Coverage - 99.5 vs. 102.5 which is "better"?
Mon Dec 4 15:45:00 EST 2006
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dan Strassberg"
>To: "Eli Polonsky" , "Boston Radio" , "Garrett Wollman" , "Scott Fybush"
>Subject: Re: Coverage - 99.5 vs. 102.5 which is "better"?
>Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 01:03:08 -0500
>An interesting question is whether WCDJ is the reason that 102.5 uses
>slightly less power than another station (WJMN?) that shares the same
>multiplexed antenna on the FM-128 tower. One member of this list
>periodicially posts to that effect but I am not sure that he is correct. As
>best I can tell, however, the power difference (8.1 kW ERP for 102.5 vs--I
>believe--8.3 kW for the other station) might be explained by WCRB's
>forced move from the Channel 4 tower to FM-128, which might have
>necessitated a reduction from the grandfathered equivalent power that 102.5
>used from the Needham tower (equivalent to 50 kW at 500' HAAT) to the new
>Class B equivalent power (equivalent to 50 kW at 150m HAAT; 150m is only
No, the "other station" to which I referred was WBOS 92.9 when its MAIN
transmitter utilized the Route 128 tower. I'm quite sure it ran 8,800 watts
from the antenna located on the pole above the tower structure. That figure
sticks in my memory bank because I recall being a bit surprised that WCRB's
CP after they were banished from the WBZ-TV tower called for 8,100 watts.
I surmised it was due to the 102.3 unbuilt CP in Truro, ALTHOUGH
WBCN was operating with a full-power non-directional antenna atop the
Pru while WOCN-FM 103.9 was also on-the-air from a tower in Harwich!
I believe, for some reason, WJMN has even more power higher up according to
fcc.gov: 9,200 watts at 353 meters. And since a year ago October,
one antenna on the pole no longer exists...but the FCC's website
still lists facilities as if it did. Then again, it lists WSMN-AM 1590
as 5,000 watts DA-1. Go figure.
Search for products and services at:
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest