[BC] Re: [Tech-Assist] STL question

[RichardBJohnson@comcast.net]

When I was in the business, the proof-of-performance was to be obtained from
the microphone input terminals at the studio, through all intervening equipment,
to and including the transmitter output terminals. Nothing was allowed to be
patched-out. However, automatic leveling equipment could have their gain-control
functions turned off (probably impossible nowadays). For the purpose of the
compliance, the "studio" needed to be the main location from where programs
originated, not some temporary hack at the transmitter site. Since ball-park
remotes were not from the "studio," remote pickup equipment need not be tested.

About the time I left the industry, there were stations being fined for noncompliance
because they had automation equipment, tape playback, carts, etc., with no "microphones!"
Some such broadcasters thought that the rules didn't apply to them. They would perform
(when they felt like it) some sort of "proof-of-performance" from the transmitter. Basically,
they'd hire somebody (like me) to feed some tones around the transmitter site and
pretend that this represented the intent of the regulations. Eventually, probably because
of the NAB lobby, compliance with Part 73 regulations was simply assumed. No
broadcaster would knowingly violate the FCC regulations, would they?

Nowadays, many broadcasters just do the minimum their lawyers say they can get
away with. There probably aren't any "hard-and-fast" rules anymore like there were
when the FCC had mobile monitoring equipment and full-time compliance officers.

The northeast  Nathan Hallenstein just would not let a broadcaster flaunt the
regulations.


--
Cheers,
Richard B. Johnson
Read about my book
http://www.AbominableFirebug.com


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Dan Kelley" <djkelley at frontier.net>
> > Legal issues aside, I do not think you are going pass the required FM
> > frequency-response or noise specifications using an AM transmitter as a
> > STL. 
> 
> Just for the sake of discussion:  If he's feeding the FM STL at the old
> studio location with the off-air AM audio, doesn't the FM STL's frequency
> response and noise figures suffice?  From what he wrote - the old studio
> location will remain the main studio for legal purposes.
> 
> If the AM audio is to be accounted - then wouldn't every noisy Marti and
> cell phone remote violate frequency response and noise requirements?
> 
> -dan in lansing
>  http://classicrockfm.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More! 
> www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>