KLGL -- Jack done right!

[Amanuensis]

Every time I head down to Utah County, I tune my radio to 98.3 as soon as I get to the Point of the Mountain. KLGL plays a broad-based format that I really like. I wish they had a translator in SLC. I hope the people in central Utah recognize what a gem they have. The station appears to be very responsive to the people down there.

[admin]

Amen to that it's on my radio all the time

[x]

KLGL's move to 97.7 and sliding south is part of the Musical Chairs Docket (02-290). I don't imagine that's good news for those on the southern end of the Wasatch Front who listen. There was also some talk about flipping KLGL with KCYQ or something. Where does that stand?

[JamesAnderson]

Actually, there are several things regarding KCYQ.

One is the pending docket to switch frequencies with KCFM. So KCYQ would end up on 96.7 and KCFM on 93.7.

But Mid-Utah has thrown a wrench. They proposed moving the 93.7 allotment to Boulder Town. That's where the docket stands right now.

The other is that KCYQ is in an auction situation with CSN International over translator apps on 99.9 FM here in Utah County. That is part of the big 'Great Translator Invasion' matter that LPFM groups are complaining about.

CSN's translator on 88.3 is off the air here in Utah County. As a result I can actually listen to a fringe signal for KCPW-FM at all hours. Don't know if the translator simply died and they have yet to get a new one or not. They've been off the air since sometime in December if not before.

[x]

Until the Funny Cookie Company gets its act together about LPFM, I doubt it makes much of a difference. It's nearly impossible to get an LPFM license near any high population area. Translators have no problem, even though translators often have higher power. That needs to be fixed, and hopefully will be soon. I presume that KLGU-LP in Logan is off-air now that KKMV moved to 106.1. Oddly, KKMV has applied to downgrade from a C0 to an A. What's up with that?

[watcher]

Hmmmm, unless I'm reading a different paper. Looks like it is proposed that KCYQ 93.7 be moved to Mt Pleasant, and 94.1 be allocated as first service in Boulder Utah.

Proposed changes to the Table of Allotments are as follows:
Communitv Current Proposed
Richfield. UT 229C. 980 AM 980 AM
Boulder Town, UT _____ 231C
Mount Pleasant, UT _____ 229C
Levan, UT 244C 244C

[admin]

x said:

KLGL's move to 97.7 and sliding south is part of the Musical Chairs Docket (02-290). I don't imagine that's good news for those on the southern end of the Wasatch Front who listen. There was also some talk about flipping KLGL with KCYQ or something. Where does that stand?

I would imagine KLGL is safe they will feed it from other translators in the "network"

[JamesAnderson]

AirFree Wireless owns the translators that are not 'fill-ins'.

There are fifteen total for KLGL, ranging from Kanab to Provo.

Engineering the feed from 97.7 to the 98.3 translator could be tricky being first-adjacent to KBZN 97.9. After all, KUSU's 96.7 translator in Salt Lake is fed from the main on 91.5 NW of Logan. That seems to work despite there being a 91.7 station, KUFR, albeit a near-minimal class A.

Also consider booster KLGL-FM1 Nephi to be a possible dead duck after this as well. Too close to 97.9 KBZN (fairly good grade B reception down there).

[x]

JamesAnderson said:

Also consider booster KLGL-FM1 Nephi to be a possible dead duck after this as well. Too close to 97.9 KBZN (fairly good grade B reception down there).

There are two issues here. Remember that a booster, by definition, has to be within the predicted contours of the primary. If the primary simply changed frequencies, the predicted contours of the booster wouldn't be any closer to KBZN than the primary is. Thus, if the primary isn't too close, the booster wouldn't be either. (How this works in the real world isn't relevant.)

Ok, now for the real reason why KLGL won't be able to have a booster in Nephi after the move. Right now, the Nephi booster is within the grade A contour of the primary. Once the station moves further south, it won't be. If you look at the predicted contours of both stations

primary: www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM608375.html

booster: www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FB658276.html

you can see that the limit of the grade A coverage of the booster is almost identical to the limit of the primary in that direction. Of course, that isn't an accident. Now look at the plot for the new 97.7 version

www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM1020012.html

See Nephi waaaay up at the top, out of the coverage area? Can't put a booster there. They could try to put another translator in that area to relay, but I have no idea what's available.


Still reading? Good for you.

[watcher]

Counldn't find the page again. But someplace in all the filings, if memory serves me right (but hey, I'm getting to be an old man so who knows), it talked about KCYQ and KLGL swaping formats and calls after the move. So KCYQ would be 97.7 Elsinore, and KLGL would be 93.7 Richfield. If 93.7 moves to Mount Pleasant, from the filings, it still shows Nephi in the circle. So I guess they would just have to re-apply for the booster (if still needed after the move to Mt Pleasant.) KCYQ only has booster in Beaver. So I'm guessing they would have to re-apply as well. Confused, so am I . . . . . or maybe not!

[SamSpade]

x said:

... I presume that KLGU-LP in Logan is off-air now that KKMV moved to 106.1. Oddly, KKMV has applied to downgrade from a C0 to an A. What's up with that?

Reply from a poster at Idaho Radio News dot com:

Anonymous Says:
February 2nd, 2005 at 10:58 pm
In response to the following post:

“A forum poster at the Utah Radio News site reports that KKMV has applied to drop to a class A on their new frequency. THAT won’t help their coverage! What’s going on? Anyone know?”

KKMV is not decreasing power. The application for the class “A” is for a backup site.

[x]

There seems to be some confusion about that. The FCC designation is for a new main site ("FM" not "FS") The application is seeking to modify an existing license (BLH-19920916KC), but that license no longer exists as far as the FCC can tell. The application states that it wants to use an old licensed main site as an auxillary, but the old main site is not at the same location as this proposed new one. That might be why the FCC redesignated it, but that's just a guess.

Regardless, the "FM" designation is very worrysome. If I were Millcreek (who prepared the application) I'd get busy on it.