Re: WMTW-TV Moving tower

[beckwith@ime.net]

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Peter Q. George wrote:

> It would not be wise to sacrifice a superpower VHF allotment on
> Mount Washington for a weaker HDTV signal that will preclude over 60%
> of the coverage that they now enjoy.

Much of Channel 8's vaunted coverage area is wasted on less-populated
areas that can't be readily targeted saleswise.  Channel 8's coverage
of the metro Portland, ME market has been lousy since day one and is
getting worse with the construction boom.  It makes abundant sense for
Channel 8 to get off the mountain and locate its transmission
facilities in the same area as its primary competitors.  

Don't forget; we have no real-world knowledge as to how coverage will
be affected by a changeover to digital transmission at UHF
frequencies--only estimates from the Feds.  I think we can count on
even less than that.  All the more reason for Channel 8 to locate its
transmitter closer to the metro.

Parity with Channels 6 and 13 has always been a problem for Channel 8,
and its competitors have tried to thwart every effort by WMTW-TV to
become a competitive presence in the market.  I remember well how hard
they fought to keep Channel 8's main studio facilities out of Portland
when they outgrew Poland Spring (they succeeded--WMTW-TV built its
facilities in Auburn instead.)  This might be the one time they can't
do anything about it.

Take care,

Chris

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