WESX on the move?
Sun Mar 11 11:02:49 EST 2007
I believe that a station can indeed "leave" its CoL without questions from
the FCC PROVIDED that the station IS NOT the ONLY broadcast service licensed
to the community. This brings up the question of just what constitutes a
station. Does a translator qualify? I don't know and I'm not sure that the
answer has been settled. I certainly think that, in the WESX case, WMWM
qualifies, but I could be wrong because WMWM is noncommercial.
Interestingly, I saw nothing in Miller's application that refers
specifically to WMWM. Instead, the emphasis is on all of the stations--AM
and FM--that deliver city-grade signals to Salem. Now, a rational person
might say that that is indeed the issue, but up to the present, it is not
how I've ever seen the Funny Cookie Company look at it. The FCC has always
wanted to ensure that a community to which one or more stations is licensed
retains at least one licensed station. Now, Miller will be doing station
owners a HUGE favor if he can establish a new precedent: that Salem is a
community within an area that has many broadcast signals and Salem's loss of
a signal that is licensed to it and provides it with CoL-grade coverage does
not come close to depriving the city of a plethora of other broadcast
services that, even though they are licensed to other communities (in this
case, mostly to Boston), meet the CoL-coverage criteria for Salem. Because
of WMWM, it may be unnecessary for Miller to establish this new precedent in
order to have his application granted, but if he establishes the precedent,
he will have overturned a principal that many people have, for decades,
maintained is a pointless cornerstone of FCC allocation policy.
As for Marblehead wanting to take the WESX property as open land, does
anybody know whose idea this was originally? The town's or Miller's? If it
was Miller's, especially if he is compensated for the taking (which I would
think he would be), the FCC could accuse him of being less than candid in
his application. In this day and age, I greatly doubt that such a finding
would affect the FCCs judgment of his fitness to be a broadcast licensee,
but it certainly COULD result in his application being tied up in FCC
paperwork for a long, long, long time.
Dan Strassberg, email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kolakowski" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Dan Strassberg" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: WESX on the move?
> I guess my question is: can you "abandon" a COL without regard to it's
> needs? Where does that work into the process?
> The town of Marblehead could do a "land taking" but as a town meeting
> government, they don't have the funds available yet, and may not get them
> 3.5 million doesn't sound like something I would expect them to pay for
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Strassberg" <email@example.com>
> To: "Bob Nelson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "Boston Radio Interest"
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:29 PM
> Subject: Re: WESX on the move?
> > I looked at the application. The proposed site is indeed the WLYN site.
> > app acknowledges prohibited overlap with WMKI. The night coverage of
> > is only a little more than half of the normal minimum of 80% of the CoL.
> > is, of course, better than the coverage of Salem from the propsed site,
> > which is zero percent at night. The engineer who prepared the
> > does not have an especially good reputation but there is no directional
> > antenna design involved in this app, so maybe this job plays to her
> > strengths rather than to her weaknesses. One of the mysteries is the
> > statement that "the existing site has become unavailable." That was the
> > reason I found for why the move is necessary. Usually, applications
> > forced moves more completely. I suspect that the existing site really
> > not become unavailable because, if it had, there would be a more
> > explanation of the reason for its becoming unavailable. As long as the
> > station is not being evicted, I don't think the FCC will aceept "the
> > has become unavailable" as an adequate explanation for a proposed move.
> > --
> > Dan Strassberg, email@example.com
> > eFax 707-215-6367
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bob Nelson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: "Roger Kolakowski" <email@example.com>; "BostonRadio Mailing List"
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: WESX on the move?
> > > >>147 Rear Western Avenue in
> > > Lynn
> > >
> > > That sounds like where WLYN's tower is/was. Go to
> > and type
> > > that address in; click "Hybrid" to see an aerial photo plus street
> > It
> > > looks like it's behind CAP's Auto Parts and across from the G.E. near
> > > Belden Bly bridge over the Saugus River. (WROL down the road from
> > >
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest