[BC] P.O.ed by transmission line damage

[Mike McCarthy]

I know them well.  They're the ones who did the work on this site in the end.

MM

At 06:23 PM 1/22/2006 -0800, DANA PUOPOLO wrote
>There is a company calles SiteSafe thae does this for the cell companies.
>www.sitesafe.com
>
>-D
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received:
>From: Mike McCarthy <Towers at mre.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] P.O.ed by transmission line damage
>
>The radio station has the right to demand the pre-measurements.  If it
>means the tower or other substantive work be de-erected so as to preform
>the pre-measurements, then the towers's owner has an obligation to comply.
>I did that only once and then word got around that stations can do
>that.  To my knowledge, there hasn't been another one which needed to be
>de-erected since.  What made this necessary was the unusual configuration
>of a 5th tower added inside of a cluster of VERY closely located towers in
>the middle of the main lobe at a distance of 1.3Km.
>
>With a great deal of cooperation, all 5 owners agreed to permit one company
>to adjust all the detuning networks in one great detuning effort. Each had
>an engineer on site who understood mutual coupling (they were also
>hams).  It took 3 loops around to each tower and some scattered back-forth
>and the whole cluster was brought down nicely.  With an incidental of
>300mV, the reradiated at 100M was less than 40mV.
>
>Needless to say, the station demanded a complete before/after partial proof
>be done, plus non-D radials after the new tower was added to at least
>verify total system performance and pattern compliance had not been
>compromised.
>
>MM
>
>At 03:34 PM 1/22/2006 -0700, Gary Peterson wrote
> >In this instance, the "work" was scheduled by a cellular company.  I have
> >yet to have ANY cellular company notify me of anything, including erecting a
> >~150 ft. monopole between two directional arrays with careless abandon (for
> >which they were fined...to them, just part of the cost of a new site).
> >Cellular companies appear to only answer to a higher authority, and it ain't
> >the FCC.  Have you ever heard of a cell site's license revocation for
> >repeated and willful rules violations?
> >
> >Gary, K?CX
> >
> >" In my opinion.....
> >  It's not too much to ask, but you're expecting the wrong people to provide
> >  the notice.
> >  Whoever ( or whichever station ) scheduled the work should be the one to
> >  coordinate with other users of the tower.
> >  In fact, ( without looking ) I believe that's what the rules already
> >require !
> >Cowboy "
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/