Felger leaving ESPN Boston

[Dan.Strassberg]

Every Boston-area AM, INCLUDING WBZ, has signal limitations SOMEWHERE
in the market! ('BZs are on the far South Shore and Cape Cod.) 890's
limitations are in the areas Mark mentioned, and as a relatively new
signal (went on the air less than 20 years ago, I believe), 890 has
deficiencies that are more pronounced than those of the 60- and 70+
year-old signals. Nevertheless, when you consider Boston-area AM
signals that are inferior to 1030, 590, 680, and 850, I would put 1510
next, 1200 (when it's finally running at full power from Newton) after
that, and 1150, 890 and 1060 (a tie; 1060 has better daytime coverage;
890 is better at night) next in the order in which I listed them. The
next tier includes 1260, 1330 from Newton, and 1600 when they finally
fix whatever it is that's currently keeping it at low power. Of the
stations that are really daytimers, 950 has by far the best signal.
1430, even though it is technically a Class B, has to be ranked with
the daytimers due to its unfavorable night pattern and very high NIF.

Oh, and speaking of WBZ, I wonder whether it might be a victim of
copper theft from its ground system within the past month or so. All
of a sudden I am getting a lot of groundwave/skywave phasing in
Arlington--something I never heard before in Arlington; I did hear it
while driving in Sudbury at night many years ago. Given the proximity
of the transmitter site to salt water, the effects might be less
noticeable at WBZ than at most other stations, but I have to wonder if
something might have happened that nobody at the station is aware of.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <markwa1ion@aol.com>
To: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: Felger leaving ESPN Boston


> Just outside the northwestern arc of 128 from Route 2 to I-93, the
> ESPN metro-Boston combo offers unimpressive coverage.
>
> At 3 miles north of the Burlington Mall (and the 'RKO towers), I
> would hardly characterize my home location as on the deep fringes of
> the Boston radio market.
>
> I can drive down 3A, Winn Street, 128, and 93 and be in downtown
> Boston in 25 minutes, at least when traffic is light.
>
> 890 does not have what I would call an effective signal.  New York
> on 880 is about as strong as 890 here at night.  Maybe stronger.
>
> 1400, from 11 miles north of here, has quite a garble of other stuff
> under it.  This does not fully clear up until I drive north of
> Billerica Center (about 4 miles up 3A) and get close to the Concord
> River crossing.
>
> Bedford, Concord, Carlisle, Billerica, Burlington, and Wilmington is
> a pretty good chunk of metro-area population - a good deal of it
> affluent.
>
> On AM, 590, 680, 850, and 1030 deliver decidedly better signals.
>
> Any FM, whether Pru-based or 128-towerplex-based, would be far
> superior.
>
> Mark Connelly - Billerica (Pinehurst), MA
>
> <<
> However, I take exception to characterizing 890/1400 as low-powered.
> 890 runs 25 kW-D from super-efficient half-wave towers. The daytime
> signal is truly the equivalent of 50 kW! (Check out the pattern RMS,
> which exceeds 2000 mV/m @ 1 km; the minimum for a 50 kW ND Class B
> AM
> is 1992 mV/m.) Yes, the transmitter site in Ashland is kind of far
> from Boston but the very narrow pattern sends the equivalent of
> about
> 350 kW ND to the east. And yes, the 6 kW night signal provides only
> half the RMS of the daytime signal and the NIF value of 12.5 mV/m is
> not great, but the station does deliver a listenable nighttime
> signal
> to a large part of the market. (The night signal toward Boston is
> equivalent to more than 67 kW ND.) Many people seem intent on
> "talking
> down" the 890 signal, but the facts simply don't justify the
> bad-mouthing.
>
> -----
> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
> eFax 1-707-215-6367
>>>