Fw: 1510/"what are those call-letters?" (Re: Fwd: Herald: Is WWZN dragging down SNR?)

["Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Strassberg <dan.strassberg@att.net>
To: Kevin Vahey <kvahey@tmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: 1510/"what are those call-letters?" (Re: Fwd: Herald: Is WWZN
dragging down SNR?)


> Laurence is right; 1470's presence at the 1150 site rules the site out for
> 1510. However, the more posts I read about moving 1510--including my own
> posts--the more I wonder whether ANY move is possible.
>
> A couple of anecdotes will help to make the point:
>
> WOR is losing its site in a State of New Jersey land-taking and was lucky
> enough to find a new site just about 1 km north fo the existing site. You
> would think, wouldn't you, that, as a class A station that has been on 710
> longer than any other station, WOR could simply relocate by the small
distance and duplicate its present facilities exactly. NO! WOR has to modify
its pattern to reduce interference to a number of stations, including a very
old 710 in far northwestern Quebec, CKVM in Ville Marie. CKVM is the station
that for probably 15 years has been "unable" to bring its nighttime DA into
> compliance, thus causing severe interference to WOR over wide areas of the
> northeasten US. CKVM is now also about to move to FM. But never mind, to
> replace the transmitter site that it is losing in a land-taking, WOR must
now provide much greater protection to a station that a) in violation of its
license, has been interfering with WOR for years and b) won't even be on AM
> by the time WOR completes its new facilities.
>
> The 1160 station in Chicago (currently WYLL, I believe) has applied to
> increase its night power from 5 kW to 50 kW by moving its night operation
from a three-tower array at a site northwest of Chicago to a six-tower array
> at a new site southwest of Chicago. The entire 0.5 mV/m groundwave contour
> of WWVA Wheeling WV lies within both the old and new 0.25 mV/m 10% skywave
> contours of WWVA. Because of this prohibited overlap, the FCC originally
> rejected WYLL's application. WYLL was able, however, to resurrect its
> application by showing that the new facilities would reduce the overlap of
> WYLL's 0.25 mV/m 10% skywave contour with WWVA's 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave
> contour, thus meeting a requirement for interference reduction, which
> applies to every application for modified facilities by an US AM.
>
> Assuming that there was no problem with 1470, and that 1510 could exactly
replicate its current facilities at the 1150 site (impossible because such a
> move would require the construction of new towers--something that the Town
> of Lexington would never approve--at least not within the lifetime of the
> current AM band), I think the FCC would reject the application because it
> would move WWZN's 0.025 mV/m 10% skywave contour 1 km or so further within
(or closer to) WLAC's protected 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave contour. The 1120 site
> in Acton is even closer to Nashville (about 20 km closer).
>
> Now, if WWZN were to try to create a night pattern using 1150's existing
> towers, the allowable night power would be so low that WWZN would not be
> able to deliver a nighttime interference-free signal to Boston. A new COL
would be necessary (probably Belmont or Arlington). Alas, a change of COL is
> possible only during the brief periods when the FCC opens an AM "filing
> window."
>
> --
> Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
> 617-558-4205, eFax 707-215-6367
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kevin Vahey <kvahey@tmail.com>
> To: A. Joseph Ross <lawyer@attorneyross.com>; Sid Schweiger
<sid@wrko.com>;
> <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>; Peter Q. George
> <radiojunkie3@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <radiojunkie3@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:17 AM
> Subject: Re: 1510/"what are those call-letters?" (Re: Fwd: Herald: Is WWZN
> dragging down SNR?)
>
>
> > COULD 1510 possibly be run at the 1150 site in Lexington ( I suppose
> > 1120 in Acton is possible as well)
>