Re: WITS.....man, what station ;) !

[Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net>]

At 04:41 AM 4/9/97 +0000, you wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Dan Strassberg wrote:
>
>> The only answer to their nighttime coverage problem was an increase in night
>> power. The problem was that they were severely contrained, not just by
>> geography and available, acceptably zoned land, but by FCC regs, which, back
>> then, required a 25 mV/m signal over the principal business district of the
>> COL. 
>
>Couldn't they have changed their COL?
>
I guess so, but back then, the FCC rules about IDing were not as permissive
as they are now. In fact, I believe that the rule was still in effect that
required a new or modified AM station that was licensed to a suburb of a
major city to provide de minimis 5 mV/m coverage of the major city. WGTR's
upgrade was granted at about the same time as WITS' nighttime power
increase. The upgraded WGTR's proposed 5 mV/m daytime coverage included
quite a bit of Boston and Garabedian had to receive a waiver of that rule to
obtain the CP.

The FCC has waffled repeatedly on this issue (What? another issue on which
the FCC has waffled repeatedly? No-o-o. Couldn't be!) At various times they
have been receptive to applications that were really intended to serve a
community other then the COL. Then the pendulum would swing the other way,
and they would try to prevent such applications. At the moment, they are
absolutely in the permissive mode.

Also, from WITS's point of view, being licensed to Boston had a certain
cachet that allegedly was worth something in revenue. Remember that, back
then, they could not ID as (say) WITS Woburn-Boston unless they met the
signal requirements for stations licensed to Boston.

- -------------------------------
Dan Strassberg (Note: Address is CASE SENSITIVE!)
ALL _LOWER_ CASE!!!--> dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net
(617) 558-4205; Fax (617) 928-4205

------------------------------