WWZN to restructure Celtics rights?

Garrett Wollman wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu
Thu May 27 14:22:49 EDT 2004

<<On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:24:39 -0400 (EDT), "Sean Smyth" <ssmyth@psu.edu> said:

> How much power would they be able to run ND at night, let's say, without
> infringing on WLAC's protected skywave contour? Aren't they pretty close to the
> fringes of said contour already? 

Probably not much, ND.  However, there are a number of sites around
the area where a broader directional pattern (at lower power) would, I
think, be feasible, with a two- or three-tower array that's already
standing.  If it weren't for the presence of 1600 itself, the 1600
site in Newton would probably be ideal in terms of what the pattern
would need to look like.  The 850 site in Needham could probably be
made to work as well (but those towers are much too tall for 1510 --
about 0.9 wavelength -- and it's probably not practical to put up more
towers, never mind the competitive issue).  Other sites would work if
the Canadians could somehow be perusaded to agree that 1510 in
Sherbrooke really is dead and gone and won't be coming back.

> If they could somehow run 5 kW-ND at night from somewhere, plenty of
> sites would seem feasible -- maybe even the WRCA site, if/when the
> WUNR/WRCA proposed site goes through.

I think Charles River wants those towers gone....


More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list