Re: MOUNT WASHINGTON BURNS

["Sean Smyth" <ssmyth@suscom.net>]

Dan Billings writes:
> 1.  Your point is a good one in this situation because a long outage on
the
> top of the mountain was more likely to happen than what happened to the
WTC.

Disagree...the WTC already had one terrorist strike that knocked some
broadcast facilities off the air (admittedly for a relatively brief period
of time) and it was ripe for the picking for another.

> 2.  But a secondary site off the Mountain would only provide a small
> fraction of the coverage area of the primary antenna.  There would be
value
> to this but how much?

True, especially given where the primary antennas are...would the FCC go for
two smaller auxiliaries (somewhere in the Valley other than the summit and
Portland), given the unique circumstances of the situation?