Re: Expanded expanded band station

[Dan.Strassberg@att.net]

So far, two ex-band stations, of which WWRU is one, have 
been granted 10 kW-D/9 kW-N DA-N. The other one is in 
CA, but I don't recall which station it is. I gather 
that there is some legal "magic" associated with 9 kW 
(otherwise, why wouldn't it be 10 kW?). Maybe the Rio 
treaty signatories accept that 9 is simply a large value 
of 1 whereas 10 is not :-)

In fact there _are_ precedents in broadcast regulation 
for such bizarre logic. NARBA specified that Class I-A 
stations had to operate with 50 kW-U. In fact, though, 
Mexico allowed most of its I-As to run 150 kW-U and 
several ran even higher power. Mexico simply interpreted 
the treaty language to mean _at least_ 50 kW. Maybe when 
you translate the English "shall be" into Spanish, it 
comes out "shall be at least." 





>
>So catching up on the news on the Mid-Atlantic radio web site I came
>across a tiny blurb about WWRU-1660 (Elizabeth, NJ) having gotten 
approval
>to change COL to Jersey City (in an apparent attempt to provide some
>semblance of night service to New York City with 1000 watts).  Checking
>the FCC's AM query page I found a construction permit for a night 
time
>transmitter beaming 9000 watts with a 4-tower array.  
>
>I thought one of the requirements for expanded band stations was
>nondirectional 10,000 watts daytime and 1000 watts nighttime?  
>
>Have the requirements changed or has WWRU pulled strings?  I have 
been
>listening to 1660 over the past month and nightime service is excellent 
in
>Manhattan, previously the station would completely fade out after 
dark.
>
>How has the reception been for any of you DX-ers up in the New
>England/Upstate NY areas?  
>
>Curious....
>
>--
>Sven F. Weil
>e-mail: sven@lily.org
>World Wide Web: http://www.lily.org/~sven
>
>

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