WBOQ reach in to Boston
Wed Jun 28 07:43:36 EDT 2006
You appear to be saying that the FCC not only ignores the laws of physics
when it declares that something that can't work really works acceptably.
You're saying that the Cookie Company also ignores the laws of physics when
it declares that something that clearly works doesn't work. Maybe. But I
think that if the Tangers were determined enough, they could arrange for a
WRBB move to 101.3. As I said, this would not be the first US case of
co-located second adjacents. I can't cite examples, but I think Scott Fybush
can name at least one.
Dan Strassberg, email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Tomm" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dan Strassberg" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Aaron Read" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: WBOQ reach in to Boston
> IIRC, a requirement for WFNX upgrading power and moving their stick was
> the deletion of the 101.3 translator. I thought this was discussed on
> this list when FNX's new transmitter started up awhile back. If that
> is the case, I doubt the FCC would allow for another facility to be
> started up on that frequency at this point.
> Dave Tomm
> "Mike Thomas"
> On Jun 27, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Dan Strassberg wrote:
> > WRBB could operate on 101.3 from One Financial Center. That move might
> > be
> > very worthwhile. I'm told that this would not be the first case of
> > co-located second adjacents in the US. And since WRBB's protected
> > contour
> > might not even reach street level, there might be no measurable
> > prohibited
> > overlap with WFNX. The big issue, I suspect, would be the rent at OFC.
> > WBOQ
> > would probably have to agree to pay that.
> > --
> > Dan Strassberg, email@example.com
> > eFax 707-215-6367
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Aaron Read" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:09 PM
> > Subject: WBOQ reach in to Boston
> >> Or, I wonder if WFNX would particularly mind if WRBB moved to 101.3FM?
> >> Obviously that's not a great frequency for WRBB - it's still got
> >> blanketing problems and there's a strong second adjacent. But it
> >> can't
> >> be worse than 104.9 is.
> >> --
> >> --------------------------
> >> Aaron Read
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> www.friedbagels.com
> >> Boston, MA 02176
> >> Fried Bagels - Broadcast Radio & Web
> >> Engineering & Operations Consultant
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest