Re: WXKS-AM

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

Dan writes:
> Bob Bittner is no friend of Clear Channel, which owns WXKS, but CCU would
be
> well advised to try to strike a deal with Bob to use WJIB's tower for a
night-
> only synchronous transmitter.

Bob: weren't you the OD or PD when 1430 went to full-time operation? Or did
that happen after you left?

> With a few watts from 443 Concord Ave, WXKS could
> add quite a bit of population to its nighttime coverage. Another
synchronous Tx
> at WNTN's site on Rumford Ave on the Newton-Waltham line would also help.
From
> a technical standpoint, I think both sites are feasible. And since WNTN
doesn't
> operate at night, the relatively small frequency difference (7.74% of the
> higher frequency) would not be a problem.

As you've said before, synchronous transmitters are still considered
"experimental" by the FCC. People on the list have said how bad the hash is
from the WLLH synchronous transmitters when you get into Andover (or
whatever halfway between Lowell and Lawrence would be). How much would it
cost to put a pair of small-wattage transmitters at the WJIB and WNTN sites;
how much would tower rent, in theory, be (not cheap I'd think); and would it
really be cost-effective for Clear Channel? I don't see them doing anything
with that signal, and I don't think a few watts in Cambridge and Newton
would bring on that many more sponsors for birdfeed standards.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003