Re: WRPT Signal

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

At 04:16 PM 4/18/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>I checked an old issue of M Street Radio Directory (1992), which showed
that the 
>CP for the never-built WBSO/650 Clinton, MA was authorized for a whopping 10kw 
>days, and no less than 1kw at night, DA-2.......So wouldn't it be logical
to say 
>that WRPT can go that high in power, or at least higher than the current
power??
>
Maybe, but not necessarily. Before WBSO's CP was deleted, WBSO had received
authorization for 2.3 kW-N. Night service for WRPT (as distinguished from
the current post-sunset operation) is a definite possibility. The night
power might be so low as to make the operation not worthwhile, however.
WBSO's night service was to use (I believe) a four-tower array. It is
unlikely that WRPT could find a location suitable for constructing a
four-tower array that would work at 650. Operating full-time
nondirectionally, WRPT would be limited to much less power at night than it
uses from one hour after local sunset until signoff. Also, I think that if
WRPT were authorized unlimited-time service, it would have to abandon its
current post-sunset operation, which just may be more valuable.

As for daytime operation, WBSO was granted under the old rules about
interference on the first adjacent channel. In the case of WRPT, that means
interference to and from WFAN (660) and WNNZ (640). The old rules required
no overlap of 0.5 mV/m contours. WRPT must comply with the current rules.
Its 0.5 mV/m contour must not overlap WNNZ's and WFAN's 0.25 mV/m countours
and vice versa.

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

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