Re: Subject: The Future of 890.

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

At 03:28 PM 4/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>	I wouldn't rule out moving 890 to the 590 site and simulcasting the
stations.....would improve their southern teir coverage and also give them
better coverage towards the Cape, wouldn't it?
>
If either station moves, it will be 590 moving to the 890 site. 890 can't
move. Here are a few reasons:

1. 890 must protect WLS at night. The Medford site is too far east. There
would be no coverage east of Wellington Circle.

2. The Medford site isn't large enough for the 890 array.

3. Better coverage to the south--on Cape Cod and in RI--would result in
prohibited overlap with WCBS.

4. And there are more technical reasons that relate to WEZE's towers, which
are much shorter than WBPS's. Using shorter towers would further restrict
890's night power. 890 probably couldn't get more than 1.5 kW at night from
the WEZE site--and that would require adding two towers.

590 _might_ be able to the 890 site, although it's a very risky shot. First,
for 590 to move to Ashland, the 890 site has to lie east of WTAG's daytime
0.5 mV/m contour. I'm not sure it does. Second, the towers at the 890 site
are only 50.1 degrees apart at 590, which is _very_ close spacing. The
result is reduced antenna efficiency and a potentially unstable array.
Still, such an array _might_ work. If the move worked, 590 could increase to
50 kW-D and something more than 5 kW at night using a narrow pattern similar
to the 890 patterns. The problem is that even with 50 kW from that site,
WEZE would wind up with a worse signal than it has with 5 kW from Medford.
It would be bye-bye NH and Cape Cod, and the signal in Boston would not be
even close to the present signal. For the cost of the move and the 10-times
higher power bills thereafter, Salem would get much better coverage of
MetroWest and a savings in rent on the 590 site. But the negatives seem to
far outweight the positives. Salem has more experience with diplexed AMs
than any other US radio company, but they don't spend their money foolishly.
I rather doubt that this idea would stand up to the scrutiny of their
eagle-eyed accountants.

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

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