RE: Union rules affect talk show (fwd)

[Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net]

- ----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
From:    Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net
To:      Bob Nelson <bluesradio_99@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Union rules affect talk show
Date:    Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:13:00 +0000

CFTR has _nothing_ to do with WRKO's current night 
pattern. The only two stations that were on 680 before 
WLAW (which eventually became WRKO) are KNBR in San 
Francisco (the dominant class A station on 680) and WPTF 
in Raleigh NC. I think that WLAW's pattern. which is now 
WRKO's night pattern, was designed to protect WPTF, KNBR 
(which was then KPO), and first-adjacent CBF. Although 
CBF is gone, no relaxation of the pattern is likely for 
a whole bunch of reasons. The Montreal allocation must 
still be protected and there are many stations to the 
west that have sprung up in the meantime and must be 
protected. CFTR is only one. A closer one is WINR in 
Binghamton NY. There is also a 680 in Baltimore that has 
applied for increases in day and night power.

WRKO's patterns are symmetrical about the 75-degree 
azimuth of the towers. Moving the towers around or 
constructing new ones is most unlikely because the TX 
sits atop the Town of Burlington's water supply and the 
town is reportedly not amenable to any changes in the 
use of the land.

Given Entercom's strong aversion to spending money on 
anything, I'd rank the likelihood of their trying to do 
anything to improve this situation as very close to 
zero. Even if WRKO had fallen into the hands of Jacor, 
which has shown a strong interest in improving its AM 
signals, I doubt whether anything would be done because 
nothing much can be done. Aside from a poor night signal 
in MetroWest, WRKO has a truly outstanding signal 
everywhere else in the market day and night.
 
> Is WRKO's direction signal at night due to CFTR (680),
> though, or are there other stations at 680 that
> need protection?

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