|
|
Post by David on Jul 17, 2018 19:23:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Jul 18, 2018 2:41:35 GMT -6
Interesting. This feels temporary to me, but that makes sense. Get a single tower up and running and then worry about reraising power or additional towers or whatever later. Given how long all of this has taken so far he'd probably like to get something permanent on the air ASAP.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 18, 2018 11:22:03 GMT -6
I think the proposed power reduction might have something to do with Kona Coast's plans to diplex both KNIT and KRRF (1230) from the same site. IIRC, KWLO was originally licensed for 10 KW, but they had to reduce power to 1 KW and have KOVO operate at a variance to resolve some interference issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Aug 23, 2018 0:25:04 GMT -6
As if KNIT didn't have enough problems, now there's this: licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS_Attachment/getattachment.jsp?appn=101790421&qnum=5000©num=1&exhcnum=2I'm not a lawyer of any kind (especially a communications attorney) but this feels like a character issue rather than a technical issue with the modification proposal. It seems to me like it would be better suited as an issue to have raised either with the transfer of the station control or with a renewal. I guess we'll have to see. |
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 23, 2018 1:14:37 GMT -6
In reading the objection, it sounds like a tit for tat situation where a scorned business partner is attempting to get revenge for the objection filed by Kona Coast last year. It seems like a minor issue that the two parties could easily resolve if they were willing to sit down and rationally discuss things. And considering some of the dishonest hanky panky that goes on in the broadcast industry, this is nothing to be concerned about. Michael is trying to get a couple of radio stations back on the air that probably would have gone silent had he not bought the licenses from Cumulus, which certainly seems in keeping with the FCC's AM Revitalization plan. Why not let him proceed instead of throwing a wrench in the machine?
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Aug 26, 2018 3:15:15 GMT -6
Oh I'm pretty sure it's revenge. The only difficulty is that lying to the Commission is taken pretty seriously. The FCC admits that they rely a lot of self-policing and companies doing what they're supposed to. (Even FCC inspections can be done by state broadcasters in lieu of an actual inspection agent.) If everyone decided to go rogue there would be utter chaos. For that reason I do think this should be looked into, but not in this context.
|
|
|
|
Post by amanuensis on Aug 26, 2018 9:43:44 GMT -6
It is obvious that "Informal Objection" is a term-of-art with the FCC, with a specific special meaning. Rocket Radio's filing seemed pretty formal to me. (Although there were a couple of typos.) So what distinguishes informal objections from formal ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 27, 2018 18:19:20 GMT -6
It is obvious that "Informal Objection" is a term-of-art with the FCC, with a specific special meaning. Rocket Radio's filing seemed pretty formal to me. (Although there were a couple of typos.) So what distinguishes informal objections from formal ones? The main differences between a informal and formal FCC objection are twofold: 1) It costs nothing to file an informal objection with the FCC. For a formal objection, there is a fee charged. 2) A formal objection can only be filed if the person who filed the informal complaint is dissatisfied with the FCC's response, and a formal objection must be filed within 6 months of the response to the informal objection. The parties involved in a formal complaint must also appear before the FCC for a final decision on the issue. For more information, click on the link below: consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/205082880-Filing-a-Complaint-Questions-and-Answers#question_15 |
|
|
|
Post by David on Sept 5, 2018 15:57:10 GMT -6
As if KNIT didn't have enough problems, now there's this: licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS_Attachment/getattachment.jsp?appn=101790421&qnum=5000©num=1&exhcnum=2I'm not a lawyer of any kind (especially a communications attorney) but this feels like a character issue rather than a technical issue with the modification proposal. It seems to me like it would be better suited as an issue to have raised either with the transfe r of the station control or with a renewal. I guess we'll have to see. The link appears to be dead now. All I get is an error message from the FCC server when trying to view the letter. I can't find anything about the informal objection in the FCC's file for KNIT either, so it appears that Mr. Michael and his business associate may have resolved the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by David on Sept 5, 2018 21:28:25 GMT -6
FWIW: The asking price for KNIT has been reduced to $250,000, which includes the Bluffdale FM translator construction permit.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Sept 7, 2018 2:34:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Sept 7, 2018 20:11:48 GMT -6
So now that it's been established that the informal objection hasn't been resolved yet, a couple of questions are raised. First, does the informal objection not being resolved prevent the FCC from approving the power increase for KNIT? Second, would the informal objection prevent KNIT from being sold if Kona Coast has a buyer for the station before the objection is resolved?
|
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Sept 8, 2018 20:22:22 GMT -6
I find it hard to guess what the FCC will do. Sometimes I think they use a Magic 8-ball. Kona objected to the complaint using some of the same arguments I had. I'd guess the complaint gets tossed because it really has nothing to do with a technical filing like that but I could be wrong. The only thing the informal objection has any bearing on would be this application. That would have nothing to do with any sale, though if there was an objection to this I would not at all be surprised if the same objection was filed for any other applications including a sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Sept 14, 2018 20:19:23 GMT -6
OK, now the links aren't working AND there's nothing in either one of KNIT's correspondence folders regarding the informal objection. Either something's haywire with the FCC database, or the objection has been dismissed.  |
|
|
|
Post by CAwasinNJ on Sept 15, 2018 1:49:38 GMT -6
It was broken for a bit but they're working fine again and do NOT make me go over that deleted thing again. |
|
