Antennas and towers near broadcast stations

The FCC has without much notice in Amateur circles passed [was: "quietly snuck," a poor choice of words] a Rule that will affect non-broadcast radio licensees including Radio Amateurs.

In the Matter of
An Inquiry Into the Commission's Policies and Rules
Regarding AM Radio Service Directional Antenna Performance Verification
MM Docket No. 93-177 SECOND REPORT AND ORDER AND SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: September 24, 2008 Released: September 26, 2008​

Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register)

excerpt:

LINK

A vertical resonant at 1.8 MHz is 81 degrees tall at 1.6 MHz and would be if not detuned at the BC frequency forbidden within 2 miles (approx) (or 10 wavelengths at its frequency if less) of a directional AM station. An 80 meter vertical falls to it as well, as well as many shorter towers according to their electrical length.

I leave to others to calculate what their antennas and towers will require.

Considering the impact the unnoticed Part 73 action has had in Amateur circles, a reconsideration could be in order if only to accept our comments.


Cortland
KA5S

 

as a living i build cell phone towers for a large carrier, we have always had to abide by this rule, i have only been in the USA since 2002 but every tower we have built within a give radious of an AM broadcast tower has needed an AM study to determine if detuning is needed??

Thanks
Wayne

 

Was not aware of it, as it was not mentioned in Part 97. Also, there was some mention in the proceedings on this about others (part 90?) not previously having been required to make these adjustments.

Since I live close to a (previously directional) expanded AM band station I might have to make allowances if they go directional again. That's on top of putting up with their transmitter IMD.

Cheers,

Cortland
KA5S

 

This may not be as critical as it first seems - the language mentions construction of towers near "non-directional" AM stations. I know that many AM stations are directional - employing phased vertical arrays.

 

Key word is "tower construction or modification". Put up a push up pole...

de NA4IT

 

If you read on, the requirements for those near directional BC stations are more stringent, extending out to 3 km.

From a quick read of this and some quick mental arithmetic, if you're within 3 km, a tower in the order of magnitude of 50 feet would require notification.

 

All Federal regulations go through the same process:
*Advanced Notice of Proposed Rules (ANPR) - always done
*Second ANPR - only done to accommodate add'l comments
*Proposed Rules
*Rules become effective upon promulgation at some future date.

This chronology typically takes months if not years.
\
Clearly, the FCC here is issuing a second ANPR, the purpose of which is to solicit comments.

This seems more like they are taking extraordinary measures to solicit comments rather than sneak anything by anyone.

 

Guess that means this summer would be a good time to put up a new tower

 

My tower, my antenna, my property. Screw em.

 

So when the directional pattern is skewed due to your tower, they can just just go off the air since they can't protect the station their licensed pattern was designed to protect.

It's not like anybody listens to AM broadcast stations anyway, right?

Besides, you can't be bothered to understand what it would take to detune your tower (which, incidentally, isn't that hard to do).

Nice attitude there.

 

Ill adopt the same attitude the FCC did when they turned IBOC loose on the AM band.

Somehow its OK for stations to be 30khz wide and leave residue on stations like WSM, but its wrong for someone to put up a dinky 50 ft tower. Get real.

Im tired of the idiocy and hipocracy thats being put forth by these engineer wanna-be's that are really just some polititians pawn in a huge money grab.

 

I reckon we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The fact that you have problems listening to WSM makes it all okay. Got it.

So you're also okay with it if someone puts up a 190 foot tower near WSM, phased just right (accidentally, of course) and makes that (currently omni) pattern shift to, say, the east, leaving you in a deep null. After all, it's their property, screw 'em, right?

 

some don't do well with authority figures... some childhood thing

 

Why should I be angered? At this moment we have a storm approaching. We are trying to get a weather report via DTV. Had to unplug the box and go back to analog, the stormy weather is wiping out our digital reception. Once analog is gone, no more radar pictures.

So I have been left in a null, so to speak. Where were these rules and regulations to protect my reception?

This same organization has already trashed our spectrum, why would I be worried about a ham trying to have a little fun?

Sorry. If the FCC wants to protect broadcasters coverage, there are many other more important issues that need to be taken care of first. Leave me and my puny tower alone.

 

And some are good little boys , always do as they are told, and are scared to crawl out from under the covers.

I think Ill comment on this. You know, there are getting to be too many stipulations. A stupid rule like this could cover a whole community. Pretty soon we will have to cower in a corner, hesitant to turn on our radios for fear of doing something wrong.