Re: MOUNT WASHINGTON BURNS

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 20:56:36 -0500 "Dan Billings"
<billings@suscom-maine.net> writes:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean Smyth" <ssmyth@suscom.net>
> To: "Dan Billings" <billings@suscom-maine.net>; 
> <bri@bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 9:03 PM
> Subject: Re: MOUNT WASHINGTON BURNS
> 
> 
> > I wonder why stations in these situations where calamities would 
> make
> > antenna/transmitter replacement a hardship wouldn't have primaries 
> that
> > aren't on the same tower/building as the primary. The World Trade 
> Center
> > towers are another parallel to this. Most stations also had their 
> backups
> on
> > the top of the WTCs. Obviously, everything was wiped out with the
> disaster.
> > Out of the TV stations, only WCBS had a backup elsewhere.
> 
> Two thoughts:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine

Dave:
At the risk of sameless self-promotion, I know of a tower in Southern NH
that I'd love to lease anyone space on....
df