[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Old Channel 5 tower
I think that whoever wrote the WGBH-FM had applied to move to FM-128 was
mistaken. If I recall, WGBH-FM's application to move is to Needham--to what
Garrett now calls the Viacom tower. One of the claimed advantages to WGBH
that's mentioned in the application is having 2, 44, and 89.7 all in one place.
I guess that if 89.7 ever goes on that stick, it will be the only FM there, but
they'd be at 323m AAT, which, considering that the tower grew several hundred
feet a year or so ago, is not all that far up.
As for aditional tenants on FM-128, aside from FMs that can multiplex into the
master antenna, I'd be surprised if there were much room on that tower. If you
notice, it's not nearly as "fat" as the Viacom tower, which means that it can't
support nearly as much weight. My guess is that FM-128 is pretty close to its
load limit--maybe even AT the limit. The candelabra looks to me as if it could
support more antennas than FM-128.
> I will submit this to the tower experts on the list. Why hasn't the old
> WHDH-TV tower in Newton ever been considered to ease the overcrowding on
> Channel 4's stick.
> I understand WCVB had no choice when the Herald refused to entertain the
> idea of BBI taking over the studio and tower but that was 31 years ago.
> 1000 foot towers do not grow on trees so what gives?