RE: WBZ Reception Is Worsening

["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>]

On 2 Jul 2001,  Sid Schweiger wrote:

> Since WBZ is licensed as a directional, it gets no special treatment
> just because its normal signal avoids the fish and crustaceans.  The
> aux site, IIRC, is a 10-kW transmitter feeding a long-wire antenna at
> 1170 Soldiers Field Road (no, it does NOT transmit from the tower
> there), and since the long-wire will not null properly in the easterly
> direction, lower power must be used.  (I also suspect that 10 kW is all
> the wire will handle, unless it's a *really* thick wire.  <g>)  The
> rule is that for a directional AM to operate non-directional on a
> temporary basis, power must be dropped so that no specified field
> strength(s) in the direction of the null(s) is/are exceeded. 

A long wire?  Then what do they use the tower for?
 
> Also:  There is not, and has not been for some time now, such a thing
> as a "clear-channel" station.  

Well, yes, but my question really was whether 50,000 watts non-directional 
really would interfere with anything that is protected by their regular 
directional signal.


=============================================================
 A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
 15 Court Square, Suite 210          lawyer@attorneyross.com
 Boston, MA 02108-2503           http://www.attorneyross.com
=============================================================