[Possible Spam(low)]-[B-R-I] Re: The FCC Enforcement Bureau Has Been Busy...
Wed Sep 13 22:48:06 EDT 2017
I noticed a similar improbability on another NOV in Louisiana.
It appears that somebody in the Enforcement Bureau has trouble with scaling.
From: Boston-Radio-Interest [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Kaimbridge M. GoldChild
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:39 PM
To: Boston Radio Interest <Boston-Radio-Interest@Lists.BostonRadio.org>
Subject: [Possible Spam(low)]-[B-R-I] Re: The FCC Enforcement Bureau Has Been Busy...
Something ainʼt kosher here.
9A1> The field strength of your signal on frequency 101.3 MHz was
9A1> measured at 59,282 microvolts per meter (μV/m) at 202 meters, which
9A1> exceeded the
9A1> maximum permitted level of 250 μV/m at 3 meters for non-licensed devices.
8A1> The field strength of your signal on frequency 105.3 MHz was
8A1> measured at 80,583 microvolts per meter (μV/m) at 202 meters, which
8A1> exceeded the
8A1> maximum permitted level of 250 μV/m at 3 meters for non-licensed devices.
1A1> the field strength of your signal on frequency 104.7 MHz was
1A1> measured at 102,815 microvolts per meter (μV/m) at 3,135 meters,
1A1> which exceeded the
1A1> maximum permitted level of 250 μV/m at 3 meters for non-licensed devices.
So, 101.3 MHz ≈ 59 mV/m at 202 m, 105.3 MHz ≈ 81 mV/m and 104.7 MHz ≈ 103 mV/m at over 3 km?!? I donʼt think so!
The one on 104.7 is nowhere as strong as the other two, and was measured over 15 times further away!
Me thinks there is a typo somewheres? Maybe they meant 103 mV/m at 313.5 m (though even that still seems a little too strong, compared to the other two)?
FWIW, 105.3 seems to have been a dead carrier for the past few days (they have been with a dc for hr.s at a time in the past, but not for days).
-- -- --
Wiki—Sites Contribution History Pages:
***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. *****
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest