Re: Fwd: Re: WBOQ (FM) Sold (All in the Family)

[Aaron Read <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 09:25 PM 3/12/2003 +0000, dan.strassberg@att.net wrote:
>Were it not for the ridiculous 3rd-adjacent restrictions, I think the best 
>spot
>for WRBB would be 104.7. However, I suppose that would get WXLO all bent. 
>With
>(snip)

Not really...in terms of real-world receivability there's not much 
difference between co-channel interference and first-adjacent 
interference.  The difference between 1st and 2nd is quite large, 
though  (there's little difference between 2nd and 3rd as long as it's only 
on one "side" of the dial).

So WRBB being on 104.7 wouldn't gain them much in terms of reducing 
problems with WBOQ, but it would cause a lot more problems to them with 
WXLO as they'd then have first adjacents on either side of their 
frequency...plus all the blanketing problems of the Pru, and then they'd 
have 3rd adjacent problems with WBCN (small, but when you're already losing 
ground, this doesn't help).

It's the same reason why WBRS doesn't move to, say, 100.3   Having two 
3rd-adjacents (WKLB and WZLX) on either side doesn't do much - it's the 
co-channel (WWFX) that causes problems.    But having a 2nd adjacent on one 
side (WZLX) and a first adjacent on the other (WWFX) is definitely 
worse.  I've done Longley-Rice plots to check this and it's noticeably 
worse on paper.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron "Bishop" Read             aread@speakeasy.net
FriedBagels Consulting          AOL-IM: readaaron
http://www.friedbagels.com      Boston, MA