But the bottom line is that they can't increase power since they already are short spaced. They probably had to conform to the rules in the second post when they filed on that frequency, but my first post is probably more related to them being on the dial on 104.1

    104.1 wasn't a reserved channel, either. Although those assignments have been amended over the years and moved around some. There are many of Reed's old records that haven't been digitized, so it's hard to know.

    So even if they didn't have to conform to the table in 73.509, they had to conform to the spacings in
    § 73.807 Minimum distance separation between stations.

    http://tinyurl.com/6uhrz46

    You will note in the chart that Class D is very close to LP100 in spacing requirements. That's what I was alluding to in the first post. The second post deals more with the post about them giving it to someone else.

    It's probably more important to look at that channel study on the most recent application to know what spacing rules they were adhering to.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 01:17 AM #
  8. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    Thank you but if they can't wangle a third adjacency, how can they donate the license to anyone? Also, the only third adjacencies possible are 102.5 and 102.7. Both are currently in use by translators and 102.7 is probably too close to KYTE, once they move to Independence. That leaves 102.5. Can a Class D bump a translator?

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 01:57 AM #
  9. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    "Can a Class D bump a translator?"

    Yes.

    "Since true class D stations can bump translators, they therefore have less competition in getting or keeping their own translators on the air with new class D stations kept off the air.
    New classes L1 and L2 are still considered amateur class D for international purposes, but are considered to be equal in status to translators, and subordinate to full-class D stations still operating."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-power_broadcasting

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 12:24 PM #
  10. Without obtaining a waiver of the interference rules, there are no available channels for KRRC, even if they are able to "bump" a translator. Even 102.5 would be short-spaced to 101.9, since the 100 dBu contour of KRRC would be completely inside the 60 dBu contour of KINK. In the same way, 102.7 would be short-spaced to 103.3 (KKCW).

    I've heard of some class D stations relocating to channel 200 (87.9). If KRRC opted for that channel, they would only need a waiver from KBVM (88.3).

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 12:43 PM #
  11. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,998

    re 87.9... Would this ch 6 CP present a problem?

    http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=71080

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 01:23 PM #
  12. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    "If KRRC opted for that channel, they would only need a waiver from KBVM (88.3)."

    re 87.9... Would this ch 6 CP present a problem?

    http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?list=0&facid=71080

    Looks like they'd also need a waiver from WatchTV as well.

    § 73.501 Channels available for assignment.

    1The frequency 87.9 MHz, Channel 200, is available only for use of existing Class D stations required to change frequency. It is available only on a noninterference basis with respect to TV Channel 6 stations and adjacent channel noncommercial educational FM stations. It is not available at all within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of Canada and 320 kilometers (199 miles) of Mexico. The specific standards governing its use are contained in §73.512.

    http://tinyurl.com/88wyz54

    § 73.512 Special procedures applicable to Class D noncommercial educational stations.

    (2) If a commercial channel is unavailable, to the extent possible each applicant should propose operation on Channel 200 (87.9 MHz) unless the station would be within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of the Canadian border or 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the Mexican border or would cause interference to an FM station operating on Channels 201, 202, or 203 or to TV Channel 6, as provided in §73.509.

    http://tinyurl.com/7fzhtou

    § 73.509 Prohibited overlap.

    (b) An application by a Class D (secondary) station, other than an application to change class, will not be accepted if the proposed operation would involve overlap of signal strength contours with any other station as set forth below:

    http://tinyurl.com/739mv6u

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 01:45 PM #
  13. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,998

    Doesn't this pretty much kill any possibility for 87.9 in Portland anyway, or can wavers be obtained? KRRC is 312 km from the border.

    From above quote:

    "It is not available at all within 402 kilometers (250 miles) of Canada"

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 02:33 PM #
  14. Video of the demolition of the KISN fallout shelter, about 24 seconds long.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDPUXUuV5-8

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 02:40 PM #
  15. Was this the building where the studio/transmitter was? If not, is that building still standing?

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 08:24 PM #
  16. Wonder how many parties went on in there.....

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 08:25 PM #
  17. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    The last time I checked, that channel 6 information was for an analog channel. I thought the FCC had authorized LPFMs to operate on third adjacencies by congressional order. Maybe, it hasn't gotten that far yet.

    Posted on February 2, 2012 - 08:42 PM #
  18. This from All Access:

    -------------------------FCC Institutes New Rules For LPFMs, Proposes Other Changes-------------------------

    The FCC has moved to preserve slots on the dial for low power FM, issuing two reports on MONDAY adopting policies and procedures to clear more room for the stations based on the requirements of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 and asking for further comment on additional procedures and rules regarding interference and spacing requirements.

    In its Fourth Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, the Commission cleared out some of the 6.500 pending translator applications where spectrum is limited, adopting a cap on applications from the 2003 translator filing window of 50 per applicant and one per market for 156 spectrum-limited markets. "We have determined ... that the next LPFM window presents a critical, and indeed possibly a last, opportunity to nurture and promote a community radio service that can respond to unmet listener needs and underserved communities in many urban areas," wrote the Commission. " ... (W)e find that it is necessary to dismiss significant numbers of translator applications in spectrum limited markets to fulfill that opportunity."

    The Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Fourth Order on Reconsideration addressed the technical aspects of LPFMs required by the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, implementing the elimination of third-adjacent channel spacing requirements with protection for subcarrier radio reading services and seeking further comment on proposals to implement waiver procedures for second-adjacent-channel minimum separation requirements, changes to third-adjacent-channel interference standards and procedures. In addition, the Commission is asking for comment on allowing LPFMs in smaller community to use up to 250 watts, elimination of I.F. channel mileage separation requirements, requiring the owners to be local not only at the time of application but at all times thereafter, adding Native American tribes and nations to the eligibility list for LPFMs, allowing cross-ownership of LPFMs and FM translators (and LPFMs and full-service stations for Native Nations applicants), allowing multiple LPFM ownerships for Native Nations, and changes to the point system used in the selection of winners among mutually exclusive applicants.

    Posted on March 20, 2012 - 07:59 PM #
  19. Broadway

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,503

    Some left wing spin on the FCC action---

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/20/fcc-decision-strikes-critical-blow-to-right-wing-radio-dominance/#.T2jyijTeOMI.facebook

    The article has a lot of misconceptions...not a radio person who wrote it?

    Posted on March 20, 2012 - 09:55 PM #
  20. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    EMF has applied to change frequency of one of their 92.7 translators, in order to increase power on the other one. Yes, it's another 99 watt translator but this time, it will rebroadcast K103, as a fill-in. It appears to come from Skyline or thereabouts. What can this possibly mean? Could they be planning to switch it to KPOJ?

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 01:06 AM #
  21. W7PAT

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 451

    With any luck it will be KPAM. They are the ones that need it.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 06:40 AM #
  22. Here are the details:

    K224CP Hazel Dell, WA has applied to move to 103.5 at the same tower site, reducing power to 4 watts.

    K224DL Portland has applied to move from the Newberg area to Skyline and increase power to 99 watts.

    My guess is that this is EMF's plan to preserve their Air1 service in the Portland area. They will loose their current 102.7 translator when (if?) KYTE moves inland. They will probably lease one of the HD signals on KKCW (or another CC station) in order to be able to feed the 99 watt translator. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar plan is being put together for K-Love's 95.9 translator.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 12:26 PM #
  23. W7PAT

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 451

    field_strength...that would make sense. Too bad there isn't one frequency that Air One or K-love could cover the whole metro area and not use up all of the available translator frequencies.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 12:45 PM #
  24. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,998

    field_strength:

    Make sense!... In addition the Hazel Dell translator CP (for moving from ch 224 to ch 278) lists KKCW as its input station.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 12:56 PM #
  25. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    "Too bad there isn't one frequency that Air One or K-love could cover the whole metro area"

    You can't even do that with a Class A. The market is too big. Even full power stations have bad reception areas.

    There are already too many translators. IMO they should all be done away with except for inside 60 dBu rigs owned by the primary. The rest of the crap should be eliminated.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 12:58 PM #
  26. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    I agree except for NPR stations and the like. I wonder if they plan to do the same with 103.7. It's beginning to look more and more like EMF will end up with the West Linn station.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 01:16 PM #
  27. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    I double-checked and "Skyline" was wrong but "thereabouts" was pretty close. It's actually the Sylvan Tower and the HAAT is 341 meters.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 09:05 PM #
  28. "I double-checked and "Skyline" was wrong but "thereabouts" was pretty close. It's actually the Sylvan Tower and the HAAT is 341 meters. "

    Oops...I made that assumption, too! I guess I had KKCW on the brain.

    Posted on March 28, 2012 - 09:29 PM #
  29. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    The FCC has a new tool for locating open frequencies for LPFMs. I put in the coordinates for the Sylvan Tower and got nothing for a third adjacency but a second adjacency waiver might be possible on 105.5. I was thinking a translator had that one tied down but maybe, it's just an application. I know I've heard at least one translator in the area, not to mention the Longview station. It seems to me that the only way this makes sense in large cities, is where there are distinct cultural differences between neighborhoods, like Chicago, for instance.

    Posted on April 12, 2012 - 07:30 PM #
  30. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,998

    In Hillsboro on 105.5 a KWAZ translator (K288FT) located north of Banks is fairly strong. I am surprised that another station on that frequency would be allowed at the Sylvan facility.

    Fcc 60 dBu map:

    http://maps.google.com/?q=http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/contourplot.kml?gmap=2%26appid=1191274%26call=K288FT%26freq=105.5%26contour=60%26city=PORTLAND%26state=OR.kml

    Posted on April 12, 2012 - 07:47 PM #
  31. This from All Access:

    ------------------------------------------FCC Offers LPFM Channel Finder------------------------------------------

    The FCC has added a low-power FM channel finder to its website.

    The service allows users to enter latitude and longitude and get a readout on whether any available frequencies for low power exist at the location entered.

    Try it out by clicking here:
    http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-lpfm-channel-finder

    Posted on April 13, 2012 - 07:11 PM #
  32. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,998

    Nice! But I guess I can't have a LPFM in Hillsboro.

    Posted on April 13, 2012 - 08:06 PM #
  33. This from All Access:

    ----------------------------------Harris Plans To Sell Off Its Broadcast Division----------------------------------

    HARRIS CORP., while reporting a fiscal third-quarter loss, announced plans to sell its broadcast communications unit, reports THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. "The communications and information-technology company has been diversifying its businesses through acquisitions in recent years as constrained government spending dampens Defense Department orders and revenue. After reviewing its business portfolio, HARRIS on TUESDAY said it decided the broadcast communications business was no longer aligned with its long-term strategy."

    HARRIS noted it would use proceeds from the sale to return cash to shareholders and to invest in its core businesses.

    Posted on May 1, 2012 - 09:04 PM #
  34. Harris should have waited to make this announcement until they had a buyer secured. Now, there is enough uncertainty about Harris Broadcast's future to keep many from buying their products for fear of losing support if they go out of business. It will be a tough couple of months for the Harris sales team! Even though I think Harris makes decent products, I know I won't be buying anything from them until I know FOR SURE they they will continue to exist for the long term.

    Posted on May 3, 2012 - 12:34 PM #
  35. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,390

    It would be preferable if Harris spun off the companies they previously acquired.

    I would love to see an independent PR&E again, as well as Sage, Intraplex, etc.

    Posted on May 3, 2012 - 03:09 PM #
  36. Harris never owned Sage, which is technically Sage Alerting Systems.

    The consensus among my fellow broadcast engineers is that they should go back to the Gates name.

    Posted on May 3, 2012 - 06:35 PM #
  37. Kent, I'd love to see their microwave radios go back to Farinon.

    Posted on May 4, 2012 - 11:43 AM #
  38. jimbo

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 749

    I was not at NAB, but didn't they have a big booth there? Was this not known a few weeks earlier during NAB? For anyone who was there, what was it like at the Harris booth?
    This is strange....

    Posted on May 6, 2012 - 01:44 AM #
  39. Harris is not going out of business any time soon!

    Posted on May 6, 2012 - 10:35 PM #
  40. semoochie

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,803

    At the end of March, we discussed EMF's dual applications on 92.7 moving the Hazel Dell translator to 103.5 and the other one, from Newberg to Sylvan, with 99 watts. Those applications have been granted.

    Posted on May 9, 2012 - 10:37 AM #
  41. AM STATION APPLICATIONS FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE ACCEPTED FOR FILING
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    OR BAL-20120509AEO KUIK 17063 WESTSIDE RADIO, INC. Voluntary Assignment of License
    E 1360 KHZ HILLSBORO, OR From: WESTSIDE RADIO, INC.
    To: DOLPHIN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    Form 316

    Posted on May 14, 2012 - 01:03 PM #
  42. This from All Access:

    --------NAB to FCC: Careful With Second-Adjacent LPFMs, Say No To 250-Watt, 50-Watt LPFMs--------

    The NAB's reply comments in the FCC's low-power FM docket repeat the organization's position that waivers to allow LPFMs to operate on the second-adjacent channels to full-power FMs should only be granted "in truly unusual circumstances" and warn against allowing either 250-watt or 50-watt LPFMs.

    The comments tell the Commission that it "must take a cautious, careful approach to second-adjacent waivers. The plain language of the LCRA and its legislative history both clearly indicate Congress' understanding of the serious risk of interference that LPFM stations on second-adjacent channels may pose to FM services. The Commission is obligated to implement Congress' clear intent. Also, the Commission needs to be mindful that many LPFM stations, if they are forced to cease operations due to interference complaints, will lack the resources and engineering expertise to resolve these complaints and restore service. Such entities may have to forfeit the substantial time and resources they invested in an LPFM facility. It is therefore critical that every effort be made to fully examine a proposed second-adjacent operation upfront, during the waiver process, to minimize instances where an LPFM station must shut down due to interference problems."

    The NAB proposes, "First, waiver applicants should be required to demonstrate with 'clear and convincing' evidence that the proposed operations will not result in interference. Second, a presumption of interference should be attached to any proposal that would be short-spaced under the current rules, to help guide the Commission's consideration of 'close calls.' Finally, applicants should be required to serve a copy of their request on the potentially short- spaced FM station, to allow that station the opportunity to examine the application's engineering demonstration of no interference. The Commission should also consider making the FM station's affirmation of a waiver request's engineering showing a precondition of approval."

    In addition, on the proposal for 250-watt LPFMs, the NAB writes, "Authorization of LP250 stations would increase risks of interference to FM stations, and substantially undermine the Commission's ongoing implementation of Section 5 of the LCRA, governing the prioritization of LPFM and FM translator stations." And on 50-watt stations, the NAB says, "The insertion of 50 watt LPFM stations into already crowded urban markets would be technically inefficient, given the large interference contours of such stations compared to their very small service areas."

    Posted on May 21, 2012 - 06:55 PM #
  43. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    It's pretty obvious that the NAB has an agenda representing the big corporate radio chains. It's kind of hypocritical if you look at the actions of these chains over the last 16 years. They have moved suburban and fringe station assignments closer to the metro core in all of the top 200 markets by allowing other stations in their stable to accept interference, lower their class, power and coverage, and make trades with other groups to benefit their overall corporate footprint.

    Now that the non-comms in the form of LPFM's are going to expand by an Act of Congress, they are crying that they might be interfered with.

    The chains have used every possible nuance to max out their power and coverage, but now they want to keep the LPFM's from doing the same. The proposal to add 250W and 50W licenses to the LPFM rules only maximizes the openings that already exist. It is not "turf" that the chains can expand into, since almost all their facilities have been maxed out over the last decade.

    The NAB is clearly in the pockets of Clear Channel, Entercom, et. al. and it's demoralizing to the small radio broadcasters who not only do better radio, but actually serve the public and not the stockholders greedy desires for profits and dividends.

    And some of you question when I say radio is dead. Here's just another reason why good radio is gasping for breath.

    Posted on May 22, 2012 - 12:28 PM #
  44. What is the progress in building the KYTE tower in Independence? The construction permit expires Sept. 2013.

    Posted on May 22, 2012 - 01:20 PM #
  45. Andy: I agree with you, however, I don't think LPFM service has led to better radio overall. Most LPFM stations I know of are owned by a church, and they just re-broadcast the pastor's sermons and fill in with bad recordings of stale worship music. I would have thought that the LPFM class would have created excitement among local groups, leading to a big variety of different stations, airing community-oriented issues and niche music offerings, but that has not been that case. I consider KQSO to be a minority.

    Posted on May 22, 2012 - 08:03 PM #
  46. Andy_brown

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,107

    There is some truth with regards to implementation, so far, in the LPFM service but it's mostly because there has been a huge obstacle for small non profits to compete with the more organized church groups, who have mothership nationals that have been on the translator abuse (IMO) trail and understand the value of these licenses. In the last full power NCE window in '07, there was a lot more competition offered up by local non religious groups and as a result, there are stations coming on in '09 to the present that do hold some promise from the programming side. In the upcoming LPFM proceeding, the FCC is going to limit the total applications any one holding group can tender. This is a good thing. The religoids are fighting this, but they have lost for all intents and purposes. Low power is a younger service, so it still holds some promise for the future.

    As far as the final form of the power, interference and spacing rules, the LPFM deserves a level playing field. The comm's have gotten through 6 kW Class A's, Class C2,C3,C0, etc etc in order to get their footprint swollen. The NAB pushing against the LPFM lobby for doing the same thing is hypocritical. Exactly what one might expect from the radio giants.

    Posted on May 22, 2012 - 09:15 PM #
  47. 1220 FCC History stuff
    ftp://ftp.fcc.gov//pub/Bureaus/MB/Databases/HistoryCards/10963.pdf

    Prepair to spend a lot of time here:
    ftp://ftp.fcc.gov//pub/Bureaus/MB/Databases/HistoryCards

    Posted on May 27, 2012 - 09:36 PM #
  48. And here's KAAR!!!
    ftp://ftp.fcc.gov//pub/Bureaus/MB/Databases/HistoryCards/11162.pdf

    Posted on May 27, 2012 - 09:38 PM #
  49. Alg

    junior diode
    Posts: 26

    Certainly not Portland related but nevertheless interesting to tower freaks like me is the Sutro Tower in San Francisco. If you've never seen it you're missing something! It rivals our Stonehenge!

    Here's a link to an interesting item from the SF Chronicle:

    http://blog.sfgate.com/thebigevent/2012/05/28/and-now-some-love-for-sutro-tower/

    Inside that item you'll find some other links to things about the Sutro Tower.

    Posted on May 29, 2012 - 05:47 PM #
  50. msndrspdx

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,621

    The Sutro Tower is on SF's south end and is a well-known landmark to almost everybody in the Bay Area. Almost all of the key TV and radio stations maintain their transmitter facilities there. A portion of the road leading to the summit of Mt. Sutro (where the tower stands) was used in the famous car chase scene in "Bullitt" (which I recently found on DVD, by the way).

    Best, M.

    Posted on May 29, 2012 - 07:11 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.