[BC] Dealing with IBOC hash problems

[Robert Meuser]

CORRECTION.

WMRO is 30.97 KM from WLAC which means depending on the measurement 
point it may or may not be just at the protected contour. WVOL and WPLN 
are both under 10 KM from WLAC and have very strong signals there which 
suggests that the interference is experienced at some other more distant 
point..

WBRY is 75 KM from WLAC and has less than .1 mv/m near their site. 
WVOL,WPLN and WBRY are all south of WLAC while WMRO is north east.

We really need geographical co-ordinates where this interference exists 
to get a clearer picture of what is going on

R




Robert Meuser wrote:

>
> It is out side his protected contour. He is 45.69.KM from the WLAC TX. 
> Signal at WLAC TX is .24 mv/m. He had some measurements made that I 
> don't quite understand  the purpose of 4.7 km from the WLAC TX. He has 
> less than .3 mv/m at that point. I am assuming this was in a straight 
> line between the two stations, but I don't know that for sure. If it 
> wasn't that makes the case even worse for WMRO.  His .5 contour is 
> about 30 km from the transmitter. WLAC has about 200 mv/m at that 
> point or about 60 db above WMRO. This assumes WMRO has a perfect full 
> ground system and the transmission plant is operating at full 
> published efficiency. WLAC should have all spurious signals down 80 db 
> at 50 kHz which is only 20 db below WMRO on its best day. This could 
> easily be a result of receiver overload. That it goes away at night 
> may or may not due to IBOC operation as WLAC's night pattern more or 
> less has a null towards WMRO so there would be a lot less signal.
>
> R
>
>
> Kent Winrich wrote:
>
>> Thats is the first time I have heard anyone say they want analog to go
>> away.  I have never heard that from the FCC either.  No one is forcing
>> anyone to go IBOC.
>>
>> I have talked to the WLAC people in the past.  They seem reasonable.  
>> Have
>> you contacted them?  I no longer work for CC, but Steve Davis seems 
>> truly
>> interested in being able to handle situations where they arrise.
>>
>> You still havent answered whether it is in or out of the protected 
>> contour.
>> Still 5th adjacent????
>>
>>
>> On 7/12/06, Bailey, Scott <SBailey at nespower.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Rich,
>>> It doesn't matter if the analog station is getting interference in or
>>> out of its protected contour, the commission is not going to do 
>>> anything
>>> about resolving the issue. They want analog to go away. I've had to
>>> learn to live with it.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
>>> [mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Rich Wood
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:02 AM
>>> To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
>>> Subject: RE: [BC] Dealing with IBOC hash problems
>>>
>>> ------ At 07:54 AM 7/12/2006, Bailey, Scott wrote: -------
>>>
>>> >My station, WMRO-AM is being wiped out by WLAC's IBOC, so is WVOL,
>>> WPLN,
>>> >and WBRY.  The commission isn't going to do anything about it.  The
>>> >courts will laugh us out. Clear Channel has law suits filed against
>>> them
>>> >everyday. I say that WMRO, WVOL, WPLN, & WBRY should be allowed to run
>>> >higher power to override all the hash. Filing lawsuits is just a waste
>>> >of time and money.
>>>
>>> Where is it being wiped out? If it's outside your protected contour,
>>> the general attitude is that you're out of luck. I'm sure you're
>>> wrong about the lawsuits. In this very forum we were assured by a
>>> very powerful EVP that their stations would never cause interference.
>>> If the interfering stations are under his control I'm sure you only
>>> need to call and tell him there's a problem and he'll make them shut
>>> down. Check the archives. He promised.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>>> http://www.radiolists.net/
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>>> http://www.radiolists.net/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>> http://www.radiolists.net/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>