Re: WPTR Signal Problems

[dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net]

I don't think KXEL became a Class IB until sometime 
after WPTR went on the air. Also, WPTR was only 10 kW DA-
1 when it first went on the air. As for CHIN getting 
nighttime authority, my guess is that that occurred when 
Canada unilaterally abrogated NARBA. Canada decided that 
it would be much easier to design AMs if the designers 
did not have to worry about protecting within Canadian 
borders the normally protected contours of US Class I 
stations.

Until the Rio Agreement, which replaced NARBA, with the 
exception of 640, 1070 and 1130, there wre no 
frequencies to which US Class I stations were assigned 
that also housed Canadian Class Is. Moreover, the 
Canadian 640 assignment is in Newfoundland, which wasn't 
part of Canada when the Canadian IB landed there in 
1941. And 940, 910 and 1010 were the only frequencies on 
which a Canadian Class I operted and which also had a US 
full-time station less than 650 miles from the nearest 
point of land in Canada. With the exception of WINS, US 
stations on 690, 740, 860, 1010, 1550, and 1580 (the 
Canadian clear channels) had to deliver no more than 5 
microvolts/m groundwave and 25 microvolts/m 10% skywave 
to any point of land on the Canadian border.

As for WPTR's presence on 1540, I guess that an upgrade 
to KXEL's status must have been under consideration when 
WPTR's application was granted. Apparently KXEL 
protested, and Patroon Broadcasting (the applicant for 
WPTR) had to conduct measurements in the Mohawk Valley 
to prove that KXEL did not deliver a 0.5 mV/m 50% 
skywave there.

> And if I'm to believe that online pattern plotter, KXEL nulls to the south
> in its night pattern, not to the north or east.
> 
> At 12:34 AM 1/16/00 -0500, Martin J. Waters wrote:
> 
> >        Actually, I've always wondered how WPTR even got to be where it is,
> >since it's actually way too close to Waterloo. It's not like the 680 or 850
> >stations in Boston being allowed because they're very a long way from San
> >Francisco and Denver.
>