[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2

To: boston-radio-interest@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, Donna Halper <dlh@donnahalper.com>
Subject: Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
From: "A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:12:12 -0400
In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20010722022245.026633f8@pop3.norton.antivirus>
Organization: Law Office of A. Joseph Ross, J.D.
Sender: owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org

On 22 Jul 2001,  Donna Halper wrote:

> The photo didn't look especially modernistic-- it looked just like a 
> transmitter shack to me... Also, given that WBZ had 50,000 watts too, I 
> wonder how they felt about WLAW's claim of being New England's most 
> powerful station... The 1948 Radio Annual listed WLAW as an ABC affiliate, 
> 680 kHz, with an FM at 93.7 mHz, and studios in both Boston and Lawrence.
 
We know what happened to the AM, but what happened to WLAW-FM?


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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
  - From: "Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>

References:
- Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
  - From: Donna Halper <dlh@donnahalper.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
Next by Date: Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
Previous by thread: Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
Next by thread: Re: Let's Talk About Transmitters, part 2
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread