Re: WCAX/WVMT vs. WSYB

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

Wasn't it a shift from 1000 to 970? On 1000 they could not have gotten night
power and I don't think they could have gotten a PSRA. On 970, they could
get both, though even if CJCH, the old 970 in Hull PQ (near Ottawa) was
already off the air, the PSRA power would have been calculated as if it was
still there. If it were now instead of then, they could have gotten a PSSA
on 1000 to stay on at reduced power until Chicago sunset, but on 970, they
could stay on all night at low power. I think it clearly made sense to move
to 970, but it didn't save the station.

--

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

-----Original Message-----
From: nuhuc@juno.com <nuhuc@juno.com>
To: steveord@wavewizard.com <steveord@wavewizard.com>
Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: WCAX/WVMT vs. WSYB


>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:04:35 -0400 SteveOrdinetz
><steveord@wavewizard.com> writes:
>
>> I always thought of WSYB as being the "successful" Rutland AM.
>> Didn't WHWB
>> go dark for a while, then come back only to go dark again?  If I'm
>> not
>> mistaken WHWB made a frequency switch sometime in the late 70s/early
>> 80s,
>> from 1000 to 990, though remaining a 1kW daytimer.  Not sure of the
>> reason
>> for the change.
>
>And it seemed to me that in the early/mid seventies, back when I was
>working in Springfield, VT that "HB" was a rocker.  That frequency shift
>was wierd... they must have had some night time power, no?
>
>Of course, the WHWB-FM signal was even more legendary, 42,000 watts at
>300 feet below sea level, or something like that.
>
>-Kelly
>
>________________________________________________________________
>YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
>Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
>Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.