Pirate operator fined

rogerkirk rogerkirk@mail.ttlc.net
Tue Mar 9 20:35:18 EST 2004

RogerKola@aol.com wrote:

>Notice the number of channels each side he was supposedly interfering 
>Must have been a really wide signal!....

I must beg to differ.  Carefully reading the letter you reference, I  noted the judicious use of the words "It can interfere with two local stations at 96.9 and 97.9."  While it was capable of interfering with those signals, it does not state that it actually was, in fact, interfering with them.  Plus, frequency stability of the pirate (a possible factor in interference) appears not to have been measured.

Secondly, I question the statement "but generally it's operating at 1 watt."  Lacking access to the current and voltage of the transmitter's final, I question that statement's credibility.  I am, however, open to engineering explanations from those gathered here who are quite likely more technically versed than I. 

IIRC, as has been noted here, that field strength at a specified distance from the antenna is one verifiable factor considered when judging a radio station's coverage.  And curiously, that measurement was not noted in the complaint. 

Because it was a pirate, it was a legally justifiable complaint and I have no quibble with that.  But the fact that it came from an apparently non-engineering manager with no references to actual engineering measurements doesn't appear to support the theory that he was causing actual harm. 

I could be wrong and your mileage may vary.  Comments please from le gallery des legumes.

Respectfully yours,

Another Roger

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list