The curious case of the WKZE Notice Of Violation

On June 19th, WKZE received a notice of violation from the FCC’s New York Field office.  The crux of the issue seems to be interference being generated on 784.8 MHz (WKZE 8th harmonic) to a new Verizon Wireless installation located nearby:

47 C.F.R. §73.317(a): “FM broadcast stations employing transmitters authorized after January 1, 1960, must maintain the bandwidth occupied by their emissions in accordance with the specification detailed below. FM broadcast stations employing transmitters installed or type accepted before January 1, 1960, must achieve the highest degree of compliance with these specifications practicable with their existing equipment. In either case, should harmful interference to other authorized stations occur, the licensee shall correct the problem promptly or cease operation.” The eighth harmonic of Station WKZE-FM (784.8 MHz) was causing interference to the Verizon Wireless transmitter located approximately 500 feet away.

First off, we note that the WKZE transmitter is not allegedly causing interference to a Verizon Wireless transmitter, but rather to a Verizon Wireless receiver.  That may be splitting hairs, however, since the FCC is quoting a technical rules violation, they can at least get the technical language right.

A brief examination of the rest of FCC part 73.317 is in order to find the specification cited in section (a).  Section (d) states:

 (d) Any emission appearing on a frequency removed from the carrier by more than 600 kHz must be attenuated at least 43 + 10 Log10 (Power, in watts) dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier, or 80 dB, whichever is the lesser attenuation.

Since 784.8 MHz – 98.1 MHz is greater than 600 KHz, this is the section that applies to the WKZE situation.  Thus, the interfering signal must be greater than -80 dBc to trigger the Notice Of Violation (NOV) from the FCC.  The station ERP is 1,800 watts or +62 dBm.  Measurements were made with an Agilent N992A spectrum analyzer using an LPA-1000 log periodic antenna.  At a 12-foot distance away from the WKZE transmitter cabinet, the signal on 784.8 MHz was found to be -94 dBc or 0.000063 watts.  At the base of the Verizon Wireless tower, the measurement was -124 dBc, or 0.000000025 watt, which is barely perceptible above the -130 dBm noise floor.  There does not appear to be any violation of 47 CFR 73.317.  Rather, the issue seems to be Verizon Wireless’s deployment of the 700 MHz LTE band and the use of high-gain antennas coupled with high-gain preamplifiers on frequencies that are harmonically related to broadcast stations nearby.  In this particular installation, the antenna has 16 dB of gain, minus a 4.5 dB of transmission line loss into a 21 dB preamplifier before the receiver.  At the output of the Verizon preamplifier, the signal on 784.8 MHz was measured at -89 dBc, which is still in compliance.

By these measurements, clearly, WKZE is not in violation of any FCC regulation.  It makes one wonder, does the FCC understand its own rules?  Or, is this a matter of favoritism towards a huge corporation over a small independent radio broadcaster?  Is it a matter of “broadband at the expense of all others?”  There are several of these broadcast to 700 MHZ LTE interference cases pending throughout the country.  This could set a dangerous precedent for broadcasters and other RF spectrum users as wireless giants like Verizon throw their weight around and eye even more spectrum to press into broadband service.

Commlaw blog has a good post on this subject: Harmonic Convergence?

Update: The response from the WKZE attorney can be found here, including the above-mentioned actual measurements.

FCC opens consumer complaint center

I found this interesting article in Inside Radio: FCC simplifies complaint process.

This is part of the “Reboot FCC” initiative which started many months ago.  While I applaud the FCC’s acknowledgment that they are essentially a slow, plodding government bureaucracy, saying something about it and doing something about it are two different things.

The Consumer Help Center is a website where the public can complain about such things as junk faxes, telemarketers, TELCO billing issues, ISPs, indecent language, and a whole host of other topics.

My question is, what happens to the complaint, once it is received?  I’d like to hear if anyone has tried this and what the results were.  Perhaps they will include a section for reporting IBOC interference on the broadcast band.

FCC authority to conduct warrentless searches of Private Property

FCC seal
FCC seal

I was this interesting tidbit on the Radio World website the other day.  The question is, how much authority does the FCC have to conduct a search of a private residence?   The Electronic Frontier Foundation wanted to know therefore they sent a FOIA request to the FCC seeking documents supporting this claimed authority.

The documents received seem to be redacted and some are mostly blank, such as the training module on how to obtain permission to enter private property is supposed to take 6 hours to complete, but consists of 3 paragraphs and 2 questions.  Hopefully, that is redacted and does not reflect on the quality of agents the FCC is employing these days.  The upshot seems to be the agent either needs a warrant or permission.

It may be surprising to some citizens, however, the FCC does have the authority to investigate radio signals, whether they are intentionally generated, as in a pirate broadcaster, or unintentionally generated, as in a piece of gear gone bad.

According to federal regulations, an FCC agent may request entry to inspect a private building anytime he/she believes there may be a device emitting radio frequency energy.  This includes anything with an FCC part 15 sticker, which can be computers, TV remote controls, garage door openers, WiFi network routers, etc.  This basically covers every house in the US as well as most businesses.  Those rules were written when most homes and businesses did not have any RF generating devices and there was little to indicate that they ever would.

The consequence of failure to allow an FCC field agent into a residence or business appears to be the issuance of a citation in the form of a threatening letter.  Continued intransigence would be met with a NAL (Notice of Apparent Liability) followed by a forfeiture notice also known as a fine.  The typical FCC fine these days seems to be $10,000.00.  If it is a repeated and willful violation, the equipment can be ceased and the perpetrator arrested.

In instances where the safety of life is in question, then every step necessary to disable the offending device needs to be taken.  Things like transmitters spurring into aircraft frequencies or TV antenna amplifiers running wide open, also interfering with aircraft frequencies come to mind.

One of the examples given details a field agent trying to track down a noisy cable TV amplifier.  From the FCC field agent’s perspective, the homeowner appears to be a royal pain in the ass.  In this day and age when everything has a computer and most of them generate RF, tracking down interference can be a painstaking process, especially where housing is dense.  Uncooperative homeowners, especially dumb ones, who have no idea what they have plugged in only make things worse.

Still, there is the issue of fourth amendment rights, which, if the above law was misinterpreted, misused, or applied with the wrong standard would likely be trampled.  In these days of extra-constitutional activity, giving Los Federales entry into one’s house might invite unwanted scrutiny by other agencies.  As far as changing the rules, with the current group of scoundrels and rouges in the legislative branch, one might end up with something ten times worse than before.

The lights are on, but we’re not home…

fcclogowords

FCC fines on broadcasters are nothing new.  Broadcasters have often tried to cut corners, hiring incompetent staff that cannot be bothered to report tower light outages, or simply not monitoring tower lights at all. Untrained operators who do not know the EAS rules, sloppy public files, unattended main studios, overpower operation, etc.  Some AM stations have power changes at sunset and sunrise, most are now automated but who is checking the automation system to make sure the power changes?

The FCC does not have nearly enough field agents to monitor everything.  Most rule infractions never get discovered, like the translator operating at double its licensed power.  Or the FM station with the antenna at the wrong height on the tower.  It never ends.  When I first got into this business, I remember one FCC inspector that was going to issue a NOV (Notice of Violation) because the operator signed her name in red ink.  RED INK, by god!  It seems things have swung far in the other direction.

Fortunately for us, these infractions become public records, so we can all learn from other’s mistakes, right?

Here is the current crop of FCC fines being shuffled through the bureaucracy:

Clarion County Broadcasting Corp. the licensee of radio station WKQW in Oil City, Pennsylvania, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1745(a) of the Commission’s Rules by operating at times beyond the station’s post-sunset authorization. Clarion is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000.00). To determine whether WKQW was operating consistent with its authorization, an agent from the Philadelphia Office installed radio monitoring equipment in Oil City, Pennsylvania to record, on a continuous basis, the relative signal strength of WKQW’s transmission on the frequency 1120 KHz. The equipment was in place from October 28, 2008 to December 12, 2008.The agent reviewed and analyzed the radio transmission data recorded between October 28, 2008 and December 12, 2008, and found several violations. The agent determined that, between October 28, 2008, and October 30, 2008, the station operated after 8:30 p.m. local time, which is the end of the station’s post-sunset authorization during the month of October. The agent also determined from the recorded radio transmission data that, between November 1, 2008 and November 13, 2008 and between November 15, 2008 and November 25, 2008, the station operated past 7:00 p.m. local time, which is the end of the station’s post sunset authorization during the month of November. In response to an inquiry from Commission staff, the owner of Clarion confirmed that the station’s transmitter did not malfunction during the period between October 28, 2008 and December 12, 2008.

I find it interesting that the FCC has some sort of remote monitoring device that it can install and monitor an AM station’s power levels. I wonder where they installed it.  I also have to wonder what it looks like.  Is it an outdoor unit, like something one might see attached to a utility pole, or an indoor unit, stashed away in an office somewhere?  Very curious, indeed.  If I were the station owner, I might ask to see the records that the automated recording device created.  That would seem to be a reasonable request.

Caron Broadcasting, Inc. licensee of station WKAT, in North Miami, Florida, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1745(a) and 73.3526 of the Commission’s Rules by operating at times with power other than those specified in its license and failing to maintain and make available a complete public inspection file. Caron is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of eight thousand dollars ($8,000). We also admonish Caron for the failure of the station’s chief operator to review, sign and date the station logs on a weekly basis as required under Section 73.1870(c)(3) of the Rules.On January, 26, 2009, an agent from the Miami Office monitored WKAT’s transmissions from approximately 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. The agent made several field strength measurements of the station’s signal and observed no reduction in the transmissions’ field strength after sunset.On January, 27, 2009, an agent from the Miami Office monitored WKAT’s transmissions from approximately 5:25 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. The agent made several field strength measurements of WKAT’s signal and observed no reduction in the transmissions’ field strength after sunset. At 6:43 p.m., the agent made a field strength measurement of the station’s signal one block from the WKAT studio.

On February 5, 2009, at 11:01 a.m., an agent from the Miami Office made a field strength measurement of the station’s signal one block from WKAT’s main studio, which measured approximately the same level as the nighttime measurement that was made there on January 27, again indicating that WKAT was not reducing its power at night. The agent immediately conducted an inspection of WKAT’s main studio with the station’s general manager and designated chief operator. The chief operator stated that the station uses a remote phone monitoring system, which allows the caller to change from day mode (mode “2”) tonight mode (mode “1”). At 11:55 a.m., the chief operator called the transmitter using the remote monitoring system, which indicated that the daytime mode transmitter power was 4,758 watts. At the request of the agent, the chief operator switched the transmitter to nighttime mode, and the system indicated that the power was 316 watts. At 1:45 p.m., with the WKAT transmitter in nighttime mode, the agent made a field strength measurement near the WKAT studio which was much lower than the daytime mode measurement made earlier that day. This measurement confirmed that the station’s transmitter and transmitter remote control system were functioning properly.

Still on February 5, 2009, the agent inspected WKAT’s available daily transmitter logs, which showed that from December 4, 2008 until February 4, 2009, WKAT was not reducing power at night as required by its license. All the log entries made during the daytime and nighttime were in the range of approximately 4,600 to 4,900 watts, and indicated that the transmitter was in mode “2,” the day mode, at all times. The log entries for the early morning hours of February 5, 2009 indicated that WKAT was operating at nighttime power at that time. Neither the station manager nor the chief operator could explain why the power was not being reduced, or why or how the situation was corrected early that morning. The agent also found that none of the station logs were signed by the chief operator or by anyone else. There was apparently no verification of whether or not the station was operating with authorized power, and no initiation of any corrective action for the overpower condition that had been ongoing for several months. The agent also requested to inspect the station’s public inspection file and found that it did not contain the quarterly radio issues/programs lists for the 1st through 4th quarters of 2008. The station manager stated that he did not know where the issues/programs lists were, but that they may be in storage since WKAT moved its studio in August 2008.

They tracked that one down the old-fashioned way, multiple visits at sunset to take field strength meter readings.  It seems like no one in this radio group knew anything about FCC requirements and rules. None of this is rocket science, really. These NAL’s are both over a year old.  I wonder why it is taking the FCC so long to get through this process.