Re: WKOX in today's FCC APPS.

[dan.strassberg@att.net]

Yes, it's the application to move to the WUNR site. 
However, from what I saw previously, it was unclear 
whether this application was for full-time or only for 
nights. WKOX also has filed an application (one of 
perhaps 20 it has filed in connection with the power 
increase over the last five or six years) to increase to 
50 kW days from its existing site using its two existing 
towers. The pattern would be similar to WBIX's except 
WBIX's pattern is severely nulled to the south-southwest 
to protect KYW. WKOX's daytime application for 50 kW 
from the current towers is for a pattern with 
substantial radiation to the south-southwest--if I 
recall, more than the equivalent of the current 10 kW ND 
days.

What you can also find if you poke around long enough in 
the FCC database is an application by WRCA to increase 
to 17 kW using the same five towers at the WUNR site 
(with COL changed from Waltham to Watertown). Like the 
WKOX application, it's unclear whether WRCA is proposing 
to operate full-time or only nights from the WUNR site. 

What I could NOT find was any trace of an application by 
WUNR to change facilities. I've heard that WUNR has no 
intention of participating or allowing the other 
stations to use its site. Clear Channel might have to 
buy WUNR at a really astonomical price (considering the 
facilities) to make the WKOX move happen. Then there are 
the NIMBY issues with the City of Newton that will 
undoubtedly accompany the attempt to construct five new 
towers.

> In today's FCC Daily applications shows a application filed with the FCC to
> operate WKOX from 42-17-22° North  71-11-20° West with a COL change to
> Newton and operating from 5 towers. Now not knowing much about the
> application, the closest site I could find is WUNR's (42-17-20°N
> 71-11-22°W).
> 
> The CDBS entry can be seen by clicking the link below.
> 
> http://svartifoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/cdbsmenu.
> hts?context=25&appn=100547941&formid=301&fac_num=20441
> 
> Im sure Dan S. can clarify this better than I can.
> 
> 
> --MIKE
>