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

Re: Lowell & Lwarence (and Haverill?) - W L L H !

To: "Joe Pappalardo" <Joepappalardo2001@yahoo.com>, <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>, "Sean Smyth" <Sportswriter@dejazzd.com>
Subject: Re: Lowell & Lwarence (and Haverill?) - W L L H !
From: "A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:53:27 -0400
In-reply-to: <000501c1e43d$1d9497e0$57eb6d42@oemcomputer>
Organization: Law Office of A. Joseph Ross, J.D.
Sender: owner-boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org

On 15 Apr 2002 at 1:19, Sean Smyth wrote:

> While it may have flown in the face of the WLLH idea, who said a Haverhill
> transmitter had to be on 1400? They could have easily thrown a Haverhill
> transmitter on another frequency and simulcast it.

Then instead of WLLH, Lowell-Lawrence-Haverhill, it would be WLLH, Lowell-Lawrence and 
W-something else, Haverhill.



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

References:
- Re: Lowell & Lwarence (and Haverill?) - W L L H !
  - From: "Sean Smyth" <Sportswriter@dejazzd.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Response from Bruce Schwoegler
Next by Date: Re: Response from Bruce Schwoegler
Previous by thread: Re: Lowell & Lwarence (and Haverill?) - W L L H !
Next by thread: Re: Lowell & Lawrence (and Haverill?) - W L L H !
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread