RE: 1570 Westfield (Was: RE: Thanks )

[dan.strassberg@att.net]

The most outrageous similar move (proposed but just 
denied by the FCC) was of WCHO 1250 in Washington 
Courthouse OH to 700 somewhere in eastern NC. That must 
have been a move of nearly 500 miles.

I don't think the FCC denied WCHO's application on its 
merits (or lack thereof) either. The application was 
part of the three-way contest. WCBM 680 in Baltimore had 
applied to move its TX about 15 miles west and increase 
from 10 kW-D/5 kW-N DA-2 to 50 kW-D/20 kW-N DA-2. WWTL 
in Walkersville MD, a daytimer on 700, had applied to 
change its COL to Poolesville MD and increase its day 
power from 2.5 or 5 kW to 25 kW-DA-D.

The FCC designated the three applications (WCBM's, 
WWTL's and WCHO's) as mutually exclusive. At least two 
of the applications (WCBMs and WWTL's) involve complex 
DAs. WCBM proposed six towers directionalized to the 
east and WWTL proposed four towers (if I recall 
correctly) directionalized to the south. The proposed 
sites for WCBM and WWTL were within 20 miles of each 
other.

The FCC claimed the there would be prohibited overlap 
between WCBM and WWTL, a claim I doubted because of the 
severely directional signals. There would definitely 
have been prohibited overlap between WWTL and WCHO, 
however, because WWTL's 25 kW signal would have gone 
right down the salt water of Chesapeake Bay to eastern 
NC.

Ultimately, the FCC granted WCBM's and WWTL's 
applications and denied WCHO's. A factor may have been 
the fact that WWLG, which is co-owned with WCBM, had 
applied for (and I think has now been granted) a move 
from 1360 to 1370 using dual sites. (WWLG had used dual 
sites on 1360 but had lost its day site and has been 
temporarily using its night site full time with very low 
day power.) WWLG's new night site on 1370 is to be 
WCBM's old site, and the WWLG towers could not be 
constructed there if the WCBM towers had remained.

--
dan.strassberg@att.net
617-558-4205
eFax 707-215-6367
> Ah, yes. Thanks for your point, Garrett. 1570 was a daytimer indeed and I
> didn't consider that when posing that question. 
> 
> That was a clever move with Langner's 1050/650! Any similar eamples of that
> move out there?? 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ron Gitschier
> Offshore, FL Straits
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Garrett Wollman [SMTP:wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu]
> > EM1 GITCHIER  said:
> > 
> > > why no one opened up the freq? I don't think ANYONE is on that freq in
> > > Canada at night anymore
> > 
> > Canada never releases AM allocations.  As far as the working
> > arrangement between the FCC and the CRTC is concerned, 1570 is still
> > allocated for a 50-kW station in Laval.  1570 Westfield could never be
> > reactivated because the current FCC rules do not permit the
> > establishment of daytime-only stations (where daytime-only is defined
> > as any station entitled to less than 250 W at night).  That's why Alex
> > Langer moved 1050 Peterborough (is that tower still there?) to 650
> > Ashland -- even though it was a ``major change'', he wasn't trying to
> > create a *new* daytimer in the FCC's eyes.
> > 
> > -GAWollman