[BC] IBOC "secrets" and my opinions.

[Tom Bosscher]

Craig Bowman wrote:
 >My public interest comment was more for a good slogan than for a suit. 
 >The act itself prohibits interference and prohibits the commission 
from making rules to the contrary.

    But wait, there's more!

    For AM stations:

    73.44.(c) Should harmful interference be caused to the reception of 
other broadcast or
non-broadcast stations by out of band emissions, the licensee
may be directed to achieve a greater degree of attenuation than 
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

    For FM stations:

    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.
....
 In either case, should harmful interference to other authorized 
stations occur,
the licensee shall correct the problem promptly or cease operation.

   So the 64 million dollar question is,

    What is the definition of "harmful" interference?

    BTW, WTKG, 1230 kHz in Grand Rapids has come on with IBOC. It 
totally obliterates WPNW, 1260 kHz, Zeeland/Holland within the Grand 
Rapids area.
Now, the Ibiquity people will state that WPNW does not have guarantee of 
an interference free contour in Grand Rapids, as licensed.

Stick with me on this. What is the name of  when you use a piece of land 
(property, spectrum?)  for more than 20 years, and no one says anything, 
you can claim it? Adverse possession maybe?
Could a station like WPNW claim adverse possession by being able to 
prove it has had listeners in Grand Rapids for more than 20 years?

Wish I had a legal background.

Tom Bosscher Esquire (ok, in the old British sense)