Re: WEZE/WTAG

["John Andrews" <johna@comrex.com>]

Dan Strassberg wrote:
>But the current situation is grandfathered. WEZE could move as long as the
>move did not exacerbate the existing interference.

No question, for both day and night operation.  My point is that maintaining
existing contours over a broad area (daytime), and in a whole bunch of
different directions (nighttime) could be difficult without more complex DAs
or power reductions.

>Indeed, many years ago
>what was then WEEI applied to diplex from the Needham site with what was
>then WHDH. The Needham site is even closer to Worcester than is the WRKO
>site. I don't think interference to WTAG (or WROW) was what shot down the
>move.

I recall not being happy with some aspects of that application, but WTAG was
owned by the Worcester Telegram & Gazette at that time, and in the latter
years, we didn't spend much money on Washington lawyers and consultants.
(Thereby missing some good opportunities, but that's the way it was).  Had
the application been filed during Knight's tenure, the situation would have
been different.  I have no idea how Chancellor approaches these things.

>As for the cost of the move, it might pay for itself in the long run--and
>Salem very definitely looks at costs from a long-run standpoint. The WEZE
>site is leased, and Salem hates leases because they involve ongoing costs.
>I'm not sure who owns the WRKO site (might be Entercom but might well be
>American Tower Systems--the remains of ARS, which used to owned WRKO).

That's sure a good argument for looking into the situation.  I'm a little
skeptical of a realistic solution, but heck, I've been wrong before!  I
suspect that Salem views AM properties differently than the groups who just
happen to buy them along with the FMs they really want.

John Andrews

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