WMUR

[Dan.Strassberg]

But six wasn't in Portland in that table, right? And Schenectady was
still on four, right? Seems as though that table must have used the
same spacings between co-channel VHF TVs as were requred between
co-channel full Class B FMs. That way, you could have Channel 4 in
both New York City and Schenectady. Since Class B FMs in those days
were allowed only 20 kW at 500' AAT, it seems very unlikely that the
table allowed full-power low-band VHF TVs in the Northeast to run 100
kW at 1000' AAT.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eli Polonsky" <elipolo@earthlink.net>
To: <boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org>
Cc: "Bill Dillane" <dillane@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: WMUR


>> > From: "Bill Dillane" <dillane@sbcglobal.net>
>> To: <boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org>
>> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:23:58 -0400
>> Subject: WMUR
>>
>> BTW - According to a 1947 TV allocation chart, Boston was
>> supposed to have channels 2, 4, 7, 9 and 13, Worcester -
>> channel 5, Providence channel 11, and Portland channels 3
>> and 8.
>>
>> Chart at http://members.aol.com/jeff99500/1947tvalloc.html
>
> And, it has channel 6 in for Lowell-Lawrence-Haverhill!
>
> EP
>
>
>
>