The announcement briefly described what the group believes will be the problems associated with the towers. One of the things they mention (and that is usually mentioned prominently) is 'blanketing interference.' It's surely a troubling phrase, insofar as it seems to imply that the radio towers will blanket the surrounding area with interference. And, given that radio towers are all over the place, it seemed that if all those places were being blanketed with interference, we would all have had some experience with it. And yet, the people I talk to for the most part have no such experience.
So I Googled 'blanketing interference' to see what it means. Mostly the definition is more technical than I can make sense of, but it does not appear to mean that the area around the towers will be blanketed (ie, smothered) with interference. One site defines it thus: "Blanketing interference refers to the phenomena of receiving radio signals on devices not designed to do so." This site goes on to discuss how such interference can be eliminated/corrected/remedied.
A look further about the law of such intereference problems explains that the FCC requires a new station or a station that moves to a new locale to take on the costs of remedying all interference problems reported during the first year of its operation. (There are some exceptions, but they are described in the following excerpt from the applicable law.)
The law:
FCC Cases on Blanketing Interference – The Responsibility of Broadcasters to their Neighbors
Posted in General FCC, Tower Issues
In two recent cases, the FCC discussed the issue of "blanketing interference," the interference that can be caused by a broadcaster to electronic devices that are located in homes and businesses near to the station’s transmitter site. In the first case, the FCC rejected a license renewal challenge finding that there was no specific showing of interference to protected RF devices. The FCC appends to this decision a guide to the types of interference which a broadcaster must resolve. In the secondcase, the Commission also denied a complaint filed against the renewal application of a radio station based on the interference that it allegedly caused in nearby homes. Here, the Commission published a set of Guidelines as an appendix to the decision – guidelines which help clarify the proceduresthat a broadcaster should go through to assess its responsibility to remedy interference complaints. Together, the attachments to these two cases should give stations guidance on what they should do if they get complaints of blanketing interference.
Essentially, broadcasters are required to resolve all complaints of blanketing interference which occur within a station’s "blanketing contour" (1V/m for AM stations, 115 dBu or 562 mV/m contour for FM stations) during the first year of a station’s operation from a particular transmitter site to "RF devices." These include radios, TVs, and VCRs with tuners in them. Licensees are not required to resolve complaints to mobile receivers. Telephones, phonographs, tape recorders or devices using high gain antennas also are not covered. After the first year, stations, while not fully financially liable, do have the responsibility to provide information and assistance about how to resolve the interference to the person who is suffering that interference. The Appendix to the second case states that licensees will have to respond to all complaints filed with the FCC and provide details of what they have done to address interference complaints. So broadcasters should be aware of their responsibilities, and take appropriate actions based on the guidelines set out by the FCC.
Here is the link to that site.
None of this means that siting the radio towers inside Point Roberts is a particularly good idea. But at least it clarifies for me some of the issues that I didn't understand, largely because of the language in which it is being discussed.
2 comments:
Interesting. However, this doesn't help our current situation because these events occur after they have been on site for a year (if I'm reading it right, and I admit it's late).
As far as I can tell there have been numerous letters written by residents on both sides of the border opposing the towers. I'm wondering if the border people (both sides) and our local deputies and fire department have weighed in as to whether or not this installation will affect their communication systems.
yes, it doesn't help right now except that it gives one some idea of the probable extent of the problem once the towers go into operation. and the mitigation/remedying of interference is required to be effected by the station if there is any report of interference during the first year of operation. My interest here is in trying to understand what the problem is likely to be if the towers become operative.
certainly the situation has been discussed with both the fire district and the border supervisor, but i would assume that the U.S. border, at least, and probably the Canadian as well, would be adequately shielded from ANY interference by anything. I've not heard any discussion of it at any of the Fire District meetings. I was told that the U.S. border people were 'looking into it,' but I haven't heard any outcome. Perhaps other readers could enlighten us both.
Post a Comment