CW31 on Shortwave

[aggie72]

I'm picking up CW31 which I think is a TV station in Sacramento on 26.110 MHz in FM!!! Never heard this one before. It's now approaching 1800 UTC and the signal just went off the air. Strange!?

[ka3jjz]

Not at all. You are hearing a feed signal that's evidently getting bounced via F skip (or perhaps E). I believe these are referred to as Interruptable Feedbacks or something similar to that.

There's been a report on Spaceweather that a couple of coronal mass ejections (CME) are in the process of (if they haven't already) hitting our ionosphere, so conditions are going to be a bit unsettled for a few days.

Anyway, that's a nice catch. There aren't too many of these on the air. You MIGHT even write the station (enclose a couple of stamps for return postage) and see if you can get a verification.

Mike

[aggie72]

Excuse my ignorance but what would they be feeding on 26 MHz? I monitor SpaceWeather regularly and know that the sun is a little more active these days but I don't see anything really unusual. However, propagation was pretty good this morning with a lot of 11 meter activity from Mexico to Canada and all the US so maybe there was something going on.

[Token]

This is called an STL, Studio-Transmitter Link. Also called a Broadcast Auxiliary Station. CW-31 would be KMAX-TV, out of Sacramento, CA.

A list of some of them here:
VHF-Lo STL North America

T!

[aggie72]

Thanks for the link. Since getting this ICOM R-71A with the FM adapter I'm experiencing a whole new world of HF DXing! Great stuff!

[ka3jjz]

Originally Posted by Token

This is called an STL, Studio-Transmitter Link. Also called a Broadcast Auxiliary Station. CW-31 would be KMAX-TV, out of Sacramento, CA.

A list of some of them here:
VHF-Lo STL North America

T!

That's not quite what I was thinking of, but close enough, I was thinking of another name sometimes associated with stations like this - an IFB... Thanks Mike

[ka3jjz]

Originally Posted by aggie72

Excuse my ignorance but what would they be feeding on 26 MHz? I monitor SpaceWeather regularly and know that the sun is a little more active these days but I don't see anything really unusual. However, propagation was pretty good this morning with a lot of 11 meter activity from Mexico to Canada and all the US so maybe there was something going on.

From what I understand these old 26 Mhz STLs are holdovers from the old days before satellite links became commonplace. I think I read somewhere that these freqs were kept up as a backup facility. Perhaps CW31 was having issues with their satellite linkups. Hard to say. That's why I suggested writing them - it would be interesting information to have.

Mike

[aggie72]

I only heard about 2 minutes right at the end of their transmission and really didn't have time to get a recording. It took a few seconds to figure out it was FM! Luckily I heard the CW31 call sign or I wouldn't have had a clue what it was. I'll send them an email just for kicks.

[rafdav]

Use to be you could catch a distance station, whether they be TV or radio broadcast, send them a letter discribing what you heard and they in turn would send you a nice QSL card, or a letter thanking you for sending them a report on their transmission at that time.
Do the stations still send out QSL cards or letters like they use to? Back in the early '60s was the last time I sent any reports in.

[ka3jjz]

Sometimes these stations will reply - and enclosing a couple of US Stamps in the letter won't hurt, either.

Mike

[aggie72]

I'll send them a QSL report and see what happens.

[jimvm]

The chief engineer at KMAX is Bob Hess, a ham (W1RH).
One of their remote sites where the 26.11 MHz is coming from is near Georgetown.
See AG6AU repeater for pictures.

jim vm

[aggie72]

Thanks for all the info!

[ridgescan]

Gees-when I reported catching NFM studio links out of Texas in the 25 megs last year, I was warned more than once that I was not to video, log, nor even mention it because technically it was "illegal" for a guy like me to be intercepting those transmissions. Here you guys are telling him to shoot for a QSL. lol

[aggie72]

What am I missing here? It seems perfectly legal to receive these transmissions:

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 : CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I : CRIMES
CHAPTER 119:
Sec. 2511:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person :
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an
electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic
communication is readily accessible to the general public;

[ridgescan]

Originally Posted by aggie72

What am I missing here? It seems perfectly legal to receive these transmissions:

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 : CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I : CRIMES
CHAPTER 119:
Sec. 2511:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person :
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an
electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic
communication is readily accessible to the general public;

Join the club. Just commenting on my own experience. Go here and read from post #23 on down.
NFM Broadcast

[n5ims]

Originally Posted by aggie72

What am I missing here? It seems perfectly legal to receive these transmissions:

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 : CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I : CRIMES
CHAPTER 119:
Sec. 2511:
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person :
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an
electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic
communication is readily accessible to the general public;

You're missing the legal defination of "readily accessible to the general public" as defined by US law, specifically Title 18 ("CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE"), Part 1 ("CRIMES"), Chapter 119 ("WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS"), Section 2510 ("Definitions"), Paragraph 16 ("‘‘readily accessible to the general public’’ means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not ...") (see sub-paragraph E for this type).

18 U.S.C. 2510 - Definitions

or more specifically http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...19-sec2510.pdf

[ka3jjz]

Ah, but you're both missing something. If the station replies that it cannot respond due to the 'broadcast being not readily available to the public' idiocy, that's still a QSL...

Besides, being on 26 Mhz, NFM and not encrypted in any way, it's hardly hidden, regardless of what the dimwit law might say. Since the CE is a ham, you might get a more sympathetic ear...

I'd still try it - Mike

[ridgescan]

Oh yeah Mike-where were you with all this last year?

[Token]

The specifics of the station received in this thread, its power level, location, and service, can be found here:
ULS License - Broadcast Auxiliary Remote Pickup License - KMK282 - SACRAMENTO TELEVISION STATIONS, INC - Frequencies Summary

First, do I believe it is wrong to listen to such stations? Nope, not at all. Is it legal to listen to such stations? This is where I get very unsure. This argument comes up periodically, and sometimes people say it is legal and sometimes they say it is not. I don’t know. But, there are no videos on my YouTube channel of such stations Now…my log book might be a different story…

Seriously, even if this is technically illegal (to monitor a broadcast ultimately intended for public consumption but NOT on a frequency intended for public use) do the appropriate authorities have nothing better to do than go after a half a dozen radio hobbyist? Are there no more important things for them to be pursuing? I rather doubt anyone will spend time going after someone for listening to these links.

What I have seen is this:

18 U.S.C. (s) 2510 (16)
“readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communications, that such communications is not –

(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of Part 74, or Part 95 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communications is a two way voice communication by radio;

I think, but am not sure, that the above says it is technically illegal to monitor these auxiliary broadcast links.

Simplified, as I read it, something is deemed not readily accessible to the public, and so it cannot legally be listened to, if it is transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 25, subparts D,E, or F of Part 74, or Part 95, and if the transmission is not a two way communication by radio.

To me this means if it is transmitted on one of these specific frequencies and it is a two way radio communication and it is not encrypted it is fair game, but other than that it gets a little less cut and dried. These auxiliary stations are not two way radio communications. And, these RP stations are indeed allocated under subpart D of Part 74. Section 74.402 (a)(2) clearly defines the frequencies (specific channelized frequencies from 25.87 to 26.47), including specifically 26.11 MHz.

T