WAAF and the Red Sox

[Dan Strassberg]

Well, WBOQ's entire 60 dBu coverage area must lie within WEEI's 5 mV/m
contour. If we assume that WYLF is operating within the terms of its license
(not usually a good assumption, but that's a different thread), WEEI ought
to cover all of WBOQ's service area with an acceptable (albeit, not
necessarily great) nighttime signal. This has to mean that Entercom agreed
to let WBOQ become a Red Sox affiliate in 2005 and 2006. I assume that if
Red Sox night games were on WMKK, Entercom and Doug Tanger would have to
work out some sort of agreement.

BTW, unless I am misremembering what I learned at the V-Soft site (and I
might be), ONLY WAAF of all "Boston" market FMs puts 60 dBu into Framingham
and it misses 60 dBu by a whisker in Natick. I believe these figures are for
the Paxton signal; the W Boyleston signal probably does better in Natick
than does the Paxton signal.

Also, I had previously written that WRKO's signal in MetroWest was better
than WEEIs and then seemingly retracted that statement when I posted the
signal strengths of both stations in Natick and Framingham. Not that it
matters very much, but I am pleased to report that if you use V-Soft's data
to check signal strengths in the correct communities, I WAS correct after
all. West of Southboro, WRKO's night signal is stronger than WEEIs. And in
Marlborough, WRKO's day and night signals are both stronger than WEEI's.
Although the day signals of both stations are adequate in these communities
(better, in fact, than WBZ's), neither WRKO nor WEEI has an adequate night
signal in Marlborough. (IIRC, we're talking 1 mV/m vs 0.75 or something like
that.) Although WRKO is about 20% farther from Marlborough than WEEI is,
WRKO starts out with a stronger signal day and night in the direction of
Marlborough (only about 5% stronger by day but more than 60% stronger by
night). The stronger signals and the 20% lower frequency eventually make up
for the distance, and once you get beyond a certain distance (somewhere near
Southborough), WRKO wins. Of course, at night, by the time you reach the
point where WRKO wins, both signal are so weak that they are useless ;>(

--
Dan Strassberg, dan.strassberg@att.net
eFax 707-215-6367

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Fybush" <scott@fybush.com>
To: "Dan Strassberg" <dan.strassberg@att.net>
Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: WAAF and the Red Sox


> Dan Strassberg wrote:
> > I assume that there is a reason why we haven't heard any more about how
> > Entercom proposes to fill the gap in MetroWest in the signal footprint
for
> > next year's Red Sox night games. Several people on this list, including
> > Scott Fybush, have commented that adding WAAF to the network--at least
for
> > night games--could make a lot of sense. Could it be that Entercom is
> > constrained from making this move because the Red Sox contract with WTAG
> > continues at least through the 2007 season? I had hoped that WAAF's CoL
> > change to Westborough would eliminate a conflict with WTAG, regardless
of
> > whether WAAF was transmitting for Paxton or W Boyleston. There is signal
> > overlap among many more than two of the Red Sox network affiliates and I
> > thought that, as long as two affiliates weren't licensed to the same
> > community, the standard affiliate agreement posed no problems, but maybe
> > that isn't so or maybe WTAG's contract is different. Can anyone
elaborate?
>
> I'm no affiliate-relations expert, but my guess would be that - at least
> for an Arbitron-defined market - the contract probably provides for
> exclusivity within that market, not just within that city of license.
>
> It's possible that there's at least some wiggle room there, as witness
> the existence of WEIM as another Sox affiliate within the Worcester
> metro. But WEIM and WTAG barely have any overlap within their night
> signal contours. WAAF, regardless of which site it's using and
> regardless of where it's licensed to, throws at least 60 dBu, and
> probably a lot more than that, over the entire WTAG night signal. I'd
> have to think WTAG wouldn't be very happy about that.
>
> I wonder if we'll see some night games on WMKK instead? It's
> unquestionably in the Boston market, and wouldn't cause WTAG any grief.
>
> s