Re: WSRS ( W1XOJ )

[Aaron Read <aread@speakeasy.net>]

At 01:12 PM 7/10/2003, Sean Smyth wrote:
>Aaron wrote:
> > There is nowhere for WATD to go...certainly nowhere on an adjacent
>channel,
> > down is WHRB (95.3) and WBRU (95.5)...up is WSRS and WTKK (96.9).
>Anywhere
> > else would be a new allocation and therefore subject to auction rules,
> > where they'd probably get out-bid on their own license!
>
>Would something on 95.7 directional to the southeast from the Marshfield
>site (or even maybe somewhere a little further northwest -- Bridgewater,
>maybe?), to protect WZID, work?

No - WBRU's 54dBu contour covers most of metro Boston and nearly all the 
South Shore...only a tiny sliver from Scituate to Marshfield isn't under 
the 54...certainly not enough to squeeze an entire 60dBu contour from WATD, 
I don't care how directional you go.  Also WHRB's 60dBu stretches to North 
Scituate so a WATD on 95.7 would have to keep their 100dBu south of 
there.   It just ain't gonna work...and it'd significantly reduce WATD's 
broadcast range on the mainland...as in, quite badly.   There's no amount 
of cash that would convince Ed to do it, nor WBRU to accept it.


>How could WAAF move to the Pru? It's third adjacent to Kiss and Magic. And
>COL changes are happening left-and-right on move-ins nowadays; all one needs
>to do is see what Entercom is doing in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.

2nd and 3rd adjacent problems are minimized, if not eliminated, by 
co-location.  By co-locating, you ensure that if no interference occurs at 
the transmitter site, by definition it cannot occur anywhere else as the 
signal level dropoff is the same for all signals over distance.

In theory the same is true for 1st adjacent and co-channel, but in reality 
it doesn't work because the ratio between desired and undesired signals is 
just too small (in co-channel obviously it's damn near 1:1) for your radio 
to distinguish between them.

It's part of the weirdness of FM broadcasting...to prevent interference, 
you must either be very far away, or sitting right on top of each other 
(less than 0.5km)....nothing inbetween.

I didn't know about Scranton/Wilkes-Barre....is the total number of 
stations remaining in the same COL staying the same, or are some COL's 
losing stations?



>Not that ARS was doing it to expand WAAF's footprint (more or less just to
>fill up programming time), but the best move they made with 1150 was
>simulcasting WAAF on there and giving it a real signal in the city.


Audio quality stank, though.  As I understand it there were few WAAF 
listeners on 1150, even when they couldn't get 107.3FM.

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