Today's LTAR: beautiful to rock; FM sports

[dan.strassberg@att.net]

According to the V-Soft signal-strength-by-Zip-code Web site, in 02101 
(downtown Boston), WQSX delivers 78.9 dBu; WAAF delivers 54.1 dBu. That's a 
difference of 24.8 dB--a ratio of more than 16:1. WAAF's signal strength will 
not equal WQSX's in the 02101 Zip code even after WAAF's move to the Channel 
27 tower in Hudson--assuming that Entercom builds out that CP. The problem is 
that WAAF must protect certain stations, one of which is first-adjacent WFCC 
in Chatham, so moving even closer to Boston requires a directional pattern 
tighter than that described in WAAF's existing CP to move its Tx to Hudson. 
Although overlap with WMJX and WXKS-FM is grandfathered, I'm not sure that 
WAAF could move all the way to the FM 128 tower in Needham. However, if such 
a move were within the rules, the signal in Boston would not increase nearly 
as much as you might think. Moreover, to keep within the rule that limits an 
FM DA's ratio of maximum to minimum radiation, such a move would almost 
certainly necessitate reducing radiation to the west, probably to the point 
where 107.3 could no longer deliver a city-grade signal to its one-time COL, 
Worcester.

So, yes, 93.7 has a better signal in Boston than does 107.3, and though 
improvements in 107.3's signal in Boston are possible, it seems unlikely that 
107.3 could boost its signal to equal 93.7's. Someone else will have to 
explain why an on-channel booster--say, on the Pru--isn't the answer for 
107.3. For sure, if it WERE the answer, Entercom would have thought of it--
and would have applied for it and probably would have built it by now.

--
dan.strassberg@att.net
eFax 707-215-6367

Steve Ordinetz wrote:

> As for moving WAAF, does 93.7 have a better signal in the city than 107.3?