Re: WCAX/WVMT vs. WSYB (Was Re: Online network tunes world in to local radio)

["Dan Strassberg" <Dan.Strassberg@worldnet.att.net>]

You mean that WSYB has not been off the air for any extended stretches? I
had thought it was dark for quite a while at some point. I always considered
it to be a marginal station--just scraping by when it could do so and going
dark when it couldn't.

As for WJOY being adjacent to WCAX's studios, I remember driving through
Burlington sometime in the early 60s and seeing the WJOY tower and studio/TX
building (a nice looking wooden structure), but I don't recall seeing any
trace of WCAX nearby.

--

Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@worldnet.att.net
Phone: 1-617-558-4205, eFax: 1-707-215-6367

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Waters <mwaters@mail.wesleyan.edu>
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Date: Monday, August 28, 2000 10:12 PM
Subject: WCAX/WVMT vs. WSYB (Was Re: Online network tunes world in to local
radio)


>>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> WCAX was
>>on 1230 (modulo NARBA) before moving to 620, and was originally owned
>>by the State Agricultural College (CAX stands for College of
>>Agriculture).  After WCAX-TV was founded, the radio license was sold
>>to another broadcaster, who moved it from 1230 to 620, and the 1230
>>facility was sold to a new licensee on 1230.  Hence, WJOY is located
>>next door to WCAX's studios.
><snip>
>
>        I just checked a 1946 directory I have that shows WCAX on 620, so I
>have a question about what you posted. I have a presumption that no TV
>station had been authorized yet in Burlington at that time. But maybe
>that's a side street. Based on this list I have, it seems as though
>WCAX/WVMT legitimately goes back to 1922, so what is WSYB up to -- trying
>to claim a first based on the other station's frequency change? I wonder
>what sort of discontinuity or irregularity might have occurred in the
>WCAX/WVMT operation, maybe an off-the-air period?, that could have given
>WSYB a wedge to make its claim.
>
>
>