From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Mon Jun 1 10:25:36 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:25:36 -0400 Subject: A wonderful broadcast museum in the Twin Cities In-Reply-To: <4A234B2A.8040904@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770905311657l4fbd9258x684a1747fae9e117@mail.gmail.com> <4A234B2A.8040904@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4A23E4E0.40904@ttlc.net> Scott Fybush wrote: > Garrett and I visited the Pavek in 2005 as part of our upper Midwest > "Big Trip," and we were similarly blown away by the collection there. > I'm looking forward to a return trip in August, if all goes well...and > recommend it VERY highly to anyone who's in the Twin Cities area. As a New Englander who was born in Lewiston, Maine - 1/2 of the "Twin Cities" of Lewiston & Auburn, I am curious to which "Twin Cities" we are referring? From scott@fybush.com Mon Jun 1 11:06:54 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:06:54 -0400 Subject: A wonderful broadcast museum in the Twin Cities In-Reply-To: <4A23E4E0.40904@ttlc.net> References: <4fc429770905311657l4fbd9258x684a1747fae9e117@mail.gmail.com> <4A234B2A.8040904@fybush.com> <4A23E4E0.40904@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <4A23EE8E.7090201@fybush.com> Roger Kirk wrote: > Scott Fybush wrote: >> Garrett and I visited the Pavek in 2005 as part of our upper Midwest >> "Big Trip," and we were similarly blown away by the collection there. >> I'm looking forward to a return trip in August, if all goes well...and >> recommend it VERY highly to anyone who's in the Twin Cities area. > As a New Englander who was born in Lewiston, Maine - 1/2 of the "Twin > Cities" of Lewiston & Auburn, I am curious to which "Twin Cities" we are > referring? The big ones - Minneapolis/St. Paul. The museum itself is in St. Louis Park, northwest of Minneapolis. http://www.pavekmuseum.org/ s From lglavin@mail.com Mon Jun 1 16:51:42 2009 From: lglavin@mail.com (Laurence Glavin) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:51:42 -0500 Subject: City of License change For WVVT Message-ID: <20090601205143.0435A326787@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> Did anyone else notice this: the owners of a CP for an new AM on 670 khz in Essex Junction, VT, under the calls WVVT, have applied to the FCC to move the City of license to East Greenbush, NY. Thus, a move from the Burlington, VT mahket to Albany, NY. Shades of the switch of AM 1050 in Peterboro, NH to 650 AM in Ashland, MA! -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 1 20:42:41 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:42:41 -0500 Subject: A wonderful broadcast museum in the Twin Cities In-Reply-To: <4A23EE8E.7090201@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770905311657l4fbd9258x684a1747fae9e117@mail.gmail.com> <4A234B2A.8040904@fybush.com> <4A23E4E0.40904@ttlc.net> <4A23EE8E.7090201@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906011742s583fcedam252568971c3a2e1b@mail.gmail.com> Their Hall of Fame has at least 2 members who spent some time in Boston Chuck Knapp - WRKO http://www.museumofbroadcasting.org/knapp.html Dan Donovan - WMEX http://www.museumofbroadcasting.org/donovan.htm From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 2 05:16:01 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 05:16:01 -0400 Subject: City of License change For WVVT References: <20090601205143.0435A326787@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <3565AC3B68AE4FB08314810CF0B4EDDD@SatU205S5044> Noted at least three months ago: 670 kHz 15 kW-D/11 kW-CH/260W-N DA-3 (two towers D and CH/four towers N). But didn't the FCC toss WVVT's application for modification of CP after that? For sure, CBS filed at least an informal objection if not a formal petition to deny because of prohibited overlap with first-adjacent WFAN. Also, WVVT is proposing to diplex with WGDJ 1300 Rensselaer, which holds a CP to increase its D power to 10 kW (four towers) and its N power to 8 kW (six towers) from its existing site on the east side of the Hudson, near Albany. Since WVVT's proposed frequency is barely more than half of WGDJ's, WVVT's proposal would require top-loading of at least four of WGDJ's six towers, which are a standard 90 degrees at 1300 and have ground systems that are way undersized for 670. As the engineers at WFAN and WCBS can tell the WGDJ folks, it isn't practical to top-load a diplexed AM tower at the frequency of one of the stations that uses the tower but not at the frequency of the other station. WFAN and WCBS tried that decades ago and gave up on it. So if the WVVT application is serious and has the concurrence of WGDJ, WGDJ would have had to apply to modify its CP to specify electrically taller towers with top loading, and that, in turn, would have required scaling back on its already authorized D and N power increases. Last time I checked, WGDJ had not applied for such a modification of its CP. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laurence Glavin" To: Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: City of License change For WVVT Did anyone else notice this: the owners of a CP for an new AM on 670 khz in Essex Junction, VT, under the calls WVVT, have applied to the FCC to move the City of license to East Greenbush, NY. Thus, a move from the Burlington, VT mahket to Albany, NY. Shades of the switch of AM 1050 in Peterboro, NH to 650 AM in Ashland, MA! -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 2 06:25:17 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 03:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mish Michaels leaving WBZ-TV Message-ID: <224663.10446.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> It's official - Mish Michaels (who hasn't been seen in a while, anyway) is leaving WBZ this summer. http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view.bg?articleid=1176205 The Track gals mention a rumor that she might land at WCVB, but they already have enough meteorologists on staff. I was surprised that her contract was not bought out a long time ago as she was signed to big money but wasn't doing a regular shift. IIRC when she came to WBZ wasn't she supposed to do a series of weather specials? I only remember one airing (on either global warming or hurricanes), and that had the rest of the weather staff involved as well. From scott@fybush.com Tue Jun 2 13:33:34 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:33:34 -0400 Subject: City of License change For WVVT In-Reply-To: <3565AC3B68AE4FB08314810CF0B4EDDD@SatU205S5044> References: <20090601205143.0435A326787@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> <3565AC3B68AE4FB08314810CF0B4EDDD@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A25626E.4020606@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Noted at least three months ago: 670 kHz 15 kW-D/11 kW-CH/260W-N DA-3 > (two towers D and CH/four towers N). But didn't the FCC toss WVVT's > application for modification of CP after that? For sure, CBS filed at > least an informal objection if not a formal petition to deny > because of prohibited overlap with first-adjacent WFAN. It's hard to imagine WVVT actually getting built at either the Vermont or Albany sites. This was a classic speculative application - Alfred Alonso (former head of Mega Broadcasting, of WAMG 1150/890 fame) and Charles Hecht, a Pennsylvania-based consulting engineer - almost surely never intended to build or operate the thing themselves, instead finding a buyer - a "greater fool," if you will - to buy the CP and build it out. Then the economy turned, and the CP didn't look quite so valuable. It just changed hands last week ahead of its August expiration date; the new owners can get an 18-month extension to build it out, but I suspect it will expire unbuilt. There's no economic justification right now for a new AM in Burlington, where it could be built fairly quickly by diplexing on the 1390 array - and as Dan correctly notes, the obstacles to getting it built in Albany are probably insurmountable. (Or at least too expensive to contemplate in today's climate.) s From Joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 2 14:49:01 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:49:01 -0400 Subject: A wonderful broadcast museum in the Twin Cities In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906011742s583fcedam252568971c3a2e1b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770905311657l4fbd9258x684a1747fae9e117@mail.gmail.com>, <4A23EE8E.7090201@fybush.com>, <4fc429770906011742s583fcedam252568971c3a2e1b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A253BDD.14821.26D037@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 1 Jun 2009 Kevin Vahey wrote: > > Dan Donovan - WMEX > > http://www.museumofbroadcasting.org/donovan.htm Which Dan Donovan is this? That was a house name at WMEX, and there were many Dan Donovans. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 2 15:15:54 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:15:54 -0400 Subject: City of License change For WVVT References: <20090601205143.0435A326787@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> <3565AC3B68AE4FB08314810CF0B4EDDD@SatU205S5044> <4A25626E.4020606@fybush.com> Message-ID: Well, if there is enough land at the 1390 site, WVVT could use two of WCAT's three existing towers, but I think that more towers would be necessary. Based on the E Greenbush app, I think that at least two more towers would have to be built, and even then, the night power would be limited to something in the neighborhood of 250W, which might or might not be adequate to put an NIF signal over 80% of the population of Burlington. WVVT would almost certainly have to choose between WCAT's towers 2 and 3. Those towers are too close to each other to both be used at 670. (They appear to be less than 30 degrees apart at 670.) Either one is far enough from the tall tower #1 to be used at 670. The spacing between towers 1 and 2 is 73 degrees at 670, which is close but probably adequate. Tower 3 is a more comfortable distance from tower 1 (101 degrees at 670) but tower 3 is kind of short for 670, though unlike the WGDJ towers, maybe not so short that it would have to be top loaded. However, at 670, the 1390 ground system would be even more inadequate than WGDJ's ground system. Depending on the layout of the property, the two new towers could be either east or west of WCAT's existing trio. And therein may lie a big problem: NIMBYs. If you read Hecht's proposal for the CoL change, you might easily conclude that he tried to get approval to use the WCAT site and could not get it. Anyhow, I don't think it is just economics that has reduced the value of the WVVT CP to $1.00. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: "Laurence Glavin" ; Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:33 PM Subject: Re: City of License change For WVVT > There's no economic justification right now for a new AM in > Burlington, where it could be built fairly quickly by diplexing on > the 1390 array - and as Dan correctly notes, the obstacles to > getting it built in Albany are probably insurmountable. From scott@fybush.com Tue Jun 2 15:34:24 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:24 -0400 Subject: City of License change For WVVT In-Reply-To: References: <20090601205143.0435A326787@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> <3565AC3B68AE4FB08314810CF0B4EDDD@SatU205S5044> <4A25626E.4020606@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4A257EC0.8010908@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Well, if there is enough land at the 1390 site, WVVT could use two of > WCAT's three existing towers, but I think that more towers would be > necessary. Based on the E Greenbush app, I think that at least two > more towers would have to be built, and even then, the night power > would be limited to something in the neighborhood of 250W, which might > or might not be adequate to put an NIF signal over 80% of the > population of Burlington. I stand corrected on the current WVVT CP in Vermont - while I think the original application called for the use of the WCAT site, the CP that expires in October proposes a new four-tower, top-loaded site east of downtown Burlington, along a bend in the Winooski River. The COL for the CP is Essex Junction, not Burlington, and the night power is 300 watts, which should be plenty to cover Essex Junction from the proposed site just a couple of miles to the west. Daytime protection to WFAN up there is much easier; all that granite between northern Vermont and the Bronx attenuates both the WFAN signal and the proposed WVVT; indeed, the WVVT CP in Vermont calls for 50 kW, and is still far from a full-market day signal even at that. From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 2 15:44:22 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:44:22 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso Message-ID: Anyone have any info on the status of their CP for 750 kHz 50 kW-D/10 kW-N DA-N in Hampden (Bangor) ME? Technically, this appears to be a very sound application and the facility, along with WGAN and WZON, would certainly become one of Maine's top three AM signals. (As Maine's only 50 kW daytime AM signal and only 10 kW nighttime AM signal, it could be claimed to be the Pinetree State's BEST AM signal.) According to the application, the NIF would be just 9.99 mV/m. This CP seems rather far along--the FAA has assigned ASRN's to the four towers. However, only a little over six months remain before the CP expires on 12/13/2009--if it is not tolled. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 From scott@fybush.com Tue Jun 2 16:11:41 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:11:41 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Anyone have any info on the status of their CP for 750 kHz 50 kW-D/10 > kW-N DA-N in Hampden (Bangor) ME? Technically, this appears to be a > very sound application and the facility, along with WGAN and WZON, > would certainly become one of Maine's top three AM signals. (As > Maine's only 50 kW daytime AM signal and only 10 kW nighttime AM > signal, it could be claimed to be the Pinetree State's BEST AM > signal.) According to the application, the NIF would be just 9.99 > mV/m. This CP seems rather far along--the FAA has assigned ASRN's to > the four towers. However, only a little over six months remain before > the CP expires on 12/13/2009--if it is not tolled. I wouldn't read much into the ASRNs being assigned; I believe that's now a mandatory part of the application process for proposed towers tall enough to require registration. Here's the challenge: let's say I'm a broadcaster interested in being on the AM dial in Bangor. What's cheaper for me right now - to buy this CP from Hecht and Alonso (which will give me until June 2011 with the 18-month extension), then fight the NIMBY neighbors and spend the cash to build a brand-new site...or to pay Blueberry Broadcasting whatever fairly small sum it probably wants to unload the former WABI(AM), with a perfectly respectable 5 kW signal on 910 and an arguably better night signal than 750 will have? Make the right offer for 910 and you could be on the air in a month or two...buy 750 and it could be another two years, if you can get it built at all. s From markwats@comcast.net Tue Jun 2 16:26:26 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:26:26 -0400 Subject: Ex-WHDH Anchor Randy Price Joins WCVB Monday June 8th Message-ID: <852158861938476489629FDC17EAB7AD@Mark> WCVB announced today that ex-WHDH news anchor Randy Price will become co-anchor of the station's "EyeOpener" newscast starting Monday June 8th. Price will also participate in major event & breaking news coverage.,Price replaces David Brown at the AM anchor desk, Brown will remain with the station reporting for various newscasts and their website, and apparently will also serve as a fill in meteorologist when needed. Brown was the EyeOpener & Noon newscast meteorologist before switching to the news anchor desk a couple of years ago. More from the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/06/randy_price_joi.html Announcement from WCVB's website: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19631635/detail.html Mark Watson From marklaurence@mac.com Tue Jun 2 16:45:14 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:45:14 -0400 Subject: Ex-WHDH Anchor Randy Price Joins WCVB Monday June 8th In-Reply-To: <852158861938476489629FDC17EAB7AD@Mark> References: <852158861938476489629FDC17EAB7AD@Mark> Message-ID: <103087103919892264489886558712254150252-Webmail@me.com> On Tuesday, June 02, 2009, at 04:26PM, "Mark Watson" wrote: > WCVB announced today that ex-WHDH news anchor Randy Price will become >co-anchor of the station's "EyeOpener" newscast starting Monday June 8th. So Randy Price will have been an anchor at all of Boston's traditional "big 3" news stations. Two others are John Henning and Tom Ellis. Can anybody add to that list? From markwats@comcast.net Tue Jun 2 18:43:28 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:43:28 -0400 Subject: Ex-WHDH Anchor Randy Price Joins WCVB Monday June 8th References: <852158861938476489629FDC17EAB7AD@Mark> <103087103919892264489886558712254150252-Webmail@me.com> Message-ID: Mark Laurence wrote: > So Randy Price will have been an anchor at all of Boston's traditional > "big 3" news stations. Two others are John Henning and Tom Ellis. Can > anybody add to that list? I don't know about any others that anchored at all of Boston's "big 3", but some who have anchored the news on at least 2 Boston stations, not necessarily the "big 3". Arch MacDonald was Boston's first TV news anchor, he anchored Boston's first ever TV news when WBZ-TV signed on in 1948, sitting on a "keg of nails".(News sets have certainly come a long way in 61 years!!) But back to the topic at hand, Arch MacDonald later went to then-WKBG Channel 56 (late 60's/early 70's) when they tried to compete against the "big 3". Didn't he later end up at WCVB just after they signed on? Also, Frank Mallicoat has anchored at WLVI and currently WFXT. Jack Hynes anchored on both incarnations of Channel 5 and later on WLVI. IIRC Hynes never worked at Channels 4 or 7. Bianca De La Garza has anchored at WFXT & currently WCVB, her husband David Wade anchored at WFXT & currently WBZ. Kim Carrigan has anchored at WHDH (Channel 7) and currently WFXT. Mark Watson From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 2 18:59:57 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ex-WHDH Anchor Randy Price Joins WCVB Monday June 8th In-Reply-To: References: <852158861938476489629FDC17EAB7AD@Mark> <103087103919892264489886558712254150252-Webmail@me.com> Message-ID: <433478.22538.qm@web53312.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kim Carrigan was also at WBZ for a while between the 7 and 25 stints. She anchored a 7:30p newscast (ironically Randy Price did at one time as well for 4) and when that went under they let her go. From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 2 19:15:07 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ex-WHDH Anchor Randy Price Joins WCVB Monday June 8th In-Reply-To: References: <852158861938476489629FDC17EAB7AD@Mark> <103087103919892264489886558712254150252-Webmail@me.com> Message-ID: <376136.97216.qm@web53310.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Promos are already on WCVB - just saw one during "Inside Edition". Won't be surprised if there's a "Chronicle" interview with him as well this week. From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 2 19:54:35 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:54:35 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com> Message-ID: <8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> I've never been in Hampden ME; I don't even know the closest I've ever been to Hampden. But I do know that the areal view of the proposed WRME site at CDBS certainly LOOKS nice. Appears to be just the right shape and size for the array and it looks like nice flat land that seems to be covered with grass and has no trees on it. All of the trees are beyond the periphery of the site. Also, the NIF from that site appears to completely encompass Bangor (and lots of other places in central Maine). Amazing! One would certainly think that the neighbors wouldn't want no stinkin' towers there;>( (especially since the towers would be 270' high, which means that at least two of them would be illuminated. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:11 PM Subject: Re: Hecht and Alonso > Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> Anyone have any info on the status of their CP for 750 kHz 50 >> kW-D/10 >> kW-N DA-N in Hampden (Bangor) ME? Technically, this appears to be a >> very sound application and the facility, along with WGAN and WZON, >> would certainly become one of Maine's top three AM signals. (As >> Maine's only 50 kW daytime AM signal and only 10 kW nighttime AM >> signal, it could be claimed to be the Pinetree State's BEST AM >> signal.) According to the application, the NIF would be just 9.99 >> mV/m. This CP seems rather far along--the FAA has assigned ASRN's >> to >> the four towers. However, only a little over six months remain >> before >> the CP expires on 12/13/2009--if it is not tolled. > > I wouldn't read much into the ASRNs being assigned; I believe that's > now a mandatory part of the application process for proposed towers > tall enough to require registration. > > Here's the challenge: let's say I'm a broadcaster interested in > being on the AM dial in Bangor. What's cheaper for me right now - to > buy this CP from Hecht and Alonso (which will give me until June > 2011 with the 18-month extension), then fight the NIMBY neighbors > and spend the cash to build a brand-new site...or to pay Blueberry > Broadcasting whatever fairly small sum it probably wants to unload > the former WABI(AM), with a perfectly respectable 5 kW signal on 910 > and an arguably better night signal than 750 will have? > > Make the right offer for 910 and you could be on the air in a month > or two...buy 750 and it could be another two years, if you can get > it built at all. > > s From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Tue Jun 2 20:39:40 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:39:40 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso In-Reply-To: <8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com> <8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A25C64C.1050307@ttlc.net> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > I've never been in Hampden ME; I don't even know the closest I've ever > been to Hampden. But I do know that the areal view of the proposed > WRME site at CDBS certainly LOOKS nice. Appears to be just the right > shape and size for the array and it looks like nice flat land that > seems to be covered with grass and has no trees on it. All of the > trees are beyond the periphery of the site. Also, the NIF from that > site appears to completely encompass Bangor (and lots of other places > in central Maine). Amazing! One would certainly think that the > neighbors wouldn't want no stinkin' towers there;>( (especially since > the towers would be 270' high, which means that at least two of them > would be illuminated. Hampden is a stone's throw from Bangor & Brewer. I've driven through many times on my way to PEI. Looking for NIMBY? This could very well be it. Herewith a link to a retirement village in Hampden, ME. Towers? I don't think so. http://www.youtube.com/user/AvalonVillageME From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 2 21:10:27 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:10:27 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com><8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> <4A25C64C.1050307@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <8AAB6E58753947169478A73C5789D4AC@DougDrown> Hampden is a nice community (as in "niiiice") --- gently rolling countryside, pleasant, quiet, suburban without the trappings of suburbia. Hence I suspect it is prime NIMBY territory. The town is one of the more upscale of the Bangor-Brewer area. It would be a great place for radio towers --- there's a lot of open space --- but there would probably be a lot of opposition. That having been said, I'd love to see this plan come to pass somehow. Much of Maine radio is a train wreck, and it would be nice to find another alternative (there are precious few) to the usual stuff that's offered out there. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Kirk" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:39 PM Subject: Re: Hecht and Alonso > Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> I've never been in Hampden ME; I don't even know the closest I've ever >> been to Hampden. But I do know that the areal view of the proposed >> WRME site at CDBS certainly LOOKS nice. Appears to be just the right >> shape and size for the array and it looks like nice flat land that >> seems to be covered with grass and has no trees on it. All of the >> trees are beyond the periphery of the site. Also, the NIF from that >> site appears to completely encompass Bangor (and lots of other places >> in central Maine). Amazing! One would certainly think that the >> neighbors wouldn't want no stinkin' towers there;>( (especially since >> the towers would be 270' high, which means that at least two of them >> would be illuminated. > Hampden is a stone's throw from Bangor & Brewer. I've driven through many > times on my way to PEI. Looking for NIMBY? This could very well be it. > Herewith a link to a retirement village in Hampden, ME. > Towers? I don't think so. > > http://www.youtube.com/user/AvalonVillageME > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 2 21:28:25 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:28:25 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com> <8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> <4A25C6A1.3010302@fybush.com> Message-ID: <3F865AFD02BF40639CBA475A7AE7B6DA@SatU205S5044> Completely agree on single-source vs multiple-source NIFs. Best examples of single-source around here are 890 and 1060. And comparisons should be particularly valid because they share a site. However, NIF calculations now include the effects of first-adjacent 10% skywaves in addition to the co-channel 10% skywave. So WRME could be affected by WJR and/or CFZM (or whatever) as well as by WSB. As for the listening experience with first-adjacents, for the moment, WBIX seems to have it better than WAMG does, apparently because WCBS runs IBOC and WEPN doesn't (and won't until its new site goes on the air). Despite WBIX's lower night power and WEPN's pattern, which sends a stronger signal this way at night than WCBS's ND signal, WBIX survives WEPN quite nicely, whereas, unless I rotate the radio just right, which either maximizes WAMG or minimizes WCBS or both, WAMG is pretty well wiped out by what I assume is WCBS's IBOC hash. The one anomalous thing about this observation, which makes me wonder whether the continuous buzz that destroys WAMG really is WCBS's IBOC, is the total absence of fades in what I am assuming is IBOC buzz. If the buzz comes from WCBS (I doubt whether CHML is running IBOC, and it isn't that loud here anyhow), it is skywave and I would think that skywave carrying the dense IBOC buzz would be just as susceptible to fades as are ordinary AM sidebands. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:41 PM Subject: Re: Hecht and Alonso > Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> I've never been in Hampden ME; I don't even know the closest I've >> ever >> been to Hampden. But I do know that the areal view of the proposed >> WRME site at CDBS certainly LOOKS nice. Appears to be just the >> right >> shape and size for the array and it looks like nice flat land that >> seems to be covered with grass and has no trees on it. All of the >> trees are beyond the periphery of the site. Also, the NIF from that >> site appears to completely encompass Bangor (and lots of other >> places >> in central Maine). > > NIFs are tricky things. Looking carefully at the map they filed, the > 9.9 mV/m NIF contour for WRME gets most - but not quite all - of > Bangor, and doesn't get up toward Old Town at all. (Though in > fairness, 9.9 mV/m is a considerable signal, and real-world > usability of the signal will probably extend a good ways out from > the filed NIF contour.) > > On the other hand, my guess is that nearly all of the interference > that factors into that NIF figure comes from one source: WSB. It's a > widely-held opinion among the AM gurus I know that single-source > interference is much more detrimental to real-world listening than > the sort of multiple-source interference that manifests itself as > background noise on the regional and graveyard channels at night. > > Still, that drop from the big 50 kW ND day signal to the directional > 10 kW night signal on those early, early sunsets in winter will be a > killer, especially against all the big class C FMs that blanket the > whole region with no dead spots. > From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Tue Jun 2 21:40:37 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:40:37 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso In-Reply-To: <8AAB6E58753947169478A73C5789D4AC@DougDrown> References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com><8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> <4A25C64C.1050307@ttlc.net> <8AAB6E58753947169478A73C5789D4AC@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A25D495.4020602@ttlc.net> Doug Drown wrote: > Hampden is a nice community (as in "niiiice") --- gently rolling > countryside, pleasant, quiet, suburban without the trappings of suburbia. I couldn't have described it better myself. I find it has the feeling of a slower, more gentle time. They even have a "Real" hardware store. No Home Depot or Wal-Mart here. From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 2 21:42:05 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:42:05 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com><8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> <4A25C64C.1050307@ttlc.net> <8AAB6E58753947169478A73C5789D4AC@DougDrown> Message-ID: But then again, Scott has pointed out that Alonso is a former principal of Hispanic broadcaster Mega Communications. (Does it still exist?) So if WRME is built, it might wind up programmed in Spanish. However, I don't know whether there are enough Hispanics in central Maine to support a station and, anyhow, some have speculated that it was Hecht and Alonso's intent flip the station once they had gotten it on the air. So if it is built, it might NOT wind up programmed in Spanish. I get the feeling that it won't be built and we will, therefore, never know. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Roger Kirk" ; "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:10 PM Subject: Re: Hecht and Alonso > Hampden is a nice community (as in "niiiice") --- gently rolling > countryside, pleasant, quiet, suburban without the trappings of > suburbia. Hence I suspect it is prime NIMBY territory. The town is > one of the more upscale of the Bangor-Brewer area. It would be a > great place for radio towers --- there's a lot of open space --- but > there would probably be a lot of opposition. > > That having been said, I'd love to see this plan come to pass > somehow. Much of Maine radio is a train wreck, and it would be nice > to find another alternative (there are precious few) to the usual > stuff that's offered out there. -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roger Kirk" > To: "Dan.Strassberg" > Cc: "Boston Radio Interest" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: Hecht and Alonso > > >> Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>> I've never been in Hampden ME; I don't even know the closest I've >>> ever >>> been to Hampden. But I do know that the areal view of the proposed >>> WRME site at CDBS certainly LOOKS nice. Appears to be just the >>> right >>> shape and size for the array and it looks like nice flat land that >>> seems to be covered with grass and has no trees on it. All of the >>> trees are beyond the periphery of the site. Also, the NIF from >>> that >>> site appears to completely encompass Bangor (and lots of other >>> places >>> in central Maine). Amazing! One would certainly think that the >>> neighbors wouldn't want no stinkin' towers there;>( (especially >>> since >>> the towers would be 270' high, which means that at least two of >>> them >>> would be illuminated. >> Hampden is a stone's throw from Bangor & Brewer. I've driven >> through many times on my way to PEI. Looking for NIMBY? This >> could very well be it. Herewith a link to a retirement village in >> Hampden, ME. >> Towers? I don't think so. >> >> http://www.youtube.com/user/AvalonVillageME >> >> > From scott@fybush.com Tue Jun 2 22:01:15 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:01:15 -0400 Subject: Hecht and Alonso In-Reply-To: References: <4A25877D.7090204@fybush.com><8A6EAA4EBB034A5384A6E6B3DEE708B9@SatU205S5044> <4A25C64C.1050307@ttlc.net> <8AAB6E58753947169478A73C5789D4AC@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A25D96B.2010205@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > But then again, Scott has pointed out that Alonso is a former principal > of Hispanic broadcaster Mega Communications. (Does it still exist?) So > if WRME is built, it might wind up programmed in Spanish. However, I > don't know whether there are enough Hispanics in central Maine to > support a station and, anyhow, some have speculated that it was Hecht > and Alonso's intent flip the station once they had gotten it on the air. > So if it is built, it might NOT wind up programmed in Spanish. I get the > feeling that it won't be built and we will, therefore, never know. There is no Hispanic community of any significant size in Bangor, nor in Burlington. I'm quite certain that Alonso never intended to program these stations in Spanish, if he ever intended to operate them himself at all. s From markwa1ion@aol.com Wed Jun 3 08:41:02 2009 From: markwa1ion@aol.com (markwa1ion@aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:41:02 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's Message-ID: <8CBB25FB03D4718-B8C-2CDB@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> Couldn't a 750 (or 720) station in Boston be a more profitable venture than one in Bangor ? Existing WJIB-740 would be bought out and taken dark and the 750 signal might be operable out of the WRKO Burlington (or WWDJ Lexington ?) site with existing or added towers. Pattern would beam all to the southeast at the city. Not sure if 680 and 750 are too close in frequency to diplex; 680 and 720 likely are. Or one could look into such a station in Manchester, NH with the same pattern out of the existing WGIR-610 site. 50 kW day / 10 kW night out of there would certainly deliver a reasonable signal through most of the Merrimack Valley and a chunk of north suburban Boston bounded by the NH border on the north, Route 128 on the south, Route 1 on the east, and Route 3 on the west. Portland, ME would be another possibility though both 730 WJTO and 740 WJIB may have to be bought out. The transmitter site would have to be north or northwest of the city as the signal would have to be maximum between 90 and 180 degrees. This would deliver a smokin' signal to Cape Ann and outer Cape Cod as well. Mark Connelly, WA1ION Billerica, MA << Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Anyone have any info on the status of their CP for 750 kHz 50 kW-D/10 > kW-N DA-N in Hampden (Bangor) ME? Technically, this appears to be a > very sound application and the facility, along with WGAN and WZON, > would certainly become one of Maine's top three AM signals. (As > Maine's only 50 kW daytime AM signal and only 10 kW nighttime AM > signal, it could be claimed to be the Pinetree State's BEST AM > signal.) According to the application, the NIF would be just 9.99 > mV/m. This CP seems rather far along--the FAA has assigned ASRN's to > the four towers. However, only a little over six months remain before > the CP expires on 12/13/2009--if it is not tolled. >> From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 3 09:14:03 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:14:03 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: <8CBB25FB03D4718-B8C-2CDB@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2EC7365FA5B0455284C597FF6DF955CE@SatU205S5044> The WRKO site sits atop the wells that constitute the water supply for the Town of Burlington. My understanding is that covenants in the deed prohibit ANY further construction at the site. I even wonder whether it would be permissible to replace an existing tower, should that ever become necessary because of age and normal wear and tear. But if you want to ignore the realities of the situation and speculate on the technical feasibility of a 680/750 diplex, the frequency separation, 9.33% of the higher carrier frequency, is right at the lower edge of what is considered feasible for an AM diplex. The rule of thumb used to be that the stations' frequencies had to differ by at least 10% of the higher carrier frequency. That rule is none too conservative, but it has been violated before--and by high-powered directional stations--so technically, a 680/750 diplex could work--as long as the citizens of Burlington had no objection to having their town become the Sahara Desert of the East;>(. Remember, though, that if WRKO had to make any significant modifcation to its facilities, the FCC would invoke the ratchet rule, which would result in loss of coverage to which Entercom would object. As I understand it, the combination of the deed covenants on the Burlington site and the invocation of the ratchet rule put the kibosh on an 850 move to Burlington, which American Radio Systems, then owner of 680 and 850, actually began to work on a decade or more ago. Were it not for the ratchet rule, such a move would have been beneficial to 850 everywhere except in the Wellesley-Needham area at night. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:41 AM Subject: 750 CP's > Couldn't a 750 (or 720) station in Boston be a more profitable > venture than one in Bangor ? > > Existing WJIB-740 would be bought out and taken dark and the 750 > signal might be operable out of the WRKO Burlington (or WWDJ > Lexington ?) site with existing or added towers. Pattern would beam > all to the southeast at the city. Not sure if 680 and 750 are too > close in frequency to diplex; 680 and 720 likely are. > > Or one could look into such a station in Manchester, NH with the > same pattern out of the existing WGIR-610 site. 50 kW day / 10 kW > night out of there would certainly deliver a reasonable signal > through most of the Merrimack Valley and a chunk of north suburban > Boston bounded by the NH border on the north, Route 128 on the > south, Route 1 on the east, and Route 3 on the west. > > Portland, ME would be another possibility though both 730 WJTO and > 740 WJIB may have to be bought out. The transmitter site would have > to be north or northwest of the city as the signal would have to be > maximum between 90 and 180 degrees. This would deliver a smokin' > signal to Cape Ann and outer Cape Cod as well. > > Mark Connelly, WA1ION > Billerica, MA > > << > Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> Anyone have any info on the status of their CP for 750 kHz 50 >> kW-D/10 >> kW-N DA-N in Hampden (Bangor) ME? Technically, this appears to be a >> very sound application and the facility, along with WGAN and WZON, >> would certainly become one of Maine's top three AM signals. (As >> Maine's only 50 kW daytime AM signal and only 10 kW nighttime AM >> signal, it could be claimed to be the Pinetree State's BEST AM >> signal.) According to the application, the NIF would be just 9.99 >> mV/m. This CP seems rather far along--the FAA has assigned ASRN's >> to >> the four towers. However, only a little over six months remain >> before >> the CP expires on 12/13/2009--if it is not tolled. >>> From markwa1ion@aol.com Wed Jun 3 09:54:38 2009 From: markwa1ion@aol.com (markwa1ion@aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:54:38 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <65D8C2F71005418EACB2F2E049ED1C87@SatU205S5044> References: <8CBB25FB03D4718-B8C-2CDB@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> <65D8C2F71005418EACB2F2E049ED1C87@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <8CBB269F8784CEC-10C-E6@webmail-de08.sysops.aol.com> True re WVNE though the necessary co-channel null at Atlanta (from a transmitter site NW of Boston) would also have to be made broad enough to point at metro-Worcester. Still WVNE's listenership area may be considered to extend east of the Route 495 / MassPike junction so the 750 idea is likely a no-go. Of course WVNE itself may wish to go to 750 to enable night operation that would put a reasonable signal over metro-Worcester possibly east as far as Framingham-Natick-Milford. Bob Bittner e-mailed and said that he wants to keep WJIB-740 on air so I guess that would preclude any metro-Boston, metro-Worcester, or southern NH speculation re 750 or 720. And I doubt that there's that much money to be made on an AM operation north of Manchester, NH or Portland, ME. If anything, it would be an upgrade to an established station rather than a completely new entity. Portsmouth had a great signal on 750 (WHEB) days with 1 kW and couldn't support that in the long run as FM took over. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Dan.Strassberg To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org; markwa1ion@aol.com Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 9:26 am Subject: Re: 750 CP's You forgot, and in my previous reply, I also forgot WVNE. That would? have to be purchased and taken dark. And since WVNE is the only? broadcast service licensed to Leicester, deleting that signal would be? difficult t o pull off--especially with the FCC under control of the? Democrats, who have already expressed a dim view of moving signals out? of less populous area to provide additional services to densely? populated areas that are already adequately served. Perhaps that? concern could be mitigated by minority ownership of a 750 licensed to? a community in greater Boston, but even if a suitable site could be? found (good luck!), you could expect the wrangling to continue for? decades. Bob Vinikoor invested a decade trying to build a 50 kW? (daytime) 720 signal in the upper Connecticut Valley of NH and VT, and? you can see what that got him--only huge legal bills and a Pyrrhic? victory in the NH Supreme Court.? ? -----? Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)? eFax 1-707-215-6367? ? ----- Original Message ----- From: ? To: ? Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:41 AM? Subject: 750 CP's? ? > Couldn't a 750 (or 720) station in Boston be a more profitable? > venture than one in Bangor ?? >? > Existing WJIB-740 would be bought out and taken dark and the 750? > signal might be operable out of the WRKO Burlington (or WWDJ? > Lexington ?) site with existing or added towers. Pattern would beam? > all to the southeast at the city. Not sure if 680 and 750 are too? > close in frequency to diplex; 680 and 720 likely are.? ? From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 3 09:26:34 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:26:34 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: <8CBB25FB03D4718-B8C-2CDB@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <65D8C2F71005418EACB2F2E049ED1C87@SatU205S5044> You forgot, and in my previous reply, I also forgot WVNE. That would have to be purchased and taken dark. And since WVNE is the only broadcast service licensed to Leicester, deleting that signal would be difficult to pull off--especially with the FCC under control of the Democrats, who have already expressed a dim view of moving signals out of less populous area to provide additional services to densely populated areas that are already adequately served. Perhaps that concern could be mitigated by minority ownership of a 750 licensed to a community in greater Boston, but even if a suitable site could be found (good luck!), you could expect the wrangling to continue for decades. Bob Vinikoor invested a decade trying to build a 50 kW (daytime) 720 signal in the upper Connecticut Valley of NH and VT, and you can see what that got him--only huge legal bills and a Pyrrhic victory in the NH Supreme Court. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 8:41 AM Subject: 750 CP's > Couldn't a 750 (or 720) station in Boston be a more profitable > venture than one in Bangor ? > > Existing WJIB-740 would be bought out and taken dark and the 750 > signal might be operable out of the WRKO Burlington (or WWDJ > Lexington ?) site with existing or added towers. Pattern would beam > all to the southeast at the city. Not sure if 680 and 750 are too > close in frequency to diplex; 680 and 720 likely are. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 3 11:29:17 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:29:17 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: <8CBB25FB03D4718-B8C-2CDB@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com><65D8C2F71005418EACB2F2E049ED1C87@SatU205S5044> <8CBB269F8784CEC-10C-E6@webmail-de08.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: >>Portsmouth had a great signal on 750 (WHEB) days with 1 kW and couldn't >>support that in the long run as FM took over. The old WHEB --- New Hampshire's second-oldest radio station --- was a 1-kw daytimer that I could pick up easily from my home near Fitchburg when I was a kid. It could be heard well up into Maine, too. It was an NBC affiliate with a standards/pop music format. It finally wound up simulcasting its alt-rock FM counterpart. Knight Quality switched it off in the mid-'70s and tore down the towers, which were a local landmark. I've often wondered why they didn't just sell it. As you say, it had a great signal. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:54 AM Subject: Re: 750 CP's > True re WVNE though the necessary co-channel null at Atlanta (from a > transmitter site NW of Boston) would also have to be made broad enough to > point at metro-Worcester. Still WVNE's listenership area may be > considered to extend east of the Route 495 / MassPike junction so the 750 > idea is likely a no-go. > > Of course WVNE itself may wish to go to 750 to enable night operation that > would put a reasonable signal over metro-Worcester possibly east as far as > Framingham-Natick-Milford. > > Bob Bittner e-mailed and said that he wants to keep WJIB-740 on air so I > guess that would preclude any metro-Boston, metro-Worcester, or southern > NH speculation re 750 or 720. > > And I doubt that there's that much money to be made on an AM operation > north of Manchester, NH or Portland, ME. If anything, it would be an > upgrade to an established station rather than a completely new entity. > > Portsmouth had a great signal on 750 (WHEB) days with 1 kW and couldn't > support that in the long run as FM took over. > > Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan.Strassberg > To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org; markwa1ion@aol.com > Sent: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 9:26 am > Subject: Re: 750 CP's > > > You forgot, and in my previous reply, I also forgot WVNE. That would have > to be purchased and taken dark. And since WVNE is the only broadcast > service licensed to Leicester, deleting that signal would be difficult t > o pull off--especially with the FCC under control of the Democrats, who > have already expressed a dim view of moving signals out of less populous > area to provide additional services to densely populated areas that are > already adequately served. Perhaps that concern could be mitigated by > minority ownership of a 750 licensed to a community in greater Boston, but > even if a suitable site could be found (good luck!), you could expect the > wrangling to continue for decades. Bob Vinikoor invested a decade trying > to build a 50 kW (daytime) 720 signal in the upper Connecticut Valley of > NH and VT, and you can see what that got him--only huge legal bills and a > Pyrrhic victory in the NH Supreme Court. > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 > ----- Original Message ----- From: To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 > 8:41 AM Subject: 750 CP's >> Couldn't a 750 (or 720) station in Boston be a more profitable venture >> than one in Bangor ? Existing WJIB-740 would be bought out and taken dark >> and the 750 signal might be operable out of the WRKO Burlington (or WWDJ >> Lexington ?) site with existing or added towers. Pattern would beam all >> to the southeast at the city. Not sure if 680 and 750 are too close in >> frequency to diplex; 680 and 720 > likely are. > > From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 3 14:26:06 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:26:06 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? Message-ID: <20090603182632.70AC52366C6@relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> How bad is the economy? Check this out: "SHOCKER! ALL ACCESS has confirmed that venerable trade publication RADIO & RECORDS will close its doors, on FRIDAY (6/5)." One less trade publication... what others will close too? From Jeffrey.P.Bottalico@kp.org Wed Jun 3 10:25:44 2009 From: Jeffrey.P.Bottalico@kp.org (Jeffrey.P.Bottalico@kp.org) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 04:25:44 -1000 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <8CBB25FB03D4718-B8C-2CDB@mblk-d35.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: I have long thought WGIR would be a good candidate for a 50KW DA-2 upgrade. However, would the present towers be able to handle the extra power? Evidently, they can't handle IBOC (which is a good thing). If they can't, maybe they can co exist at the WFEA site which is between two major hiways that should lessen the NIMBY crowd. Either way, 610 torrington CT could move to 1360 as a sync transmitter for WDRC, and WIP could be upgraded to 10kw markwa1ion@aol.com Sent by: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org 06/03/2009 02:41 AM >Or one could look into such a station in Manchester, NH with the same pattern out of the existing WGIR-610 site. 50 kW day / 10 kW night out of there would certainly deliver a reasonable signal through most of the Merrimack Valley and a chunk of north suburban Boston bounded by the NH border on the north, Route 128 on the south, Route 1 on the east, and Route 3 on the west. Mark Connelly, WA1ION Billerica, MA From mrschuyler@aol.com Wed Jun 3 14:33:19 2009 From: mrschuyler@aol.com (mrschuyler@aol.com) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:33:19 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? Message-ID: <8CBB290E7257263-6B4-CA7@webmail-de19.sysops.aol.com> Holy Moley!? R&R's own website confirmed this at about 2:15 pm. (As for which publication goes next, I vote for Radio Ink, formerly the Pulse of Radio, but then I'm carrying a grudge, having worked there 20 years ago.) From raccoonradio@mail.com Wed Jun 3 15:24:09 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:24:09 -0500 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? Message-ID: <20090603192409.27CFDCD80FB@ws1-4a.us4.outblaze.com> details from R&R http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/ From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 3 15:36:29 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:36:29 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? Message-ID: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 03:24 PM 6/3/2009, Bob Nelson wrote: >details from R&R > >http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/ Yeah but why is their parent company even taking down their website? Web publications still do get read, don't they? From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 3 15:13:08 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:13:08 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: Message-ID: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044> I think Buckley sells ads on WSNG separately from WDRC. That would be impossible with a synchronous transmitter. A power increase for WGIR would cause prohibited overlap with WVMT. I think you will find that WIP is hopelessly boxed in. Any attempt to change its operation would run afoul of the ratchet rule and would necessitate reducing its coverage! You didn't mention it, but the recent deletion of 610 in Winchester VA does not allow any station that might want to upgrade to do so. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:25 AM Subject: Re: 750 CP's >I have long thought WGIR would be a good candidate for a 50KW DA-2 > upgrade. However, would the present towers be able to handle the > extra > power? Evidently, they can't handle IBOC (which is a good thing). > If > they can't, maybe they can co exist at the WFEA site which is > between two > major hiways that should lessen the NIMBY crowd. Either way, 610 > torrington CT could move to 1360 as a sync transmitter for WDRC, > and WIP > could be upgraded to 10kw > > > > > > markwa1ion@aol.com > Sent by: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > 06/03/2009 02:41 AM > > > > > >>Or one could look into such a station in Manchester, NH with the >>same > pattern out of the existing WGIR-610 site. 50 kW day / 10 kW night > out > of there would certainly deliver a reasonable signal through most of > the Merrimack Valley and a chunk of north suburban Boston bounded by > the NH border on the north, Route 128 on the south, Route 1 on the > east, and Route 3 on the west. > > Mark Connelly, WA1ION > Billerica, MA > > > From gary@garysicecream.com Wed Jun 3 15:56:56 2009 From: gary@garysicecream.com (Gary's Ice Cream) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <200906031957.n53Jv4vM008752@tsornin.bostonradio.org> Excuse my ignorance....but a web search has not helped. What is the "ratchet rule"? From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 3 16:02:13 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:02:13 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A26D6C5.4050104@fybush.com> Jeffrey.P.Bottalico@kp.org wrote: > I have long thought WGIR would be a good candidate for a 50KW DA-2 > upgrade. However, would the present towers be able to handle the extra > power? Evidently, they can't handle IBOC (which is a good thing). If > they can't, maybe they can co exist at the WFEA site which is between two > major hiways that should lessen the NIMBY crowd. Either way, 610 > torrington CT could move to 1360 as a sync transmitter for WDRC, and WIP > could be upgraded to 10kw I don't think Buckley would like that Torrington proposal, since they sell separate advertising on WSNG, and they couldn't do that if it were sync'ed to WDRC. I suspect there would be Canadian issues, too, since there's CHNC 610 in New Carlisle that would have to be protected, even though it's about to leave the air for good. From nostaticatall@charter.net Wed Jun 3 16:04:58 2009 From: nostaticatall@charter.net (Dave Tomm) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:04:58 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? In-Reply-To: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> References: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: They don't want to pay for the staff needed to keep the site up and running. R&R's site is just an add on to the dead tree version. There's very little advertising on it. The publication has been dying a slow death since Neilson bought it three years ago. They had no interest in transitioning to the web, and over time sites like All Access, FMQB and Radio-Info have surpassed R&R as the primary media of the radio industry. The labels still deal with Billboard, also owned by Neilson, so some ad dollars may transfer over there. With fewer programming decisions being made at the local level, and increased competition on the web, R&R had no audience anymore. It's a shame that so many bad decisions led to it's demise. -Dave Tomm On Jun 3, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Donna Halper wrote: > At 03:24 PM 6/3/2009, Bob Nelson wrote: >> details from R&R >> >> http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/ > > Yeah but why is their parent company even taking down their > website? Web publications still do get read, don't they? > > From markwats@comcast.net Wed Jun 3 16:46:44 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:46:44 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? References: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> Dave Tomm wrote: > They don't want to pay for the staff needed to keep the site up and > running. R&R's site is just an add on to the dead tree version. According to the R&R timeline in the closing story I read no more than 15 minutes prior to this post on their website (which now appears to be gone as of this post) and also from Wikipedia, the last edition published on newsprint was August 4th, 2006. It appears they've been on-line only since then. Also,Wikipedia mentions that Casey Kasem's "Casey's Top 40" shows used the R&R CHR/Pop charts from 1989 to 1998, and "American Top 40" used these same charts from March 1998 to January 2004, save for the period between October 2000 & August 2001. Currently, Ryan Seacrest's "AT 40" and Kasem's "AT 20" (Hot AC countdown show) uses info from Mediabase 24/7. For years "AT 40" used the Billboard charts, I don't know if any of the other shows ever did. Did R&R or Billboard ever get any financial compensation from the producers of the countdown shows in exchange for the use of the chart info, or does Mediabase 24/7 get any compensation for the use of their info on the countdown programs? If R&R was receiving money for the use of their chart info, the switch to Mediabase or other charts may have hurt their wallet. Mark Watson From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 3 16:50:13 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:50:13 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? In-Reply-To: <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> References: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> Message-ID: <20090603205039.C31A31B403B@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 04:46 PM 6/3/2009, Mark Watson wrote: >Dave Tomm wrote: > > >>They don't want to pay for the staff needed to keep the site up and >>running. R&R's site is just an add on to the dead tree version. > > According to the R&R timeline in the closing story I read no > more than 15 minutes prior to this post on their website (which now > appears to be gone as of this post) and also from Wikipedia, the > last edition published on newsprint was August 4th, 2006. It > appears they've been on-line only since then. And that is why we don't trust Wikipedia. I've been an advertiser and I am still a subscriber. I've gotten a weekly dead-tree edition for years. Just got one last week in fact. From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 3 17:02:10 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:02:10 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? In-Reply-To: <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> References: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> Message-ID: <20090603210236.00FF51B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> I went in and fixed the wikipedia mistake. We'll see how long it stays fixed. >:-o From brian_vita@cssinc.com Wed Jun 3 17:24:02 2009 From: brian_vita@cssinc.com (Brian Vita) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:24:02 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? In-Reply-To: <20090603192409.27CFDCD80FB@ws1-4a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090603192409.27CFDCD80FB@ws1-4a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <001501c9e491$9e3739a0$daa5ace0$@com> I just tried to access the site and I can't connect. Did the server crash? Get unplugged early? Pro Cinema - Pro Audio - Pro & Consumer AV Equipment & Supplies Brian Vita President Cinema Service & Supply, Inc. 77 Walnut St - Ste 4 Peabody, MA 01960-5691 brian_vita@cssinc.com AIM: btvita tel: fax: 978-538-7575 978-538-7550 From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Wed Jun 3 17:53:00 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:53:00 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? In-Reply-To: <001501c9e491$9e3739a0$daa5ace0$@com> References: <20090603192409.27CFDCD80FB@ws1-4a.us4.outblaze.com> <001501c9e491$9e3739a0$daa5ace0$@com> Message-ID: <4A26F0BC.1070208@ttlc.net> Brian Vita wrote: > I just tried to access the site and I can't connect. Did the server crash? > Get unplugged early? > Disgruntled former IT employee? From nostaticatall@charter.net Wed Jun 3 19:35:48 2009 From: nostaticatall@charter.net (Dave Tomm) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:35:48 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? In-Reply-To: <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> References: <20090603193655.38E421B4020@relay26.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <73D374BABF4441EC8B1C4E585A8E683F@Mark> Message-ID: <705658AD-D0D6-4F4E-9150-B7C3C924AF62@charter.net> In 1988, Casey left ABC and American Top 40 and went to Westwood One to start Casey's Top 40. That show used R&R data. By 1998, Kasem had re-acquired the AT40 name a few years after the Shadoe Stevens debacle killed AT40. He started up the show again with AMFM Networks, again using R&R data. The next year Mediabase began providing the airplay charts for R&R. AMFM eventually became Premiere Radio Networks. This arrangement continued even after he handed off AT40 to Ryan Seacrest. Three years ago R&R was bought by VNU (later to be renamed the Neilson Company.) Neilson owns BDS, Mediabase's direct competitor. As a result, R&R switched from Mediabase to BDS for their chart data. Since Premiere owns Mediabase and the rights to AT40, Mediabase became the exclusive provider of data for not only AT40, but for Kasem's current AC & Hot AC countdowns. -Dave Tomm On Jun 3, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Mark Watson wrote: > > Also,Wikipedia mentions that Casey Kasem's "Casey's Top 40" shows > used the R&R CHR/Pop charts from 1989 to 1998, and "American Top 40" > used these same charts from March 1998 to January 2004, save for the > period between October 2000 & August 2001. Currently, Ryan > Seacrest's "AT 40" and Kasem's "AT 20" (Hot AC countdown show) uses > info from Mediabase 24/7. For years "AT 40" used the Billboard > charts, I don't know if any of the other shows ever did. Did R&R or > Billboard ever get any financial compensation from the producers of > the countdown shows in exchange for the use of the chart info, or > does Mediabase 24/7 get any compensation for the use of their info > on the countdown programs? If R&R was receiving money for the use of > their chart info, the switch to Mediabase or other charts may have > hurt their wallet. > From markwats@comcast.net Wed Jun 3 19:41:44 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 19:41:44 -0400 Subject: Radio and Records to Close????? References: <20090603192409.27CFDCD80FB@ws1-4a.us4.outblaze.com><001501c9e491$9e3739a0$daa5ace0$@com> <4A26F0BC.1070208@ttlc.net> Message-ID: Roger Kirk wrote: > Disgruntled former IT employee? Radio-Info.com reports the R&R website was taken down around 5PM ET. Mark Watson From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 3 16:45:09 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:45:09 -0500 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location Message-ID: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> In Detroit for the Sox series and was talking before the game to the Tigers audio man and he told me CBS is putting together the paperwork for a very oddball request for WXYT They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it easier for them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO Never mind the FCC, would the CRTC even open the folder on this???? Seems like CBS is losing the lease they have for the WXYT From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Wed Jun 3 20:19:28 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:19:28 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A271310.5050001@ttlc.net> Kevin Vahey wrote: > ... CBS is putting together the paperwork for a very oddball request for WXYT > > They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it easier for > them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO > > Never mind the FCC, would the CRTC even open the folder on this???? > I can't begin to imagine the "[lack of] cooperation" between two government agencies with totally different agendae & outlooks on Broadcasting tackling the logistics of such a move. From sid@wrko.com Wed Jun 3 17:15:31 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:15:31 -0600 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <200906031957.n53Jv4vM008752@tsornin.bostonradio.org> References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044> <200906031957.n53Jv4vM008752@tsornin.bostonradio.org> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE8468053E717@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>What is the "ratchet rule"?<< An FCC policy which states that AM stations making transmitting facilities changes must reduce their nighttime signals, as part of an overall plan to reduce nighttime interference on the band. From what I've seen and heard, it really hasn't made much difference. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom Boston LLC From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 3 20:49:19 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 20:49:19 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sounds like someone is pulling your leg! First off, WXYT has been at its current site for no more than about five years. It seems inconceivable to me that CBS would have spent the millions it cost to build the nine-tower site without a much longer lease. Second, Leamington (once the home of CHIR/CHYR, "one" of North America's "three" dual-frequency AMs. of which only one--WNZK--remains) is, IIRC, about 35 or 40 miles east of Detroit. Given WXYT's two very narrow patterns, there is no way that, from that location, WXYT could protect the stations it needs to protect and still deliver a signal that is even audible in Detroit--much less, deliver a city-grade (5 mV/m) signal to Detroit. With those patterns, WXYT has got to be more or less south of Detroit--unless, of course, the idea is to change frequencies--maybe to resurrect CHIR/CHYR (710 days; 730 nights). And I haven't even gotten to the issues you raised regarding a transmitter site in a different country or US ownership of a Canadian station. You sure you didn't hear this on April 1 or that the guy who told you this story didn't hear it first on April 1? ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:45 PM Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location > In Detroit for the Sox series and was talking before the game to the > Tigers > audio man and he told me CBS is putting together the paperwork for a > very > oddball request for WXYT > > They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it > easier for > them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO > > Never mind the FCC, would the CRTC even open the folder on this???? > > Seems like CBS is losing the lease they have for the WXYT From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 3 21:40:55 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 20:40:55 -0500 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> The eng at Comerica says it is not a yarn and CBS in NY is scrambling as the township in Michigan wants them gone over RF issues Canada offers the best land option he just told me because of a facilty that lies dormant. I for one could never see the CRTC going along with this unless there is a Michigan option that can help an Ontario station On 6/3/09, Glen Clark wrote: > As the engineer who picked the present 9-tower site, I have > to agree with Dan's analysis on several points: > > 1) due to the fact that the present site has not been > amortized, abandoning it would be economically > tough, regardless of the performance benefit. > > 2) when working with the FCC International Division > for a different Detroit project, we specifically > asked if a tower site in Canada would be > considered. We were told that the chances of a > US-licensed station with towers on Canadian > soil was zero. > > But the real killer is > > 3) a tower site in or near Leamington suggests that > the main lobe of the night pattern would shoot > between WMKT(AM) in Charlevoix, Michigan > and WWWI(AM) in Baxter, Minnesota. Protecting > WMKT and WWWI would mandate a thin pencil- > thin night pattern which would miss the northeast > corner of the Detroit market and the southwest > corner of the market, including DTW airport. > > If CBS is prepared to buy out those two stations and take them > dark, the Leamington option would make engineering sense, > if not economic sense. However, if taking WMKT dark is in the > cards, then CBS can modify the night pattern from the present > towers and save $2 million in construction costs. > > If you can come up with more tangible specifics, like the engineer > who is allegedly developing the Leamington proposal, I would be > happy to explore this further. However, my suspicion is that Dan > is correct, someone is spinning a yarn. > > With best regards, > > Glen Clark > Pittsburgh, PA > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > > Sounds like someone is pulling your leg! First off, WXYT has been at > its current site for no more than about five years. It seems > inconceivable to me that CBS would have spent the millions it cost to > build the nine-tower site without a much longer lease. > > From: "Kevin Vahey" > >>> was talking before the game to the Tigers >>> audio man and he told me CBS is putting together the paperwork for a >>> very oddball request for WXYT >>> >>> They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it >>> easier for them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO > > From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 3 21:43:34 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:43:34 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2726C6.8090200@fybush.com> Kevin Vahey wrote: > In Detroit for the Sox series and was talking before the game to the Tigers > audio man and he told me CBS is putting together the paperwork for a very > oddball request for WXYT > > They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it easier for > them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO > > Never mind the FCC, would the CRTC even open the folder on this???? > > Seems like CBS is losing the lease they have for the WXYT Wow - that would be exceedingly poor planning on CBS' part, since they've only been at the "new" WXYT site for less than a decade. The FCC and the Canadian regulators (not just the CRTC, which regulates content, but Industry Canada, which handles the tech side) have been considerably more cooperative in recent years. Out west, they worked together - and with surprising speed - to coordinate a frequency swap between a new signal in Vancouver and KAFE in Bellingham, WA that will allow a Seattle move-in to improve its signal. There is nothing explicit that I can see in the FCC rules that mandates that the transmitter site of a U.S.-licensed station must be on U.S. soil. I don't know the Canadian rules well enough to say whether there's anything explicitly forbidding a U.S.-licensed station to operate from a Canadian site. Having said all that, the prospect seems highly, highly unlikely to me. Beyond the obvious complications of putting a U.S. station on Canadian soil, I'm not convinced Leamington is where 1270 would need to be to improve its Detroit night signal. The reason WXYT moved from Southfield to a site due south of Detroit was to boost its night power from 5 to 50 kW while still protecting all those other 1270s in the midwest, many of them west of Detroit in places such as the Quad Cities and Sioux Falls. A Leamington site wouldn't protect them. Then there's the very tight protection between 1270 Detroit and 1290 Saline/Ann Arbor, which wouldn't be improved by a Leamington-based 1270 beaming west. And I'm also not seeing CBS having any real reason to sink much money into 1270 these days. Isn't it largely a simulcast now with the full-market WXYT-FM on 97.1? Fun to think about...but I can't imagine it actually coming to pass. (Great game tonight, meanwhile!) s From madprof@ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 3 21:55:11 2009 From: madprof@ix.netcom.com (Robert F. Sutherland) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:55:11 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location Message-ID: <380-2200964415511718@ix.netcom.com> The FCC public data base shows no app (not that that proves anything) and their applications search has most recent 2005 (when it was INFINITY) WXYT is 9 towers and I agree with prohibitive cost that CBS wouldn't put out, I bet they'd sooner close some stations. Bo From sid@wrko.com Wed Jun 3 22:02:21 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:02:21 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4A2726C6.8090200@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <4A2726C6.8090200@fybush.com> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49A1@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>There is nothing explicit that I can see in the FCC rules that mandates that the transmitter site of a U.S.-licensed station must be on U.S. soil.<< Section 301 of the Communications Act would appear to prohibit such an arrangement, since its wording grants the FCC no jurisdiction over a radio station not transmitting from a "State," "Territory," "possession" of the United States or the District of Columbia...but YMMV since IANAL...bye bye, buy bonds... From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 3 22:09:00 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:09:00 -0500 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <8197D910-0352-474D-ADFA-ED027DDADD14@clarkcom.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> <8197D910-0352-474D-ADFA-ED027DDADD14@clarkcom.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906031909w222b4b75mb26f046a4301e42c@mail.gmail.com> What I have been told is WXYT is out of the loop in this now and NY is working on it. The 950 site doesn't work at all to help WXYT. On 6/3/09, Glen Clark wrote: > On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > >> The eng at Comerica says it is not a yarn and CBS in NY is scrambling >> as the township in Michigan wants them gone over RF issues > > Hi Kevin: > > The public record shows that there were at least > 4 zoning meetings at the Ash Township community > building. All of the required permits were granted. > I'm not a lawyer. But I have never heard of anyone > getting their permit pulled after the towers were > already up. > > "CBS in NY" would be Glynn Walden. > > If your friend at Comerica can provide additional > specifics, the single most helpful fact he could > provide is the name of the engineer who is developing > this design. All of the AM array designers know all > of the other array designers. It is a very small > community. > > Any chance he can come up with a name? > > With best regards, > > Glen Clark > Pittsburgh, PA > > From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 3 22:37:10 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:37:10 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A273356.2070509@fybush.com> Kevin Vahey wrote: > Canada offers the best land option he just told me because of a > facilty that lies dormant. To the best of my knowledge, the AMs that have gone dark on the Canadian side of the border in that area have all been dismantled pretty quickly. The Leamington AM site on 710/730 was already dark when I visited back in 1999, with just one tower still standing for the replacement FM on 96.7. I'm pretty sure 540, 580 and 1550 in Windsor are still active from the same sites they were using when I saw them in '99, and I *know* CKLW is still on the same site it's been using for decades. There was CKTY 1110 up in Sarnia, but that site had been completely dismantled when I saw it in '99. Most curious indeed... s From glen@clarkcom.com Wed Jun 3 21:25:58 2009 From: glen@clarkcom.com (Glen Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> As the engineer who picked the present 9-tower site, I have to agree with Dan's analysis on several points: 1) due to the fact that the present site has not been amortized, abandoning it would be economically tough, regardless of the performance benefit. 2) when working with the FCC International Division for a different Detroit project, we specifically asked if a tower site in Canada would be considered. We were told that the chances of a US-licensed station with towers on Canadian soil was zero. But the real killer is 3) a tower site in or near Leamington suggests that the main lobe of the night pattern would shoot between WMKT(AM) in Charlevoix, Michigan and WWWI(AM) in Baxter, Minnesota. Protecting WMKT and WWWI would mandate a thin pencil- thin night pattern which would miss the northeast corner of the Detroit market and the southwest corner of the market, including DTW airport. If CBS is prepared to buy out those two stations and take them dark, the Leamington option would make engineering sense, if not economic sense. However, if taking WMKT dark is in the cards, then CBS can modify the night pattern from the present towers and save $2 million in construction costs. If you can come up with more tangible specifics, like the engineer who is allegedly developing the Leamington proposal, I would be happy to explore this further. However, my suspicion is that Dan is correct, someone is spinning a yarn. With best regards, Glen Clark Pittsburgh, PA On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: Sounds like someone is pulling your leg! First off, WXYT has been at its current site for no more than about five years. It seems inconceivable to me that CBS would have spent the millions it cost to build the nine-tower site without a much longer lease. From: "Kevin Vahey" >> was talking before the game to the Tigers >> audio man and he told me CBS is putting together the paperwork for a >> very oddball request for WXYT >> >> They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it >> easier for them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO From glen@clarkcom.com Wed Jun 3 21:49:17 2009 From: glen@clarkcom.com (Glen Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:49:17 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8197D910-0352-474D-ADFA-ED027DDADD14@clarkcom.com> On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > The eng at Comerica says it is not a yarn and CBS in NY is scrambling > as the township in Michigan wants them gone over RF issues Hi Kevin: The public record shows that there were at least 4 zoning meetings at the Ash Township community building. All of the required permits were granted. I'm not a lawyer. But I have never heard of anyone getting their permit pulled after the towers were already up. "CBS in NY" would be Glynn Walden. If your friend at Comerica can provide additional specifics, the single most helpful fact he could provide is the name of the engineer who is developing this design. All of the AM array designers know all of the other array designers. It is a very small community. Any chance he can come up with a name? With best regards, Glen Clark Pittsburgh, PA From glen@clarkcom.com Wed Jun 3 22:33:05 2009 From: glen@clarkcom.com (Glen Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:33:05 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906031909w222b4b75mb26f046a4301e42c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4fc429770906031840n4bfaaa5ejba1c9c0e9c24c6cb@mail.gmail.com> <8197D910-0352-474D-ADFA-ED027DDADD14@clarkcom.com> <4fc429770906031909w222b4b75mb26f046a4301e42c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <79819A87-75CA-4DC3-91AD-147F25AE92C2@clarkcom.com> On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:09 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > The 950 site doesn't work at all to help WXYT. That is correct. If you moved the 1270 kHz towers east to the Berlin Township site, the null in the night pattern which protects WMKT would go right through Detroit. - Glen From madprof@ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 3 23:19:11 2009 From: madprof@ix.netcom.com (Robert F. Sutherland) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 23:19:11 -0400 Subject: Local Radio Freedom Act Message-ID: <380-2200964431911578@ix.netcom.com> All Access site reports "THE NAB has confirmed that it has now secured the sponsorship of 220 House Representatives to co-sponsor The Local Radio Freedom Act, which denounces the imposition of "any new performance fee, tax, royalty or other charge" on radio for music airplay." Is this Act going to help stations like WJIB who have been required to pay ridiculously fees for music played? It says "any NEW ...fees", can this remove fees such have been charged? Bob From Jibguy@aol.com Thu Jun 4 00:17:00 2009 From: Jibguy@aol.com (Jibguy@aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:17:00 EDT Subject: Local Radio Freedom Act Message-ID: In a message dated 6/3/2009 10:21:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, madprof@ix.netcom.com writes: Is this Act going to help stations like WJIB who have been required to pay ridiculously fees for music played? It says "any NEW ...fees", can this remove fees such have been charged? No, it won't help WJIB on its existing fees. However, it will prevent WJIB from having to pay new fees along with massive reporting (of all songs played) requirements. The Bill, HR 848, did get amended 3 weeks ago to say that stations billing $100k to $500k would have to pay only $2,500.00 in new fees.... HOWEVER, things like that could be changed by big-money broadcast interests by the time it would have become law. Record companies were seeking about $3-BILLION from radio..... divide that by 14,500 radio stations, and each station pays about $270,000.00 yearly. So if small stations were to pay only $2500. or less, then the big FM's would have to pay millions. However, at the last minute an attachment to the bill might say.... "small stations in small markets would have to pay only $2500. but if its a small station in a big market (WJIB), then it is treated like a big FM. You KNOW the NAB will try to do that. Other items in this bill..... stations billing less than $100k annually, would have to pay $1000. Talk stations would pay nothing for use of song bumpers, and non-comm stations have their own rate too.... forget what it was, but it was not too much. And one sympathizes for the performers, the way they've been getting screwed by the labels over the past 80 years..... but this Bill would only make the big artists richer, and the one-hit wonder would still be without any significant $$. We in radio can;t claim victory yet.... things could change, but it sure looks good. If radio gets lets say 240 House votes, then it will not go to an actual vote on the House Floor. Even now, with 220 House member promises (non-binding), it still looks pretty good. WJIB and WJTO will present a one hour debate on this in the future..... Will be announced on JIB/JTO and also on radio-info.com. It'll be a real good meaty program with arguments from all sides. All the best, Bob Bittner **************Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221354145x1201369495/aol?redir=http:%2F %2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By) From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 4 00:50:02 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 00:50:02 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> Message-ID: Hi, Glen- > We were told that the chances of a US-licensed station with towers on > Canadian soil was zero. By treaty, US signals are protected from interference only on US soil, and Canada has no obligation to protect US signals on Canadian soil. A US station located on Canadian soil would be entitled to no protection whatsoever from Canadian interference. So tower 1 could host a co-channel interferor. It's a logical impossibilty. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Clark" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:25 PM Subject: Re: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location > > As the engineer who picked the present 9-tower site, I have > to agree with Dan's analysis on several points: > > 1) due to the fact that the present site has not been > amortized, abandoning it would be economically > tough, regardless of the performance benefit. > > 2) when working with the FCC International Division > for a different Detroit project, we specifically > asked if a tower site in Canada would be > considered. We were told that the chances of a > US-licensed station with towers on Canadian > soil was zero. > > But the real killer is > > 3) a tower site in or near Leamington suggests that > the main lobe of the night pattern would shoot > between WMKT(AM) in Charlevoix, Michigan > and WWWI(AM) in Baxter, Minnesota. Protecting > WMKT and WWWI would mandate a thin pencil- > thin night pattern which would miss the northeast > corner of the Detroit market and the southwest > corner of the market, including DTW airport. > > If CBS is prepared to buy out those two stations and take them > dark, the Leamington option would make engineering sense, > if not economic sense. However, if taking WMKT dark is in the > cards, then CBS can modify the night pattern from the present > towers and save $2 million in construction costs. > > If you can come up with more tangible specifics, like the engineer > who is allegedly developing the Leamington proposal, I would be > happy to explore this further. However, my suspicion is that Dan > is correct, someone is spinning a yarn. > > With best regards, > > Glen Clark > Pittsburgh, PA > > On Jun 3, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > > Sounds like someone is pulling your leg! First off, WXYT has been at > its current site for no more than about five years. It seems > inconceivable to me that CBS would have spent the millions it cost to > build the nine-tower site without a much longer lease. > > From: "Kevin Vahey" > >>> was talking before the game to the Tigers >>> audio man and he told me CBS is putting together the paperwork for a >>> very oddball request for WXYT >>> >>> They want to move their 9 towers to a location that will make it >>> easier for them to serve Metro Detroit at night - Leamington, ONTARIO > > From joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 4 01:34:48 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:34:48 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com>, , <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> Message-ID: <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> On 3 Jun 2009 at 21:25, Glen Clark wrote: > 2) when working with the FCC International Division > for a different Detroit project, we specifically > asked if a tower site in Canada would be > considered. We were told that the chances of a > US-licensed station with towers on Canadian > soil was zero. Wouldn't it have to be licensed in Canada, with Canadian call letters? Wasn't there a Winsor, Ontario station that used to ID (though probably not legally) with Canadian call letters and Detroit for a location? And wasn't/isn't there at least one Mexican-licensed station broadcasting mainly to Southern California? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 4 01:34:45 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:34:45 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE8468053E717@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044>, <200906031957.n53Jv4vM008752@tsornin.bostonradio.org>, <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE8468053E717@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com> On 3 Jun 2009 at 15:15, Sid Schweiger wrote: > >>What is the "ratchet rule"?<< > > An FCC policy which states that AM stations making transmitting > facilities changes must reduce their nighttime signals, as part of an > overall plan to reduce nighttime interference on the band. From what > I've seen and heard, it really hasn't made much difference. Sounds like it would discourage some stations from making beneficial changes to their facilities. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 4 01:42:42 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:42:42 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <18983.24274.550485.843190@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > And wasn't/isn't there at least one Mexican-licensed station > broadcasting mainly to Southern California? "At least one"? How about "half the San Diego market"! However, the Mexican authorities, COFETEL, have much less interest in content regulation than the Canadians do. So long as the stations identify twice an hour, play the national anthem at midnight, run a full load of government PSAs (which on the English-language stations take the form of Mexico tourism advetisements), and air all Presidential Broadcasts, they don't really care where the programming comes from or what market is actually being targeted. (All three countries do have a requirement for licensees in any service to be citizens of that country.) -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 4 01:34:49 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:34:49 -0400 Subject: Local Radio Freedom Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A2724B9.1791.63360B@joe.attorneyross.com> On 4 Jun 2009 at 0:17, Jibguy@aol.com wrote: > WJIB and WJTO will present a one hour debate on this in the > future..... Will be announced on JIB/JTO and also on radio-info.com. > It'll be a real good meaty program with arguments from all sides. Hey, Bob's posting to this list! How long has it been? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 4 01:45:48 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:45:48 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044> <200906031957.n53Jv4vM008752@tsornin.bostonradio.org> <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE8468053E717@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Sounds like it would discourage some stations from making beneficial > changes to their facilities. Beneficial to whom? The policy is intended to reduce interference to other stations, as Sid noted. Nearly every station could dramatically improve its signal by going 50 kW non-directional full-time, but this would obviously have a deleterious effect on other stations. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 4 06:26:24 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 06:26:24 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com>, , <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <737A9F9CAEC34029B9B29594B9FE68A0@SatU205S5044> I suspect that if, say, CKLW IDed as CKLW Detroit, the ID would NOT have been illegal in Canada. If I'm not mistaken, a Canadian legal ID consists only of the call letters. So, as with US stations that legally append to their legal IDs the names of communities to which they are not licensed, a Canadian station could probably legally append to its legal ID the name of a community to which it was not licensed. Probably doesn't matter if the named community was on the other side of the border. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Glen Clark" Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:34 AM Subject: Re: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location > Wasn't there a Winsor, Ontario station that used to ID > (though probably not legally) with Canadian call letters and Detroit > for a location? From sid@wrko.com Thu Jun 4 07:02:53 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 05:02:53 -0600 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com>, , <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>Wasn't there a Winsor, Ontario station that used to ID (though probably not legally) with Canadian call letters and Detroit for a location?<< Most famously, the Big 8: "C-K-L-W...the Motor City!" Canadian legal-ID rules are not the same as ours in the US, as Dan has noted. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Thu Jun 4 11:58:47 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:58:47 -0600 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com> <9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com> <4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com> <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> I could be very wrong, but this is what I recall being told years ago, that Canadian stations are only required to do what we Americans consider a legal id (Calls, COL) once a DAY.... Paul Walker On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Sid Schweiger wrote: > >>Wasn't there a Winsor, Ontario station that used to ID > (though probably not legally) with Canadian call letters and Detroit > for a location?<< > > Most famously, the Big 8: "C-K-L-W...the Motor City!" > > Canadian legal-ID rules are not the same as ours in the US, as Dan has > noted. > > Sid Schweiger > IT Manager, Entercom New England > 20 Guest St / 3d Floor > Brighton MA 02135-2040 > > > From aerie.ma@comcast.net Thu Jun 4 13:08:15 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:08:15 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com><9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com><4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I seem to recall that CKLW at one point would say "CKLW, AM and FM, in Windsor, Ontario" on the half hour. But on the top of the hour, it was the "CKLW....the Motor City" jingle. http://www.thebig8.net/topid.wav One thing that always made me giggle was when they would give the temperatures during the newscast "It's 75 degrees in Detroit, 69 degrees in Toledo, 72 degrees in Cleveland, and 19 degrees outside our CKLW studios". I used to think "Geez it's cold in Canada". -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Paul B. Walker, Jr. Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:59 AM To: Sid Schweiger Cc: nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest Subject: Re: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location I could be very wrong, but this is what I recall being told years ago, that Canadian stations are only required to do what we Americans consider a legal id (Calls, COL) once a DAY.... From mrschuyler@aol.com Thu Jun 4 11:31:38 2009 From: mrschuyler@aol.com (mrschuyler@aol.com) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:31:38 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA Message-ID: <8CBB340AFA1EE7C-1634-88F@WEBMAIL-DY31.sysops.aol.com> I was looking at a satellite map of the Leominster State Forest?area on which two transmitter locations were noted: WXLO (FM) Fitchburg and WBSO (AM) Lancaster.?About the second station, there was nothing in the FCC database as far as I could find (no surprise), and nothing in my 1984 Broadcasting Yearbook (in which 760 Leiceister-Worcester is a CP).?Does anyone have info on this station's (apparently brief) history? From Joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 4 14:06:17 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:06:17 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044>, <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com>, <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 4 Jun 2009 Garrett Wollman wrote: > Beneficial to whom? > > The policy is intended to reduce interference to other stations, as > Sid noted. Nearly every station could dramatically improve its signal > by going 50 kW non-directional full-time, but this would obviously > have a deleterious effect on other stations. well, yeah, but it sounds like this applies to every station indiscriminately. Apparently WJIB, with its 5-watt nighttime signal, can't make any transmitter upgrades without degrading its night signal. Nor can WBZ, with its 50,000 watts clear-channel. Does this really make sense? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 4 13:20:32 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:20:32 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com><9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com><4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8A78268771724CAE855A290480FA5237@SatU205S5044> That's my understanding too, but I don't think the CoL is required--just the calls. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul B. Walker, Jr." To: "Sid Schweiger" Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location >I could be very wrong, but this is what I recall being told years >ago, that > Canadian stations are only required to do what we Americans consider > a legal > id (Calls, COL) once a DAY.... > > Paul Walker > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Sid Schweiger wrote: > >> >>Wasn't there a Winsor, Ontario station that used to ID >> (though probably not legally) with Canadian call letters and >> Detroit >> for a location?<< >> >> Most famously, the Big 8: "C-K-L-W...the Motor City!" >> >> Canadian legal-ID rules are not the same as ours in the US, as Dan >> has >> noted. >> >> Sid Schweiger >> IT Manager, Entercom New England >> 20 Guest St / 3d Floor >> Brighton MA 02135-2040 >> >> >> From Joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 4 14:06:17 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:06:17 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: <737A9F9CAEC34029B9B29594B9FE68A0@SatU205S5044> References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com>, <737A9F9CAEC34029B9B29594B9FE68A0@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A27D4D9.29566.4A1F28@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 4 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: > I suspect that if, say, CKLW IDed as CKLW Detroit, the ID would NOT > have been illegal in Canada. If I'm not mistaken, a Canadian legal ID > consists only of the call letters. So, as with US stations that > legally append to their legal IDs the names of communities to which > they are not licensed, a Canadian station could probably legally > append to its legal ID the name of a community to which it was not > licensed. Probably doesn't matter if the named community was on the > other side of the border. It may be more complicated than that, and, as in the US, the rules may have changed over time. Right now CBC stations don't ID their call letters at all, just their location (e.g. "CBC Toronto"). I don't think they have to ID their call letters except at sign-on and sign-off. That may not always have been the case. As others have pointed out, CKLW used to ID as "CKLW Windsor" occasionally, undoubtedly just often enough to cover the law. And when they used to do that, I assume the Canadian content rules were more lenient, or maybe nonexistent. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 4 13:21:55 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:21:55 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com><9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com><4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com><8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <32D862E0DEDC4755AC8F462219775359@SatU205S5044> Cold enough to freeze your Celsius scale;>) ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hall" To: "'nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest'" Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 1:08 PM Subject: RE: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location >I seem to recall that CKLW at one point would say "CKLW, AM and FM, >in > Windsor, Ontario" on the half hour. But on the top of the hour, it > was the > "CKLW....the Motor City" jingle. http://www.thebig8.net/topid.wav > > One thing that always made me giggle was when they would give the > temperatures during the newscast "It's 75 degrees in Detroit, 69 > degrees in > Toledo, 72 degrees in Cleveland, and 19 degrees outside our CKLW > studios". > > I used to think "Geez it's cold in Canada". > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of > Paul B. Walker, Jr. > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:59 AM > To: Sid Schweiger > Cc: nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest > Subject: Re: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location > > I could be very wrong, but this is what I recall being told years > ago, that > Canadian stations are only required to do what we Americans consider > a legal > id (Calls, COL) once a DAY.... > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 4 14:28:40 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:28:40 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA References: <8CBB340AFA1EE7C-1634-88F@WEBMAIL-DY31.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <552E50F58C9A40B6A882AD1615A02EDF@SatU205S5044> WBSO were the calls of the station that today is WROL Boston. For many years, WBSO was owned by the Babson Statistical Organization, hence the WBSO call sign. Prior to the NARBA agreement of 3/31/1941, WBSO and its successor, WORL, operated on 920 kc, eventually with a power of 1 kw. NARBA moved all or nearly all of the stations on 920 to 950. I believe that the WBSO transmitter (and probably the WORL transmitter) were located in Wellesley, but I have no idea where. Sometime--maybe during World War II--WBSO (it was probably WORL by then) lost its license, I believe because of unauthorized transfers of control. The WORL call sign re-emerged on the 950 frequency around 1949, now transmitting from Saugus, which remains the WROL transmitter site to this day. That site was originally developed by the old WHDH (AM) first on 830 and after NARBA on 850. In 1947, WHDH moved its transmitter to Needham and increased its power to 50 kW from 5 kW. That made the Saugus site available to WORL, which returned to the air as a daytime-only station operating with 5 kW. I do not know whether WBSO or the earlier incarnation of WORL operated at night. I provide that info because of its historical interest, but I don't think that that WBSO is the one you are inquiring about. I think the WBSO you are interested in is the construction permit that was granted but never built for 650 kHz in Clinton MA. That CP was granted in the early 1980s, I believe, and it survived unbuilt until the FCC revoked it in the early 90s. The CP went though several iterations. The original grant was for 10 kWD/1 kW-N DA-2. I think there were to be four towers. At one point, the FCC started to allow higher nighttime powers for new secondary stations on the former Class IA clear channels and WBSO received a modification of its CP for 2.3 kW nights. Since 1997 the 650 frequency in eastern MA has been occupied by the station now known as WSRO Ashland, a 250W nondirectional daytimer, which operates with very low nighttime power (9W). ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:31 AM Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA >I was looking at a satellite map of the Leominster State Forest?area >on which two transmitter locations were noted: WXLO (FM) Fitchburg >and WBSO (AM) Lancaster.?About the second station, there was nothing >in the FCC database as far as I could find (no surprise), and nothing >in my 1984 Broadcasting Yearbook (in which 760 Leiceister-Worcester >is a CP).?Does anyone have info on this station's (apparently brief) >history? From mward@iname.com Thu Jun 4 13:34:15 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:34:15 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com><9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com><4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A280597.8090908@iname.com> Jim Hall wrote: > I seem to recall that CKLW at one point would say "CKLW, AM and FM, in > Windsor, Ontario" on the half hour. But on the top of the hour, it was the > "CKLW....the Motor City" jingle. http://www.thebig8.net/topid.wav Some Canadian stations do a U.S. style legal ID at top. I'm pretty sure CFNY/Ft. Erie ON, which serves the Buffalo market, does so... Ah, yes, Toppy to the rescue: http://www.tophour.com/audio/Buffalo%20NY/fm1011_2006-02_ckey-fm_sfybush.mp3 From raccoonradio@mail.com Thu Jun 4 14:54:57 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 13:54:57 -0500 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA Message-ID: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" >>I think the WBSO you are interested in is the construction permit that was granted but never built for 650 kHz in Clinton MA. That CP was granted in the early 1980s, I believe, and it survived unbuilt until the FCC revoked it in the early 90s. I remember having a book listing US radio stations, put out by Broadcasting and Cable I believe (it was sized small enough to fit into a glove compartment) and I think the CP for 650 in Clinton MA was listed (it may have had an asterisk next to it because of the CP) From mward@iname.com Thu Jun 4 13:35:53 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:35:53 -0400 Subject: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location In-Reply-To: References: <4fc429770906031345g339989ecx73d7cccaabd775d7@mail.gmail.com><9CED7808-BAE8-4C8B-A3D1-54FEE2D9CC36@clarkcom.com><4A2724B8.24241.633448@joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E49CE@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <8bce0fe80906040858obca36e6k3c004896321d75c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2805F9.70503@iname.com> Oops. I'm pretty sure CFNY is still in Toronto...I meant CKEY... Jim Hall wrote: > I seem to recall that CKLW at one point would say "CKLW, AM and FM, in > Windsor, Ontario" on the half hour. But on the top of the hour, it was the > "CKLW....the Motor City" jingle. http://www.thebig8.net/topid.wav > > One thing that always made me giggle was when they would give the > temperatures during the newscast "It's 75 degrees in Detroit, 69 degrees in > Toledo, 72 degrees in Cleveland, and 19 degrees outside our CKLW studios". > > I used to think "Geez it's cold in Canada". > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of > Paul B. Walker, Jr. > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:59 AM > To: Sid Schweiger > Cc: nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest > Subject: Re: WXYT -Detroit wants to move their transmitter location > > I could be very wrong, but this is what I recall being told years ago, that > Canadian stations are only required to do what we Americans consider a legal > id (Calls, COL) once a DAY.... > > > From kc1ih@mac.com Thu Jun 4 16:12:31 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:12:31 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA In-Reply-To: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Bob Nelson Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:55 PM To: Dan.Strassberg; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; mrschuyler@aol.com Subject: Re: WBSO Lancaster, MA >>I remember having a book listing US radio stations, put out by Broadcasting and Cable I believe (it was sized small enough to fit into a glove compartment) and I think the CP for 650 in Clinton MA was listed (it may have had an asterisk next to it because of the CP)<< The book you may be thinking of was by Vane Jones. Since Jones stopped updating the book, and later died, I have yet to find anything as good to replace it. Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 4 17:01:44 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 17:01:44 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA References: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <697DAC71B27741CF84364BC5D993506D@skywaves.com> Check out http://amlogbook.com/jones/08141.pdf for a sample... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:12 PM Subject: RE: WBSO Lancaster, MA > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > Bob Nelson > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:55 PM > To: Dan.Strassberg; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; > mrschuyler@aol.com > Subject: Re: WBSO Lancaster, MA > > > > >>>I remember having a book listing US radio stations, put out by > Broadcasting and Cable > I believe (it was sized small enough to fit into a glove compartment) and > I > think > the CP for 650 in Clinton MA was listed (it may have had an asterisk next > to > it > because of the CP)<< > > The book you may be thinking of was by Vane Jones. Since Jones stopped > updating the book, and later died, I have yet to find anything as good to > replace it. > > Larry Weil > Lake Wobegone, NH > > > From raccoonradio@mail.com Thu Jun 4 17:06:53 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:06:53 -0500 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA Message-ID: <20090604210653.58EF783985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Not sure but it may have been called "Around the Dial" with a section for TV stations to be listed, Around the Channels Maybe about 5 inches wide, 10 inches tall... From sid@wrko.com Thu Jun 4 14:34:39 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 12:34:39 -0600 Subject: 750 CP's In-Reply-To: <4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com> References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044>, <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com>, <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E514A@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>it sounds like this applies to every station indiscriminately. Apparently WJIB, with its 5-watt nighttime signal, can't make any transmitter upgrades without degrading its night signal. Nor can WBZ, with its 50,000 watts clear-channel. Does this really make sense?<< WJIB would certainly be able to show the Friendly Cookie Company that ratcheting back its nighttime signal would have close to zero effect on any other co- or adjacent-channel signal. I can't say if a waiver of the ratcheting policy has ever been granted, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try. Waivers are granted at the FCC for all kinds of reasons. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From Jibguy@aol.com Thu Jun 4 21:07:40 2009 From: Jibguy@aol.com (Jibguy@aol.com) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:07:40 EDT Subject: 750 CP's Message-ID: In a message dated 6/4/2009 7:58:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, dan.strassberg@att.net writes: I hope that anyone who thinks this project might be practical knows how to pronounce engineering nightmare. --------------------------------------------------------- Agreed.... putting WJIB on the WWDJ/WAZN site would be a nightmare. Also, a signal with a null towards Toronto is a moot point, as the rules say WJIB cannot send a certain strength to Canada. Since Toronto is just one tiny part of Canada, one must consider that WJIB running 50 watts would likely be exceding the signal limits to Nova Scotia, which is somewhat right in the path of the signal WJIB would have if it were using two towers on the WWDJ/WAZN site. Remember, a part of Nova Scotia is further south than Portland Maine is. All too often, signal upgrades have croaked radio stations. (It helped croak WJTO in 1990, when WJTO was goin for 5 towers and 10,000 watts... tryinmg to do it on 11 acres of land. Anyone remember that deadly CP?). --BB **************Limited Time Offers: Save big on popular laptops at Dell (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221354145x1201369495/aol?redir=http:%2F %2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215221161%3B37268813%3By) From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 4 20:58:00 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:58:00 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044>, <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com>, <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com> <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E514A@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <39D9381593C7498AA46C114D7EE1F95A@SatU205S5044> WJIB is a US Class D AM on a Canadian Class A channel. There are many such stations, but as a group, they constitute a special class as a result of stations of all classes in North America (I think this applies to FMs as well as AMs) now receiving protection within their normally protected contours only over land that lies within their national borders. The reason these US Class Ds can now operate at night, albeit in most cases with very low power, whereas they previously had to sign off at local sunset, is that Class A AMs used to receive protection within their 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave contours even when those contours extended into areas outside the Class As' national borders. The Toronto Class A (CFZM? ex-CBL) delivers a 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave signal hundreds of miles to the southwest of Boston. That's the contour that would receive protection of it were in Canada. As it is, the contour covers many thousands of square miles of US land where it no longer has to receive protection. However, WJIB must protect the point of land where this contour intersects the Canada/US border. Thus, WJIB could, indeed, increase its night power quite substantially if Bob wanted to spend millions of dollars to install a sufficiently complex directional antenna--assuming he could find land on which to construct it. In theory, WJIB could run perhaps 50W at night (give or take) if Bob wanted to pay rent to American Tower systems to use its towers at the WWDJ/WAZN site in Lexington. A two-tower array for 740 that protected the Canada/US border could be constructed using the tall (FM) tower and one of the AM towers. That array could limit the signal toward Canada to the equivalent of 5W ND over a substantial arc while delivering the equivalent of perhaps 80W ND over Belmont and parts of Watertown and Cambridge. Since WJIB would still be restricted to using much less than 250W at night, it would remain a Class D, meaning that it would not have to deliver an NIF signal to any of its CoL, Cambridge--and it probably wouldn't do so. But the densly populated area within a mile or so of the WJIB tower that currently receives pretty good signal at night would no longer do so because the transmitter would have moved further away. And it would be an expensive project. The FM tower would have to be skirted; it is a grounded-base tower, so a so-called Folded Unipole AM antenna would have to be installed on it and a ground system would have to be installed around the tower base. The expense and the problems don't stop there, though. Two stations, WWDJ and WAZN, already use the site, so the filtering problems would be quite complex. And the site is only a couple of miles from 50-kW WWZN. Filtering that enormous signal would be a huge headache. And remember, the second harmonic of 740 is 1480, only 10 kHz from WAZN. I hope that anyone who thinks this project might be practical knows how to pronounce engineering nightmare. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sid Schweiger" To: Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:34 PM Subject: RE: 750 CP's >>it sounds like this applies to every station indiscriminately. Apparently WJIB, with its 5-watt nighttime signal, can't make any transmitter upgrades without degrading its night signal. Nor can WBZ, with its 50,000 watts clear-channel. Does this really make sense?<< WJIB would certainly be able to show the Friendly Cookie Company that ratcheting back its nighttime signal would have close to zero effect on any other co- or adjacent-channel signal. I can't say if a waiver of the ratcheting policy has ever been granted, but that doesn't mean they couldn't try. Waivers are granted at the FCC for all kinds of reasons. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From scott@fybush.com Thu Jun 4 21:44:49 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:44:49 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA In-Reply-To: <20090604210653.58EF783985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090604210653.58EF783985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <4A287891.7090205@fybush.com> How about "Across the Dial." I have two copies in my collection, from 1978 and 1979, both containing a "bonus feature" at the end called "Around the Channels" listing TV stations. Just bare-bones listings - calls, freq, format. s Bob Nelson wrote: > Not sure but it may have been called "Around the Dial" with a section for TV stations to be listed, > Around the Channels > Maybe about 5 inches wide, 10 inches tall... > > > From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 4 21:57:14 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:57:14 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044>, <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com>, <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E514A@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <39D9381593C7498AA46C114D7EE1F95A@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: Hi Dan- The old Class 1-A clears were originally protected by virtue of having no other stations operating at night on their frequencies. I believe that was the NARBA language, but it was definitely in the FCC rules way back when. Once we abrogated NARBA, the standard treaty obligations protecting service only on home soil came into play. And yes, the FM rules are the same. I do a lot of work in the border areas, sometimes with near-miraculous results. -Dave Doherty Skywaves Consulting LLC PO Box 4 Millbury, MA 01527 401-354-2400 202-370-6357 (DC) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Sid Schweiger" ; Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:58 PM Subject: Re: 750 CP's > > WJIB is a US Class D AM on a Canadian Class A channel. There are many > such stations, but as a group, they constitute a special class as a > result of stations of all classes in North America (I think this > applies to FMs as well as AMs) now receiving protection within their > normally protected contours only over land that lies within their > national borders. The reason these US Class Ds can now operate at > night, albeit in most cases with very low power, whereas they > previously had to sign off at local sunset, is that Class A AMs used > to receive protection within their 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave contours even > when those contours extended into areas outside the Class As' national > borders. > > The Toronto Class A (CFZM? ex-CBL) delivers a 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave > signal hundreds of miles to the southwest of Boston. That's the > contour that would receive protection of it were in Canada. As it is, > the contour covers many thousands of square miles of US land where it > no longer has to receive protection. However, WJIB must protect the > point of land where this contour intersects the Canada/US border. > Thus, WJIB could, indeed, increase its night power quite substantially > if Bob wanted to spend millions of dollars to install a sufficiently > complex directional antenna--assuming he could find land on which to > construct it. > > In theory, WJIB could run perhaps 50W at night (give or take) if Bob > wanted to pay rent to American Tower systems to use its towers at the > WWDJ/WAZN site in Lexington. A two-tower array for 740 that protected > the Canada/US border could be constructed using the tall (FM) tower > and one of the AM towers. That array could limit the signal toward > Canada to the equivalent of 5W ND over a substantial arc while > delivering the equivalent of perhaps 80W ND over Belmont and parts of > Watertown and Cambridge. Since WJIB would still be restricted to using > much less than 250W at night, it would remain a Class D, meaning that > it would not have to deliver an NIF signal to any of its CoL, > Cambridge--and it probably wouldn't do so. But the densly populated > area within a mile or so of the WJIB tower that currently receives > pretty good signal at night would no longer do so because the > transmitter would have moved further away. > > And it would be an expensive project. The FM tower would have to be > skirted; it is a grounded-base tower, so a so-called Folded Unipole AM > antenna would have to be installed on it and a ground system would > have to be installed around the tower base. The expense and the > problems don't stop there, though. Two stations, WWDJ and WAZN, > already use the site, so the filtering problems would be quite > complex. And the site is only a couple of miles from 50-kW WWZN. > Filtering that enormous signal would be a huge headache. And remember, > the second harmonic of 740 is 1480, only 10 kHz from WAZN. I hope > that anyone who thinks this project might be practical knows how to > pronounce engineering nightmare. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sid Schweiger" > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:34 PM > Subject: RE: 750 CP's > > >>>it sounds like this applies to every station > indiscriminately. Apparently WJIB, with its 5-watt nighttime signal, > can't make any transmitter upgrades without degrading its night > signal. Nor can WBZ, with its 50,000 watts clear-channel. Does this > really make sense?<< > > WJIB would certainly be able to show the Friendly Cookie Company that > ratcheting back its nighttime signal would have close to zero effect > on any other co- or adjacent-channel signal. I can't say if a waiver > of the ratcheting policy has ever been granted, but that doesn't mean > they couldn't try. Waivers are granted at the FCC for all kinds of > reasons. > > Sid Schweiger > IT Manager, Entercom New England > 20 Guest St / 3d Floor > Brighton MA 02135-2040 > > From wollman@bimajority.org Fri Jun 5 00:25:00 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:25:00 -0400 Subject: NARBA In-Reply-To: References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044> <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com> <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com> <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E514A@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <39D9381593C7498AA46C114D7EE1F95A@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <18984.40476.902172.12269@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Once we abrogated NARBA, Correction: NARBA wasn't abrogated (at least not by the United States), it was superseded by later agreements among the parties. The /Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements/, 2003 edition, says: North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement, signed on 13 December 1937 in Havana, and ratified by Bahamas, Canada, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and the United States. It went into force on 29 March 1940 but was revised in 1946 and then replaced by another North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement, which was signed on 15 November 1950 in Washington, DC. They don't mention the Rio agreement. /United States Treaties in Force/ does mention Rio, and does not mention NARBA, although not all of the NARBA signatories have signed on to Rio (official title, "Regional agreement for the medium frequency broadcasting service in Region 2, with annexes and final protocol"). The parties to the Rio agreement are Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Suriname, and the U.S. There are additionally bilateral protocols for frequency coordination between the U.S. and both Canada and Mexico. The Bahamas is said to be one country for which the NARBA is still in force (even though the State Department doesn't appear to agree), as they did not sign up to any successor agreement. (There is a later bilateral agreement with the Bahamas specifically on PSRAs.) The Canadian agreement for AM dates to 1984; the TV agreement is from 1994, and the FM agreement is from 1947. (I believe that there is a more recent "working arrangement" for FM which does not have the legal status under international law of a treaty.) -GAWollman From raccoonradio@mail.com Fri Jun 5 03:09:42 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 02:09:42 -0500 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA Message-ID: <20090605070942.4EFE183985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Thanks--That would be the proper title, now that you mention it! ("Around The Dial" was a Kinks song about a favorite DJ who suddenly wasn't on the air anymore...) Your description nails it. That was it! The copy I had, long gone, may have been from the early 80s. I used to read Broadcasting and Cable at the Salem State library while a student (1980-84) and saw the ad for it there, then sent away for it. >>How about "Across the Dial." I have two copies in my collection, from 1978 and 1979, both containing a "bonus feature" at the end called "Around the Channels" listing TV stations. Just bare-bones listings - calls, freq, format. From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 5 06:24:44 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 06:24:44 -0400 Subject: 750 CP's References: <2184B0C3BD604E9EB8ADCA97A09D5396@SatU205S5044>, <4A2724B5.4632.632705@joe.attorneyross.com>, <18983.24460.829207.767994@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4A27D4D9.3897.4A1FA5@Joe.attorneyross.com><09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846805E514A@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <39D9381593C7498AA46C114D7EE1F95A@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <3074FEE6D13740AFAEDA9FA25E1D107D@SatU205S5044> That was true of the old US IA's (except for WJZ/WABC, which was a special case because of KOB's uncertain status). But it was not true of Mexicans or Canadians. Full-time stations were allowed in Canada on Mexican IA channels but full-time US stations weren't. Canada's situation was even more complex. On Canadian IA channels, full-time US stations were allowed if they were sited at least 650 miles from the nearest point of land in Canada. On 740, this rule allowed some powerful US full-timers including KCBS, KTRH, KRMG, and a 50-kW in Florida (Orlando area, I believe), whose calls I can't remember. However, the prohibition against full-time US stations (besides KOB) on US IA channels was gradually eroded. When 540 became a Mexican/Canadian IA channel, KFMB, which was in the throes of moving from 550 to 540, was suddenly displaced. The FCC moved it to 760 with 5 kW-U DA-N. Then (in the 60s, I believe) the FCC opened up approximately half of the IA channels to Class IIA stations, a new AM class that was intended to provide nighttime skywave service to underserved areas, mostly west of the Mississippi. Those stations' skywave coverage was, admittedly, compromised by the skywaves of the co-channel IAs. The status of the remaining 13 or so IA channels was held in abayance while the FCC and the industry continued the seemingly endless debate over superpower, which would have allowed half of the IAs to operate at 750 kW-U. WBZ wanted to construct a new transmitter site in Provincetown with 500 kW DA-1. And broadcasting legend George Storer then entered the picture. He owned KGBS in Los Angeles (now KTNQ) on 1020, which had to sign off at local sunset to protect KDKA. A Class IIA was assigned to 1020 in New Mexico and he struck a deal with the owners of that station (and the FCC approved) to pay for the NM station's upgrade to 50 kW-U provided that the NM station protected the new 50-kW nighttime service of KGBS. His claim was that the coverage area of the NM station (KSWS, I think) completely "shadowed" the coverage area he proposed for KGBS, which thus would not cause any additional interference to KDKA. That deal became a precedent for other limited-time West Coast stations on US IA channels to become full timers with substantial night power. KGBS was soon joined by KFAX (50 kW-N) and KXL (20 kW-N). ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; "Sid Schweiger" ; Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:57 PM Subject: Re: 750 CP's > Hi Dan- > > The old Class 1-A clears were originally protected by virtue of > having no other stations operating at night on their frequencies. I > believe that was the NARBA language, but it was definitely in the > FCC rules way back when. Once we abrogated NARBA, the standard > treaty obligations protecting service only on home soil came into > play. > > And yes, the FM rules are the same. I do a lot of work in the border > areas, sometimes with near-miraculous results. > > -Dave Doherty > Skywaves Consulting LLC > PO Box 4 > Millbury, MA 01527 > 401-354-2400 > 202-370-6357 (DC) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "Sid Schweiger" ; > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:58 PM > Subject: Re: 750 CP's > > >> >> WJIB is a US Class D AM on a Canadian Class A channel. There are >> many >> such stations, but as a group, they constitute a special class as a >> result of stations of all classes in North America (I think this >> applies to FMs as well as AMs) now receiving protection within >> their >> normally protected contours only over land that lies within their >> national borders. The reason these US Class Ds can now operate at >> night, albeit in most cases with very low power, whereas they >> previously had to sign off at local sunset, is that Class A AMs >> used >> to receive protection within their 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave contours >> even >> when those contours extended into areas outside the Class As' >> national >> borders. >> >> The Toronto Class A (CFZM? ex-CBL) delivers a 0.5 mV/m 50% skywave >> signal hundreds of miles to the southwest of Boston. That's the >> contour that would receive protection of it were in Canada. As it >> is, >> the contour covers many thousands of square miles of US land where >> it >> no longer has to receive protection. However, WJIB must protect the >> point of land where this contour intersects the Canada/US border. >> Thus, WJIB could, indeed, increase its night power quite >> substantially >> if Bob wanted to spend millions of dollars to install a >> sufficiently >> complex directional antenna--assuming he could find land on which >> to >> construct it. >> >> In theory, WJIB could run perhaps 50W at night (give or take) if >> Bob >> wanted to pay rent to American Tower systems to use its towers at >> the >> WWDJ/WAZN site in Lexington. A two-tower array for 740 that >> protected >> the Canada/US border could be constructed using the tall (FM) tower >> and one of the AM towers. That array could limit the signal toward >> Canada to the equivalent of 5W ND over a substantial arc while >> delivering the equivalent of perhaps 80W ND over Belmont and parts >> of >> Watertown and Cambridge. Since WJIB would still be restricted to >> using >> much less than 250W at night, it would remain a Class D, meaning >> that >> it would not have to deliver an NIF signal to any of its CoL, >> Cambridge--and it probably wouldn't do so. But the densly populated >> area within a mile or so of the WJIB tower that currently receives >> pretty good signal at night would no longer do so because the >> transmitter would have moved further away. >> >> And it would be an expensive project. The FM tower would have to be >> skirted; it is a grounded-base tower, so a so-called Folded Unipole >> AM >> antenna would have to be installed on it and a ground system would >> have to be installed around the tower base. The expense and the >> problems don't stop there, though. Two stations, WWDJ and WAZN, >> already use the site, so the filtering problems would be quite >> complex. And the site is only a couple of miles from 50-kW WWZN. >> Filtering that enormous signal would be a huge headache. And >> remember, >> the second harmonic of 740 is 1480, only 10 kHz from WAZN. I hope >> that anyone who thinks this project might be practical knows how to >> pronounce engineering nightmare. >> >> ----- >> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sid Schweiger" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:34 PM >> Subject: RE: 750 CP's >> >> >>>>it sounds like this applies to every station >> indiscriminately. Apparently WJIB, with its 5-watt nighttime >> signal, >> can't make any transmitter upgrades without degrading its night >> signal. Nor can WBZ, with its 50,000 watts clear-channel. Does >> this >> really make sense?<< >> >> WJIB would certainly be able to show the Friendly Cookie Company >> that >> ratcheting back its nighttime signal would have close to zero >> effect >> on any other co- or adjacent-channel signal. I can't say if a >> waiver >> of the ratcheting policy has ever been granted, but that doesn't >> mean >> they couldn't try. Waivers are granted at the FCC for all kinds of >> reasons. >> >> Sid Schweiger >> IT Manager, Entercom New England >> 20 Guest St / 3d Floor >> Brighton MA 02135-2040 >> >> > From m_carney@yahoo.com Fri Jun 5 23:44:40 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WLNE Programming Change Message-ID: <678571.92023.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> WLNE (ABC 6, Providence) announced that they have suspended their programming agreement with King World. As of Monday this means "Dr. Phil", "Entertainment Tonight" and "Inside Edition" will no longer be seen on the station. The 5p hour (where "Dr. Phil" was) will be replaced with judge shows. At 7p will be another edition of ABC 6 News, followed by "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire". The track record for 7p newscasts seems to be rather dismal - is this truly a better option than another syndicated show? Here's the announcement on the ABC 6 website: http://www.abc6.com/news/featurestory/47045507.html From dlh@donnahalper.com Sat Jun 6 15:27:03 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:27:03 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA In-Reply-To: <005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> References: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <20090606192737.BA5C91D9EB4@relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 04:12 PM 6/4/2009, Larry Weil wrote: >- >The book you may be thinking of was by Vane Jones. Since Jones stopped >updating the book, and later died, I have yet to find anything as good to >replace it. I agree. I am looking at the 15th edition of Vane Jones' North American Radio-TV Station Guide (I have about 5 of them from various years). This is from 1984. It doesn't list anything in Clinton or Lancaster, although it does list a potential new station in Leicester at 760 on the AM dial-- a daytimer. From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 6 17:00:34 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:00:34 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA References: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com><005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> <20090606192737.BA5C91D9EB4@relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Halper" To: "Larry Weil" ; Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:27 PM Subject: RE: WBSO Lancaster, MA > This is from 1984. It doesn't list anything in Clinton or > Lancaster, although it does list a potential new station in > Leicester at 760 on the AM dial-- a daytimer. And today that station is... WVNE. Hasn't it been owned by Blount Masscom since its inception? And hasn't it had the WVNE calls since its inception? But IIRC its original power (non-CH days) was less than the current 25 kW. But I'm a little puzzled by the statement that WVNE had not yet signed on in 1984, though. I thought the station was a few years older than that. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 From billings@suscom-maine.net Sat Jun 6 20:32:33 2009 From: billings@suscom-maine.net (Dan Billings) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 20:32:33 -0400 Subject: Radio Station Sponsored event too popular Message-ID: <9799C8EDE2B0431BBA3C28F0372D8C17@DanBillingsPC> Tonight's 6 PM news on WGME featured a story about an event called "The Ultimate Yard Sale" sponsored by Nassau Broadcasting drawing such a large crowd that it caused traffic problems and had to be shut down early: http://www.wgme.com/News/story_detail/story_detail_1.shtml?readmore From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 7 09:21:22 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:21:22 -0400 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA In-Reply-To: References: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com><005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> <20090606192737.BA5C91D9EB4@relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <4A2BBED2.5090204@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > And today that station is... WVNE. Hasn't it been owned by Blount > Masscom since its inception? And hasn't it had the WVNE calls since > its inception? But IIRC its original power (non-CH days) was less than > the current 25 kW. But I'm a little puzzled by the statement that WVNE > had not yet signed on in 1984, though. I thought the station was a few > years older than that. The CP was granted 11/7/83, and the calls were granted in 1984, but the station didn't get its license to cover until 7/29/91, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't on the air very much before that. I know it hadn't yet signed on when I came to Boston in 1990. s From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Sun Jun 7 11:52:32 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:52:32 -0600 Subject: WBSO Lancaster, MA In-Reply-To: <4A2BBED2.5090204@fybush.com> References: <20090604185458.4CA4383986@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <005301c9e550$cb8b05c0$c7151bac@whdh.com> <20090606192737.BA5C91D9EB4@relay7.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <4A2BBED2.5090204@fybush.com> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906070852u2f0ecff7ua44c52b0d802fca3@mail.gmail.com> Scott, You and I both know someone from another email list who worked for Blount for quite a few years and probably has some definite answers. I'll email him tonight and see what he says. Paul Walker On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Scott Fybush wrote: > Dan.Strassberg wrote: > > And today that station is... WVNE. Hasn't it been owned by Blount >> Masscom since its inception? And hasn't it had the WVNE calls since >> its inception? But IIRC its original power (non-CH days) was less than >> the current 25 kW. But I'm a little puzzled by the statement that WVNE >> had not yet signed on in 1984, though. I thought the station was a few >> years older than that. >> > > The CP was granted 11/7/83, and the calls were granted in 1984, but the > station didn't get its license to cover until 7/29/91, and I'm pretty sure > it wasn't on the air very much before that. I know it hadn't yet signed on > when I came to Boston in 1990. > > s From chris2526@comcast.net Mon Jun 8 02:59:39 2009 From: chris2526@comcast.net (chris2526) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 02:59:39 -0400 Subject: 750 Message-ID: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> While there is no actual AM ground system associated with the tall FM tower (WCOP-FM 100.7) in Lexington there is a base insulator at the bottom and insulators just above the midway point to break up the re radiation at 1150 Khz. There are also detuning units at the base and another at the mid point. The detuning units were tied into the ground system of the three 1938 self supporters when erecting the tall tower for WCOP-FM and what they were hoping to be WCOP-TV Channel 5 in 1948. I know this for a fact as I was CE for the AM and FM twice and the AM several more times down the road. Chris Hall From dan.strassberg@att.net Mon Jun 8 07:33:40 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:33:40 -0400 Subject: 750 References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> Message-ID: <434E3E4604DF45A4B536E532A805B11E@SatU205S5044> Well, at some point within, I'd say, the last 20 years, the FM tower was found to be distorting the AM patterns (at least the night pattern) beyond their licensed parameters. I believe that, after considerable effort to bring the patterns within spec, whoever was doing the engineering at that time threw up his hands and applied for a bunch of new augmentations, which were granted. Then later, probably when Greater Media was getting ready to sell the AM, they brought in the big guns from Corporate Engineering, who spent a bundle and really did a lot of excellent work, and the problem--or at least the bulk of the problem--was fixed. However, that was not the end of the story. More work was necessary when 1470 moved in. And 1470's problems with the site didn't end with 1150 or the tall tower. There is a wicked problem, which seems to come and go, of 1510's audio appearing (or seeming to appear) mixed with 1470's audio. I know that 1470 has several times reverted to operating ND at low power while engineers worked on the problems. The 1510 problem MAY be a problem with my radios and not with the station, but it has gotten so bad sometimes that 1470 has become unlistenable. I live just about a mile northeast of the site, in Arlington, near the Lexington line. As for a base insulator under the FM tower, I looked for one--even think I once brought a pair of binoculars to the site--and couldn't see anything. Of course, I was right outside what once was the Tx building--now mostly leased out as office space. That's probably about 500' from the FM tower. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "chris2526" To: Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 2:59 AM Subject: 750 > While there is no actual AM ground system associated with the tall > FM tower (WCOP-FM 100.7) in Lexington there is a base insulator at > the > bottom and insulators just above the midway point to break up > the re radiation at 1150 Khz. There are also detuning units at the > base > and another at the mid point. The detuning units were tied into the > ground system of the three 1938 self supporters when erecting the > tall tower for WCOP-FM and what they were hoping to be WCOP-TV > Channel 5 in 1948. I know this for a fact as I was CE for the AM > and FM twice and the AM several more times down the road. > > Chris Hall From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 9 01:26:38 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:26:38 -0400 Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> Message-ID: <4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com> On 8 Jun 2009 at 2:59, chris2526 wrote: > While there is no actual AM ground system associated with the tall FM > tower (WCOP-FM 100.7) in Lexington there is a base insulator at the > bottom and insulators just above the midway point to break up the re > radiation at 1150 Khz. There are also detuning units at the base and > another at the mid point. The detuning units were tied into the ground > system of the three 1938 self supporters when erecting the tall tower > for WCOP-FM and what they were hoping to be WCOP-TV Channel 5 in 1948. > I know this for a fact as I was CE for the AM and FM twice and the AM > several more times down the road. WCOP-TV? Now that might have been interesting. So why didn't they get it? I would think that if they'd filed early enough, they'd have been able to get in ahead of the freeze, as WBZ and WNAC did. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From kvahey@comcast.net Tue Jun 9 01:48:05 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 00:48:05 -0500 Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: <4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> <4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com> I thought channel 5 was allocated to Worcester and should have been WTAG-TV but the Telegram got cold feet On 6/9/09, A. Joseph Ross wrote: > On 8 Jun 2009 at 2:59, chris2526 wrote: > >> While there is no actual AM ground system associated with the tall FM >> tower (WCOP-FM 100.7) in Lexington there is a base insulator at the >> bottom and insulators just above the midway point to break up the re >> radiation at 1150 Khz. There are also detuning units at the base and >> another at the mid point. The detuning units were tied into the ground >> system of the three 1938 self supporters when erecting the tall tower >> for WCOP-FM and what they were hoping to be WCOP-TV Channel 5 in 1948. >> I know this for a fact as I was CE for the AM and FM twice and the AM >> several more times down the road. > > WCOP-TV? Now that might have been interesting. So why didn't they > get it? I would think that if they'd filed early enough, they'd have > been able to get in ahead of the freeze, as WBZ and WNAC did. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > > From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 9 06:19:29 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com> References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> <4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com> <4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694231.5130.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Originally WHDH applied for channel 13. Before the freeze the Boston metro area had 2-4-7-9-13 allocated, with 2 set for Lexington and not Boston. The Boston Post was interested in a license as well. The interest in 5 went up when WTAG passed - combine that with 2 ultimately being assigned to educational TV and 9 & 13 to other markets, almost all interested parties thought they could get 5 moved into Boston anyway. From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Jun 9 07:01:50 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:01:50 -0400 Subject: 750 References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159><4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com><4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com> <694231.5130.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6E4C01C952D642A1918EBEE3CEF2A5E0@SatU205S5044> How likely is it that the eventual construction of Channel 5 in Newton resulted from the applicant's impression that, by locating closer to Worcester than any other Boston TV, they could get points with the FCC for serving Worcester, whose sole VHF assignment was to be moved away from it to the larger city 40 miles to the east? CBS was the first applicant for Channel 5 in Boston to propose the Newton/Needham location. CBS's idea to build a transmitter for WEEI-TV on a tall tower along Route 128 west of Boston was the first of many such applications from the several competing applicants. IIRC, once CBS broke the ice, most, if not all, of the other Channel 5 applicants quickly refiled showing locations close by the one CBS had proposed. I think it was that flurry of applications that ended George Storer's plan to move Channel 9 from Manchester to a tall tower in Georgetown MA on the North Shore. There were only three TV networks in those days, and once it became clear that all three would have VHF affiliates licensed to Boston, it was obvious that if Channel 9 became a Boston move-in, it would do so as an intependent station. Except maybe in the three largest markets (and maybe not even there), independent TV stations had a long row to hoe before anyone would believe they could make money. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Carney" To: "Kevin Vahey" ; "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:19 AM Subject: Re: 750 > Originally WHDH applied for channel 13. Before the freeze the Boston > metro area had 2-4-7-9-13 allocated, with 2 set for Lexington and > not Boston. The Boston Post was interested in a license as well. The > interest in 5 went up when WTAG passed - combine that with 2 > ultimately being assigned to educational TV and 9 & 13 to other > markets, almost all interested parties thought they could get 5 > moved into Boston anyway. > > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 9 08:55:03 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:55:03 -0400 Subject: 750 References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159><4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com><4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com><694231.5130.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <6E4C01C952D642A1918EBEE3CEF2A5E0@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: I'm curious about something. I know there was endless haggling over the Channel 5 assignment, but why did it take nine years to get resolved? (And even then it really wasn't, as the demise of WHDH-TV attests.) I'd also like to know --- even though it's not directly relevant to this Board --- what it was that caused the collapse of The Boston Post. I was about six when it became defunct; I can remember reading the comics in the Sunday edition. In a day when newspapers were [relatively] thriving, how could New England's largest-circulation newspaper in 1948 be a memory ten years later? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Maureen Carney" ; "Kevin Vahey" ; "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:01 AM Subject: Re: 750 > How likely is it that the eventual construction of Channel 5 in Newton > resulted from the applicant's impression that, by locating closer to > Worcester than any other Boston TV, they could get points with the FCC > for serving Worcester, whose sole VHF assignment was to be moved away > from it to the larger city 40 miles to the east? CBS was the first > applicant for Channel 5 in Boston to propose the Newton/Needham > location. CBS's idea to build a transmitter for WEEI-TV on a tall > tower along Route 128 west of Boston was the first of many such > applications from the several competing applicants. IIRC, once CBS > broke the ice, most, if not all, of the other Channel 5 applicants > quickly refiled showing locations close by the one CBS had proposed. > > I think it was that flurry of applications that ended George Storer's > plan to move Channel 9 from Manchester to a tall tower in Georgetown > MA on the North Shore. There were only three TV networks in those > days, and once it became clear that all three would have VHF > affiliates licensed to Boston, it was obvious that if Channel 9 became > a Boston move-in, it would do so as an intependent station. Except > maybe in the three largest markets (and maybe not even there), > independent TV stations had a long row to hoe before anyone would > believe they could make money. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maureen Carney" > To: "Kevin Vahey" ; "Boston Radio Group" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:19 AM > Subject: Re: 750 > > >> Originally WHDH applied for channel 13. Before the freeze the Boston >> metro area had 2-4-7-9-13 allocated, with 2 set for Lexington and >> not Boston. The Boston Post was interested in a license as well. The >> interest in 5 went up when WTAG passed - combine that with 2 >> ultimately being assigned to educational TV and 9 & 13 to other >> markets, almost all interested parties thought they could get 5 >> moved into Boston anyway. >> >> >> > From marklaurence@mac.com Tue Jun 9 09:27:24 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:27:24 -0400 Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> <4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com> <4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com> <694231.5130.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <6E4C01C952D642A1918EBEE3CEF2A5E0@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <80A9C304-FD61-4567-ACCD-0722A7198CA7@mac.com> On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > I'd also like to know --- even though it's not directly relevant to > this Board --- what it was that caused the collapse of The Boston > Post. I was about six when it became defunct; I can remember > reading the comics in the Sunday edition. In a day when newspapers > were [relatively] thriving, how could New England's largest- > circulation newspaper in 1948 be a memory ten years later? The rise of TV news was harsh on evening newspapers, and so was the shift from public transportation to commuting by car to more suburban locations. At the same time fewer people were taking the train home, traffic was making it more difficult to get the evening paper delivered on time. Evening papers collapsed earlier in large cities than you might think. Boston had the American, the Post, the Traveler, and the Evening Globe, but by the mid 60's only the Evening Globe existed as a separate paper. The Post was most vulnerable because it had no sister morning paper to help it survive. From kvahey@comcast.net Tue Jun 9 10:18:41 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:18:41 -0500 Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159> <4A2DBA4E.9107.7F0511@joe.attorneyross.com> <4fc429770906082248r35550676w4456b2bdd5689093@mail.gmail.com> <694231.5130.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <6E4C01C952D642A1918EBEE3CEF2A5E0@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4fc429770906090718m63260ae2h9a998b7be76fb78f@mail.gmail.com> The demise of the Post is documented here...and what the Time article fails to mention is how Fox got on the wrong side of Cardinal Cushing which was fatal in 1950's Boston http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863542,00.html On 6/9/09, Doug Drown wrote: > I'm curious about something. I know there was endless haggling over the > Channel 5 assignment, but why did it take nine years to get resolved? (And > even then it really wasn't, as the demise of WHDH-TV attests.) > > I'd also like to know --- even though it's not directly relevant to this > Board --- what it was that caused the collapse of The Boston Post. I was > about six when it became defunct; I can remember reading the comics in the > Sunday edition. In a day when newspapers were [relatively] thriving, how > could New England's largest-circulation newspaper in 1948 be a memory ten > years later? > > -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "Maureen Carney" ; "Kevin Vahey" > ; "Boston Radio Group" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:01 AM > Subject: Re: 750 > > >> How likely is it that the eventual construction of Channel 5 in Newton >> resulted from the applicant's impression that, by locating closer to >> Worcester than any other Boston TV, they could get points with the FCC >> for serving Worcester, whose sole VHF assignment was to be moved away >> from it to the larger city 40 miles to the east? CBS was the first >> applicant for Channel 5 in Boston to propose the Newton/Needham >> location. CBS's idea to build a transmitter for WEEI-TV on a tall >> tower along Route 128 west of Boston was the first of many such >> applications from the several competing applicants. IIRC, once CBS >> broke the ice, most, if not all, of the other Channel 5 applicants >> quickly refiled showing locations close by the one CBS had proposed. >> >> I think it was that flurry of applications that ended George Storer's >> plan to move Channel 9 from Manchester to a tall tower in Georgetown >> MA on the North Shore. There were only three TV networks in those >> days, and once it became clear that all three would have VHF >> affiliates licensed to Boston, it was obvious that if Channel 9 became >> a Boston move-in, it would do so as an intependent station. Except >> maybe in the three largest markets (and maybe not even there), >> independent TV stations had a long row to hoe before anyone would >> believe they could make money. >> >> ----- >> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Maureen Carney" >> To: "Kevin Vahey" ; "Boston Radio Group" >> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:19 AM >> Subject: Re: 750 >> >> >>> Originally WHDH applied for channel 13. Before the freeze the Boston >>> metro area had 2-4-7-9-13 allocated, with 2 set for Lexington and >>> not Boston. The Boston Post was interested in a license as well. The >>> interest in 5 went up when WTAG passed - combine that with 2 >>> ultimately being assigned to educational TV and 9 & 13 to other >>> markets, almost all interested parties thought they could get 5 >>> moved into Boston anyway. >>> >>> >>> >> > > From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 9 22:55:30 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary Message-ID: <259471.12829.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Today is the 61st anniversary of WBZ 4's debut. I remember back 25-30 years ago they made a big deal about it, with a special and congratulatory messages from NBC personalities. (I remember one with David Letterman - that tells you how long ago it was!) Why would they want to remember the old days with Group W and NBC, not to mention all the on-air personalities they let go in the last few years? I know that WHDH won't have anything next week - they never did anything even when they were WNAC and were owned by RKO General. From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 10 00:47:39 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:47:39 -0400 Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary In-Reply-To: <259471.12829.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <259471.12829.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090610044822.30F161B4005@relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 10:55 PM 6/9/2009, Maureen Carney wrote: >Today is the 61st anniversary of WBZ 4's debut. I remember back >25-30 years ago they made a big deal about it, with a special and >congratulatory messages from NBC personalities. (I remember one with >David Letterman - that tells you how long ago it was!) Why would >they want to remember the old days with Group W and NBC, not to >mention all the on-air personalities they let go in the last few years? Don't get me started. I've offered for years to write their history-- I even compiled a very thorough timeline, but there was never much interest, sad to say. I guess the CBS management doesn't see the value in remembering one's history. From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 10 01:15:55 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:15:55 -0400 Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906090718m63260ae2h9a998b7be76fb78f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159>, , <4fc429770906090718m63260ae2h9a998b7be76fb78f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A2F094B.21301.B86AE4@joe.attorneyross.com> On 9 Jun 2009 at 9:18, Kevin Vahey wrote: > The demise of the Post is documented here...and what the Time article > fails to mention is how Fox got on the wrong side of Cardinal Cushing > which was fatal in 1950's Boston > > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863542,00.html Well, I guess that's the story. I never knew what happened. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 10 01:15:56 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:15:56 -0400 Subject: 750 In-Reply-To: <80A9C304-FD61-4567-ACCD-0722A7198CA7@mac.com> References: <7AE474C504E1496A9D6A5E2DDE4301F0@Chicken159>, , <80A9C304-FD61-4567-ACCD-0722A7198CA7@mac.com> Message-ID: <4A2F094C.708.B86E0F@joe.attorneyross.com> On 9 Jun 2009 at 9:27, Mark Laurence wrote: > The rise of TV news was harsh on evening newspapers, and so was the > shift from public transportation to commuting by car to more suburban > locations. At the same time fewer people were taking the train home, > traffic was making it more difficult to get the evening paper > delivered on time. This is all true, except that the Post -- which I remember well -- was a morning paper. It was known at one time as New England's Breakfast Table Newspaper. Back in those days it apparently was not uncommon for people to read more than one paper. I don't know how they had time, but apparently they did. My parents used to get the morning Post and evening Traveler, and both the Post and the Globe on Sunday. At one point my mother decided she didn't like the Post any more. She said it had changed from a Democratic paper to a Republican paper. I didn't understand what she meant. She switched to the daily and Sunday Herald and the evening Christian Science Monitor. I missed some of the comics in the Traveler, particularly Alley Oop. Then my father, who worked in Quincy, started bringing home the Patriot Ledger, which I liked because it had Alley Oop. I guess I still saw the Sunday Post comics because my grandparents got both that and the Sunday Advertiser. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Wed Jun 10 01:24:18 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:24:18 -0400 Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary In-Reply-To: <20090610044822.30F161B4005@relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> References: <259471.12829.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20090610044822.30F161B4005@relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <18991.17282.581599.898499@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Don't get me started. I've offered for years to write their > history-- I even compiled a very thorough timeline, but there was > never much interest, sad to say. I guess the CBS management doesn't > see the value in remembering one's history. I doubt the current CBS management thinks about history at all. (Among many other things that also don't increase advertising sales.) On the other hand, sometimes they do spend money for reasons that seem hard to explain. Earlier today (actually yesterday now) I got a tour of the new WBBM-TV studios in Chicago, and that facility looks like a palace, especially considering that they're doing well on those nights when they come in third. (Another engineer with us noted that market-leading WLS-TV can get ratings just by turning the carrier on.) -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 10 01:24:27 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:24:27 -0400 Subject: 750 Message-ID: <4A2F0B4B.15413.C03AEA@joe.attorneyross.com> On 9 Jun 2009 at 3:19, Maureen Carney wrote: > Originally WHDH applied for channel 13. Before the freeze the Boston > metro area had 2-4-7-9-13 allocated, with 2 set for Lexington and > not Boston. The Boston Post was interested in a license as well. The > interest in 5 went up when WTAG passed - combine that with 2 > ultimately being assigned to educational TV and 9 & 13 to other > markets, almost all interested parties thought they could get 5 > moved into Boston anyway. What I don't understand is why WBZ and WNAC managed to get on the air before the freeze, but the various applicants for channel 5 didn't. Did that have to do with the fact that channel 5 was originally allcoated to Worcester? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 10 01:24:27 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:24:27 -0400 Subject: (Fwd) Re: 750 Message-ID: <4A2F0B4B.12277.C03C5D@joe.attorneyross.com> On 9 Jun 2009 at 7:01, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > How likely is it that the eventual construction of Channel 5 in > Newton resulted from the applicant's impression that, by locating > closer to Worcester than any other Boston TV, they could get points > with the FCC for serving Worcester, whose sole VHF assignment was to > be moved away from it to the larger city 40 miles to the east? CBS > was the first applicant for Channel 5 in Boston to propose the > Newton/Needham location. CBS's idea to build a transmitter for > WEEI-TV on a tall tower along Route 128 west of Boston was the first > of many such applications from the several competing applicants. > IIRC, once CBS broke the ice, most, if not all, of the other Channel > 5 applicants quickly refiled showing locations close by the one CBS > had proposed. So why did WHDH get the not, and not WCOP or WEEI? > I think it was that flurry of applications that ended George > Storer's plan to move Channel 9 from Manchester to a tall tower in > Georgetown MA on the North Shore. That must have been after the freeze. Before the freeze, channel 9 didn't exist. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 10 01:24:26 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:24:26 -0400 Subject: 750 Message-ID: <4A2F0B4A.1859.C03900@joe.attorneyross.com> On 9 Jun 2009 at 8:55, Doug Drown wrote: > I'm curious about something. I know there was endless haggling over > the Channel 5 assignment, but why did it take nine years to get > resolved? (And even then it really wasn't, as the demise of WHDH-TV > attests.) At least some of it was because of the "six-month" freeze ordered by the FCC on all new station assignments, which stretched into four or five years. > I'd also like to know --- even though it's not directly relevant to > this Board --- what it was that caused the collapse of The Boston > Post. I was about six when it became defunct; I can remember > reading the comics in the Sunday edition. In a day when newspapers > were [relatively] thriving, how could New England's > largest-circulation newspaper in 1948 be a memory ten years later? Some time before that, there was the collapse of the Boston Transcript. And several New York papers had merged -- the World Telegram and Sun, the Herald-Tribune. I remember the Post well. I liked the Post's Sunday comics and was so upset about missing Buck Rogers when we moved to Albany in 1953, that my grandparents saved the Post Sunday comic section, and my aunt sent them to me regularly. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From marklaurence@mac.com Wed Jun 10 01:50:46 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:50:46 -0400 Subject: 750 Message-ID: <0KL000AUYDKBIX20@asmtp012.mac.com> -----Original Message----- From: A. Joseph Ross Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:15 AM To: Mark Laurence Cc: Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: 750 On 9 Jun 2009 at 9:27, Mark Laurence wrote: > The rise of TV news was harsh on evening newspapers, and so was the > shift from public transportation to commuting by car to more suburban > locations. At the same time fewer people were taking the train home, > traffic was making it more difficult to get the evening paper > delivered on time. This is all true, except that the Post -- which I remember well -- was a morning paper. Oh. Heh, I guess that blows that theory. My newspaper reading didn't start until all those evening papers, and the Post, had disappeared, although I do remember the Evening Globe for a few years. I think I have the Boston Post confused with the Worcester Evening Post, which I never read either, but whose masthead survived in small type on the front page of the Evening Gazette for many years after its death. From m_carney@yahoo.com Wed Jun 10 06:05:49 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary In-Reply-To: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Agreed about WLNE - they had enough trouble finding a buyer when Freedom put them up for sale a few years ago. They're now 4th in billing (WJAR, WPRI and WNAC are ahead) and things aren't going to turn around in this economy. They would be better off going the way of WZMY - no news and a lot of paid-for programming, but that's unseemly for a VHF network affiliate. ________________________________ From: Kevin Vahey To: Maureen Carney Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 11:03:31 PM Subject: Re: WBZ-TV Anniversary I would be willing to bet nobody at 1170 even knew (well maybe Jack) I am more concerned that WLNE could pull the plug. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 08:14:18 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:14:18 -0400 Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What would happen to the ABC affiliation? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Carney" To: ; "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 6:05 AM Subject: Re: WBZ-TV Anniversary > Agreed about WLNE - they had enough trouble finding a buyer when Freedom > put them up for sale a few years ago. They're now 4th in billing (WJAR, > WPRI and WNAC are ahead) and things aren't going to turn around in this > economy. They would be better off going the way of WZMY - no news and a > lot of paid-for programming, but that's unseemly for a VHF network > affiliate. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Kevin Vahey > To: Maureen Carney > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 11:03:31 PM > Subject: Re: WBZ-TV Anniversary > > I would be willing to bet nobody at 1170 even knew (well maybe Jack) > > I am more concerned that WLNE could pull the plug. > > > > > From m_carney@yahoo.com Wed Jun 10 08:31:49 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm guessing that ABC requires a newsroom of its affiliates, but can't dictate how much news is scheduled. I remember for years that WLNE did not have moring news - they ran "The Flintstones" at 6AM instead and didn't have local updates during whatever?morning show?CBS was running at the time. (This is going back to the late 70s - they were a CBS affiate from 1977 to 1995.) During the 80s they ran "Guiding Light" at 10AM so they could clear time for the?"Dialing for Dollars" movie from 3-5PM. I'm not sure what would turn them around. An affiation switch (unless it was to MyTV or the CW) isn't in the cards - NBC, CBS or Fox wouldn't want to go to a lower rated station unless forced to. Are they still sharing newscasts with Cox Cable for News Channel 5? That may also a reason that they're not throwing in the towel yet. Contracting out for news won't happen - 64 is LMAed to 12, and 10 is having a hard enough time with their 10 @ 10 news on 10.2.? Given that NECN is being bought by Comcast and WLNE deals with Cox that scenerio seems unlikely. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 10:19:02 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:19:02 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I remember when WLNE (then WTEV) went on the air --- early in 1963, I believe. It was touted as a big event. How the mighty have fallen! "The Flintstones" at 6AM weekdays? A sure portent of what was to come. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: Maureen Carney To: Doug Drown ; Boston Radio Group Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:31 AM Subject: Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) I'm guessing that ABC requires a newsroom of its affiliates, but can't dictate how much news is scheduled. I remember for years that WLNE did not have moring news - they ran "The Flintstones" at 6AM instead and didn't have local updates during whatever morning show CBS was running at the time. (This is going back to the late 70s - they were a CBS affiate from 1977 to 1995.) During the 80s they ran "Guiding Light" at 10AM so they could clear time for the "Dialing for Dollars" movie from 3-5PM. I'm not sure what would turn them around. An affiation switch (unless it was to MyTV or the CW) isn't in the cards - NBC, CBS or Fox wouldn't want to go to a lower rated station unless forced to. Are they still sharing newscasts with Cox Cable for News Channel 5? That may also a reason that they're not throwing in the towel yet. Contracting out for news won't happen - 64 is LMAed to 12, and 10 is having a hard enough time with their 10 @ 10 news on 10.2. Given that NECN is being bought by Comcast and WLNE deals with Cox that scenerio seems unlikely. From brian_vita@cssinc.com Wed Jun 10 10:01:24 2009 From: brian_vita@cssinc.com (Brian Vita) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:01:24 -0400 Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary In-Reply-To: <18991.17282.581599.898499@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <259471.12829.qm@web53305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20090610044822.30F161B4005@relay30.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <18991.17282.581599.898499@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A2FBCB4.6090107@cssinc.com> < said: > >> Don't get me started. I've offered for years to write their >> history-- I even compiled a very thorough timeline, but there was >> never much interest, sad to say. I guess the CBS management doesn't >> see the value in remembering one's history. I think that the bigger problems is that many of the suits are old enough to remember the value of history. From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 10:41:47 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:41:47 -0500 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> WLNE has never recovered from leaving New Bedford for Providence. Could the station go dark? Unlikely but it could happen given how bad things are in Rhode Island now. It is only a matter of time before a major TV station fails and WLNE is a prime contender for that dubious honor. From Kaimbridge@gmail.com Wed Jun 10 12:07:59 2009 From: Kaimbridge@gmail.com (Kaimbridge M. GoldChild) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:07:59 +0000 Subject: [B-R-I] Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) Message-ID: <4A2FDA5F.60407@Gmail.com> Maureen Carney wrote, > Agreed about WLNE. > They would be better off going the way of WZMY - no news > and a lot of paid-for programming, but that's unseemly > for a VHF network affiliate. Er, what VHF affiliate? WLNE-DT is RF Ch.49! P=) ~Kaimbridge~ ----- Wikipedia?Contributor Home Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaimbridge ***** Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer. ***** From m_carney@yahoo.com Wed Jun 10 12:21:28 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [B-R-I] Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <4A2FDA5F.60407@Gmail.com> References: <4A2FDA5F.60407@Gmail.com> Message-ID: <30176.25679.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm thinking in terms of branding - ABC6 still resonates with the general public as a "real" station more than Fox64. That perception will hang around for another generation or so. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 12:42:38 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:42:38 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <447F552AEE9B4592ACBE1E2ED7416D57@DougDrown> Having lived in Maine for the past 32 years, I didn't realize that WLNE had moved to Providence, though I know it touts itself as a Providence station. Isn't New Bedford still the COL? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "Maureen Carney" Cc: "Doug Drown" ; "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:41 AM Subject: Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) > WLNE has never recovered from leaving New Bedford for Providence. > Could the station go dark? Unlikely but it could happen given how bad > things are in Rhode Island now. It is only a matter of time before a > major TV station fails and WLNE is a prime contender for that dubious > honor. > From sid@wrko.com Wed Jun 10 08:59:11 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:59:11 -0600 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Tomorrow is arguably the 100th anniversary of AM radio, being the date in 1909 when KQW (now KCBS) signed on. I don't think I'll hold my breath for any of the AMs in this area to even mention it. From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 13:04:31 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:04:31 -0500 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <447F552AEE9B4592ACBE1E2ED7416D57@DougDrown> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> <447F552AEE9B4592ACBE1E2ED7416D57@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4fc429770906101004x2875823tbda88d9232e8df94@mail.gmail.com> It is now WLNE New Bedford-Providence.Last time I was in New Bedford their old home on County St was a karate studio. One big problem they have had in news is simply how strong WJAR is in that market. If King World pulled their shows off of WLNE because they were not getting paid as has been reported then that station is in big trouble. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 13:48:33 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:48:33 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <16385F19B78842F5A6E15D5C76FDC4FD@DougDrown> WBZ has been mentioning it on its audio stream. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sid Schweiger" To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:59 AM Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Tomorrow is arguably the 100th anniversary of AM radio, being the date in > 1909 when KQW (now KCBS) signed on. I don't think I'll hold my breath for > any of the AMs in this area to even mention it. > From wollman@bimajority.org Wed Jun 10 13:50:30 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:50:30 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18991.62054.803570.934166@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > WLNE has never recovered from leaving New Bedford for Providence. And you think New Bedford is any better? -GAWollman From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 14:05:15 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:05:15 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry><717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com><457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> <18991.62054.803570.934166@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <59974DE4475B43A896D2403C094AEC4D@DougDrown> Just curious --- why do you think Channel 6 was better off being in New Bedford? I can see why the city would benefit (just as I've long thought Worcester deserved a VHF station). -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Kevin Vahey" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:50 PM Subject: Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) > < > said: > >> WLNE has never recovered from leaving New Bedford for Providence. > > And you think New Bedford is any better? > > -GAWollman > From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 14:14:33 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:14:33 -0500 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <18991.62054.803570.934166@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> <18991.62054.803570.934166@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4fc429770906101114p741bc82ak4883a49b627a7733@mail.gmail.com> I think had they focused more on the south coast and the cape they would have a better share.WLNE is very similar to WMTW in not being able to crack the market.WJAR is just too powerful just as WCSH is in Portland. On 6/10/09, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> WLNE has never recovered from leaving New Bedford for Providence. > > And you think New Bedford is any better? > > -GAWollman > > From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 13:13:55 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:13:55 -0500 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906101013q60dbf73x3f173fad44366b68@mail.gmail.com> I suspect KDKA will not mention it either :) On 6/10/09, Sid Schweiger wrote: > Tomorrow is arguably the 100th anniversary of AM radio, being the date in > 1909 when KQW (now KCBS) signed on. I don't think I'll hold my breath for > any of the AMs in this area to even mention it. > From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 14:28:35 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:28:35 -0500 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <59974DE4475B43A896D2403C094AEC4D@DougDrown> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906100741q5baa046ahd0053228d883ab4d@mail.gmail.com> <18991.62054.803570.934166@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <59974DE4475B43A896D2403C094AEC4D@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4fc429770906101128k22d06b7ehb9cd1f754034ce8f@mail.gmail.com> The Providence-New Bedford market is similar to Burlington-Plattsburg as no matter how hard WPTZ tries to cover Vermont the locals consider it a New York outlet. Nobody in New Bedford buys the Providence Journal and if 6 just focused on the Massachusetts side they might be better off.Just cover NB, Fall River, Taunton, Plymouth and the Cape and let 10 and 12 have RI From kc1ih@mac.com Wed Jun 10 15:00:46 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:00:46 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002701c9e9fd$cbe41550$c4141bac@whdh.com> -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Carney Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:32 AM To: Doug Drown; Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) > I'm guessing that ABC requires a newsroom of its affiliates, Their affiliate in St. Louis (WPLR ch30) ended all news several years ago. From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 10 16:15:47 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:15:47 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) References: <002701c9e9fd$cbe41550$c4141bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <18680FB3C18D472C9CE033D10CCFE97E@SatU205S5044> Wouldn't that have to be WPLR-TV, since the WPLR (FM) calls have been in New Haven forever. My search showed calls of KDNL-TV for Channel 30 in St Louis, but that would probably the RF channel and maybe you weren't talking about the RF channel. Not clear to me how software like TVFMSTNS is going to handle the various channel numbers by which TV stations will be known--especially since most stations will be known by two channel numbers (not including more channel numbers on the various cable systems within their coverage areas). ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: "'Boston Radio Group'" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: RE: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of > Maureen Carney > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:32 AM > To: Doug Drown; Boston Radio Group > Subject: Re: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) > >> I'm guessing that ABC requires a newsroom of its affiliates, > > Their affiliate in St. Louis (WPLR ch30) ended all news several > years ago. > From markwats@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 16:47:50 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:47:50 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry><717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <457673.28320.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6682F9E9B13B4D25B63990CD876D506B@Mark> Maureen Carney wrote: > I'm guessing that ABC requires a newsroom of its affiliates, > but can't > dictate how much news is scheduled. Didn't WVNY (Ch.22), the ABC affiliate in Burlington VT drop all newscasts some years back? If they did, they probably wouldn't have a staff to man a newsroom, unless they provide local updates for "Good Morning America", and then they'd probably get by with just a handful of people. Mark Watson From mward@iname.com Wed Jun 10 16:53:08 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:53:08 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <18680FB3C18D472C9CE033D10CCFE97E@SatU205S5044> References: <002701c9e9fd$cbe41550$c4141bac@whdh.com> <18680FB3C18D472C9CE033D10CCFE97E@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A301D34.9070906@iname.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Wouldn't that have to be WPLR-TV, since the WPLR (FM) calls have been in > New Haven forever. My search showed calls of KDNL-TV for Channel 30 in > St Louis, but that would probably the RF channel and maybe you weren't > talking about the RF channel. Nope, it is indeed KDLR-TV, analog 30, that's the ABC affiliate with no news in St. Louis. The other ABC affiliate without news? WXLV/45 in the Greensboro/Winston-Salem market...and in what should be no surprise to anyone who even casually watches the TV business, both stations are owned by Sinclair. WXLV was the Fox affiliate in the Triad until the network moved to WGHP/8 in that whole Fox/New World deal that eventually made WGHP an O&O. WXLV tried news on and off, but it never held. From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 10 17:41:17 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:41:17 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <4A301D34.9070906@iname.com> References: <002701c9e9fd$cbe41550$c4141bac@whdh.com> <18680FB3C18D472C9CE033D10CCFE97E@SatU205S5044> <4A301D34.9070906@iname.com> Message-ID: <4A30287D.2050709@fybush.com> Mike Ward wrote: > Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> Wouldn't that have to be WPLR-TV, since the WPLR (FM) calls have been >> in New Haven forever. My search showed calls of KDNL-TV for Channel >> 30 in >> St Louis, but that would probably the RF channel and maybe you weren't >> talking about the RF channel. > > Nope, it is indeed KDLR-TV, analog 30, that's the ABC affiliate with no > news in St. Louis. Make that KDNL-TV...I think the original poster was getting it confused with the market's longtime indie, KPLR-TV 11 (now the CW affiliate there, if memory serves.) While KDNL and WXLV are the largest ABC affiliates with no local news, they're not the only ones. WATM in Altoona PA has no local newsroom (it simulcasts news with NBC affiliate WJAC), and the same is now true of WIVT in Binghamton and WWTI in Watertown. WBND-LP in South Bend does just one 5-minute newscast a day, anchored at a sister station in Milwaukee. Out west, there are several small ABC affiliates with no local news, including most of the ABC stations in Montana. KTKA in Topeka was newsless for a while, but may have restarted a news operation. And to answer Dan's question about how the TVFMSTNS software will display stations after Friday, I'm pretty sure it will show only RF channels, since it draws its data from the FCC database, which presently has no field for virtual channel number. s From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Wed Jun 10 17:21:36 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:21:36 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <16385F19B78842F5A6E15D5C76FDC4FD@DougDrown> Message-ID: This is an interesting site Re: the original KQW http://www.bayarearadio.org/schneider/kqw.shtml There is a KQW in PA, operaated by the local newspaper http://www.venangocountydailynews.com/news/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Sid Schweiger" ; "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:48 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > WBZ has been mentioning it on its audio stream. -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sid Schweiger" > To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:59 AM > Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Tomorrow is arguably the 100th anniversary of AM radio, being the date in >> 1909 when KQW (now KCBS) signed on. I don't think I'll hold my breath >> for any of the AMs in this area to even mention it. >> > > > From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 10 18:15:37 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:15:37 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <16385F19B78842F5A6E15D5C76FDC4FD@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A303089.9030206@fybush.com> Ted Larsen wrote: > This is an interesting site Re: the original KQW > http://www.bayarearadio.org/schneider/kqw.shtml > > There is a KQW in PA, operaated by the local newspaper > http://www.venangocountydailynews.com/news/ The PA station in question is actually WKQW-FM; "KQW" is just their nickname. But there is a KQV just down the road in Pittsburgh, with some interesting early radio legacy (as far back as 1919) of its own... s From wollman@bimajority.org Wed Jun 10 18:30:15 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:30:15 -0400 Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: <4A30287D.2050709@fybush.com> References: <002701c9e9fd$cbe41550$c4141bac@whdh.com> <18680FB3C18D472C9CE033D10CCFE97E@SatU205S5044> <4A301D34.9070906@iname.com> <4A30287D.2050709@fybush.com> Message-ID: <18992.13303.358560.959466@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > And to answer Dan's question about how the TVFMSTNS software will > display stations after Friday, I'm pretty sure it will show only RF > channels, since it draws its data from the FCC database, which presently > has no field for virtual channel number. In point of fact, it does. The more relevant issue is that TVFMSTNS is based on the *old, pre-CDBS* FCC database format -- Larry Vehorn translates the current CDBS dumps into the old format -- and *it* doesn't have any place to put the virtual channel. -GAWollman From pbencurrier@hotmail.com Wed Jun 10 19:14:14 2009 From: pbencurrier@hotmail.com (Paul Currier) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:14:14 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: ....Steve Leveille's 10th is at midnight tonight. Paul Cape Cod From markwats@comcast.net Wed Jun 10 19:51:18 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:51:18 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: On this day (June 10th) in 1951, Ike and Maurice Cohen put WCAP (980 Lowell) on the air for it's first day of broadcasting. 58 years later, WCAP is still locally owned and operated, with Clark Smidt's Merrimack Valley Radio LLC continuing the commitment to locally owned and focused radio the Cohen brothers started. And WCAP's main studio is still in the same place it's been since day one. Mark Watson From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 10 20:06:04 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:06:04 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com><16385F19B78842F5A6E15D5C76FDC4FD@DougDrown> Message-ID: I don't think KQW are recognized by the FCC as the calls of the PA station--if, indeed, the PA station is licensed. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Larsen" To: "Doug Drown" ; ; Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:21 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > This is an interesting site Re: the original KQW > http://www.bayarearadio.org/schneider/kqw.shtml > > There is a KQW in PA, operaated by the local newspaper > http://www.venangocountydailynews.com/news/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Doug Drown" > To: "Sid Schweiger" ; "(newsgroup) > Boston-Radio-Interest" > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:48 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> WBZ has been mentioning it on its audio stream. -Doug >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sid Schweiger" >> To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:59 AM >> Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> Tomorrow is arguably the 100th anniversary of AM radio, being the >>> date in 1909 when KQW (now KCBS) signed on. I don't think I'll >>> hold my breath for any of the AMs in this area to even mention it. >>> >> >> >> > From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 10 20:57:06 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:57:06 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> Mark Watson wrote: > On this day (June 10th) in 1951, Ike and Maurice Cohen put WCAP (980 > Lowell) on the air for it's first day of broadcasting. 58 years later, > WCAP is still locally owned and operated, with Clark Smidt's Merrimack > Valley Radio LLC continuing the commitment to locally owned and focused > radio the Cohen brothers started. And WCAP's main studio is still in the > same place it's been since day one. With the same pegboard on the walls! Speaking of anniversaries, out here in Rochester tomorrow will mark the 60th anniversary of local television. It was on June 11, 1949 that WHAM-TV 6 signed on, providing a local choice for viewers who'd previously had to struggle to pick up WBEN-TV 4 from Buffalo or WHEN-TV 8 from Syracuse, both of which had signed on in 1948. WHAM-TV moved to channel 5 in 1952, became WROC-TV in 1956, and moved once more to channel 8 in 1962. Fittingly, it will be the last Rochester station to end analog programming Friday night, if only by five minutes: we'll flip to the nightlight loop on WXXI-TV at 11:30, and then WROC will turn off their analog signal for good at 11:35, live at the end of the 11 PM news. (I'm glad I live just a few minutes from the WROC-TV transmitter; I'll be able to be up there for the end of channel 8 at 11:35, then run home to see the last few analogs in the region - WNYO-TV 49 from Buffalo and several of the Syracuse stations - sign off for good.) Then I'll get some sleep! s From Cdsull502@aol.com Wed Jun 10 20:58:10 2009 From: Cdsull502@aol.com (Cdsull502@aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:58:10 EDT Subject: WNAC-TV Anniversary Message-ID: WNAC-TV commenced operation just 12 days after WBZ-TV began operation. I wonder know if there was as much hype, ballyhoo, etc. associated with that sign-on as there was with WBZ-TV. I'm sure must have been a competition between the two stations to be first. I know that WNAC did not construct a new building for TV as WBZ did -- you would have figured that would have given WNAC a leg up in the competition. Did WBZ's affiliation with NBC/RCA give then an advantage in obtaining equipment? Also, was Jean Shepard still the owner when TV operations began? I'm curious to know if anyone has any information on this subject. Chris Sullivan CdSull502@aol.com **************Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell?s full line of laptops. (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222008777x1201444407/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566094%3B3786435 8%3Bv) From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Wed Jun 10 20:45:20 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:45:20 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com><16385F19B78842F5A6E15D5C76FDC4FD@DougDrown> Message-ID: <60EFB63340A44001B7409599482D2144@teddesktop> Hi Dan: Scott Fybush was kind enough to fill in my story. "The PA station in question is actually WKQW-FM; "KQW" is just their nickname. But there is a KQV just down the road in Pittsburgh, with some interesting early radio legacy (as far back as 1919) of its own..." I discovered the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KQV http://user.pa.net/~ejjeff/jeffkqv2.html http://www.kqv.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Ted Larsen" ; "Doug Drown" ; ; Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:06 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >I don't think KQW are recognized by the FCC as the calls of the PA >station--if, indeed, the PA station is licensed. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Larsen" > To: "Doug Drown" ; ; > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:21 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> This is an interesting site Re: the original KQW >> http://www.bayarearadio.org/schneider/kqw.shtml >> >> There is a KQW in PA, operaated by the local newspaper >> http://www.venangocountydailynews.com/news/ >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Doug Drown" >> To: "Sid Schweiger" ; "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:48 PM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> WBZ has been mentioning it on its audio stream. -Doug >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Sid Schweiger" >>> To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:59 AM >>> Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>> Tomorrow is arguably the 100th anniversary of AM radio, being the date >>>> in 1909 when KQW (now KCBS) signed on. I don't think I'll hold my >>>> breath for any of the AMs in this area to even mention it. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 10 21:31:29 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:31:29 -0400 Subject: WNAC-TV Anniversary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090611013214.AFC4B1B4006@relay25.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 08:58 PM 6/10/2009, Cdsull502@aol.com wrote: >WNAC-TV commenced operation just 12 days after WBZ-TV began operation. I >wonder know if there was as much hype, ballyhoo, etc. associated with that >sign-on as there was with WBZ-TV. There was some excitement, but obviously not as much as when WBZ went on the air in early June-- there was a "Countdown to T" Day-- T meaning the day television officially arrived-- and while the Boston Post was the official newspaper that was aligned with WBZ, all of the local newspapers got into the act and generated lots of buzz about TV. By the time WNAC went on the air on the 21st, television was a fait accompli here and it wasn't as big a story. But yes, there was friendly competition between WBZ and WNAC from then on. Chris also asked if "Jean Shepard" was still the owner of WNAC. John Shepard 3rd was still alive and nominally in charge, but he was already in failing health. He lived to see TV go on the air in Boston, and several radio personalities from the Yankee Network also made the move to TV. But Shepard didn't live long enough to see WNAC really gain any kind of footing in Boston -- by mid 1950, he was dead of heart disease. From scott@fybush.com Wed Jun 10 21:44:50 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:44:50 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> Dave Doherty wrote: > Hey Scott- > > RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. > With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and will sign off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now WROC-TV...while the station on channel 13 that now bears the WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years old, having signed on in 1962 as WOKR(TV). It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: WHDH 850 spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, then went on to again loan its calls to a different station (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years later. (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such examples exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both associated with WTIC 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the years, both associated with WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs in Detroit, both associated with WWJ 950. I can't come up with any others at the moment...) s From dave@skywaves.net Wed Jun 10 21:09:00 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:09:00 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> Message-ID: <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> Hey Scott- RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Mark Watson" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:57 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > Mark Watson wrote: >> On this day (June 10th) in 1951, Ike and Maurice Cohen put WCAP (980 >> Lowell) on the air for it's first day of broadcasting. 58 years later, >> WCAP is still locally owned and operated, with Clark Smidt's Merrimack >> Valley Radio LLC continuing the commitment to locally owned and focused >> radio the Cohen brothers started. And WCAP's main studio is still in the >> same place it's been since day one. > > With the same pegboard on the walls! > > Speaking of anniversaries, out here in Rochester tomorrow will mark the > 60th anniversary of local television. It was on June 11, 1949 that WHAM-TV > 6 signed on, providing a local choice for viewers who'd previously had to > struggle to pick up WBEN-TV 4 from Buffalo or WHEN-TV 8 from Syracuse, > both of which had signed on in 1948. > > WHAM-TV moved to channel 5 in 1952, became WROC-TV in 1956, and moved once > more to channel 8 in 1962. > > Fittingly, it will be the last Rochester station to end analog programming > Friday night, if only by five minutes: we'll flip to the nightlight loop > on WXXI-TV at 11:30, and then WROC will turn off their analog signal for > good at 11:35, live at the end of the 11 PM news. > > (I'm glad I live just a few minutes from the WROC-TV transmitter; I'll be > able to be up there for the end of channel 8 at 11:35, then run home to > see the last few analogs in the region - WNYO-TV 49 from Buffalo and > several of the Syracuse stations - sign off for good.) > > Then I'll get some sleep! > > s > From dave@skywaves.net Wed Jun 10 23:20:27 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:20:27 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Hi Scott- Albany had a pretty confusing early TV history, too. My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which was co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I think was a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in the early 50's, and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I went to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, and I recall the tower sections stacked on the ground with the weeds growing up over them. WROW (590) was co-owned with channel 10. Channel 10 was originally WROW-TV on channel 41, eventually became three UHF stations, WCDA(41), WCDB(29), and WCDC (originally WMGT on channel 74, but eventually WCDC on 19). WCDA was on the WRPI tower in Troy, WCDB was on a very early 1000' tower in Vail Mills (licensed to Hagaman), on the south end of Scanadaga Lake, and WCDC still exists on Mount Greylock in the Berkshires. When they got channel 10, WCDA and WCDB were abandoned. They removed the tower at Vail Mills, and I guess they donated the Troy tower to RPI. I visited the Vail Mills site years ago, and the concrete was still there. As a kid, I free-climbed the WRPI tower (yes, the statute of limitations passed a long time ago). Of course, GE Broadcasting was the powerhouse in the market from the beginning. WGY (reputedly named for Wirless General electric schenectadY) was arguably the first 50kW station in the world. WGFM was an obvious choice of call signs. Channel 6 was named for Dr. Walter Ransom Gail Baker, a GE and IRE engineering luminary who also spent some time at GE competitor RCA (http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Walter_Baker) Interestingly, there is a tie between the GE stations and channel 10 involving none other than WRGBaker. It seems that old WRG was an entrepreneur who built some statons in upstate NY that were acquired by the Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and the Outlet Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > Dave Doherty wrote: >> Hey Scott- >> >> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >> > > With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and will sign > off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now WROC-TV...while the station > on channel 13 that now bears the WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years old, > having signed on in 1962 as WOKR(TV). > > It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: WHDH 850 > spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, then went on to > again loan its calls to a different station (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years > later. > > (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such examples > exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both associated with WTIC > 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the years, both associated with > WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs in Detroit, both associated with WWJ > 950. I can't come up with any others at the moment...) > > s > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 23:33:26 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:33:26 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com><18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> Message-ID: <214E41C7CF6549EEB56B454FB7D5832C@DougDrown> Somewhat the same but not quite: The original WABC in New York that became WCBS. A few years later (1953, I think) ABC managed to obtain the old call letters and WJZ-TV 7 was thus transformed into WABC-TV. (We could throw DuMont's WABD 5 into all this too, just to confuse things all the more.) Still later, WAAM-TV 13 in Baltimore became the present WJZ-TV, while the WAAM calls (which actually originated in Newark) were picked up by WHRV (AM) in Ann Arbor. Today the WHRV calls are held by an NPR FM affiliate in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Let's all take a deep breath . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Dave Doherty wrote: >> Hey Scott- >> >> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >> > > With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and will sign > off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now WROC-TV...while the station > on channel 13 that now bears the WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years old, > having signed on in 1962 as WOKR(TV). > > It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: WHDH 850 > spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, then went on to > again loan its calls to a different station (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years > later. > > (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such examples > exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both associated with WTIC > 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the years, both associated with > WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs in Detroit, both associated with WWJ > 950. I can't come up with any others at the moment...) > > s > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 23:37:59 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:37:59 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com><18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com><4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Message-ID: . . . And, of course, WOFX and WTRY-FM are now owned by Clear Channel, which also owns WGY. Who would have thought that would ever happen?? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "Scott Fybush" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:20 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Hi Scott- > > Albany had a pretty confusing early TV history, too. > > My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which was > co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I think was > a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in > the early 50's, and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the > consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I went to the > WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, and I recall the tower > sections stacked on the ground with the weeds growing up over them. > > WROW (590) was co-owned with channel 10. > > Channel 10 was originally WROW-TV on channel 41, eventually became three > UHF stations, WCDA(41), WCDB(29), and WCDC (originally WMGT on channel 74, > but eventually WCDC on 19). > > WCDA was on the WRPI tower in Troy, WCDB was on a very early 1000' tower > in Vail Mills (licensed to Hagaman), on the south end of Scanadaga Lake, > and WCDC still exists on Mount Greylock in the Berkshires. When they got > channel 10, WCDA and WCDB were abandoned. They removed the tower at Vail > Mills, and I guess they donated the Troy tower to RPI. I visited the Vail > Mills site years ago, and the concrete was still there. As a kid, I > free-climbed the WRPI tower (yes, the statute of limitations passed a long > time ago). > > Of course, GE Broadcasting was the powerhouse in the market from the > beginning. WGY (reputedly named for Wirless General electric schenectadY) > was arguably the first 50kW station in the world. WGFM was an obvious > choice of call signs. Channel 6 was named for Dr. Walter Ransom Gail > Baker, a GE and IRE engineering luminary who also spent some time at GE > competitor RCA (http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Walter_Baker) > > Interestingly, there is a tie between the GE stations and channel 10 > involving none other than WRGBaker. It seems that old WRG was an > entrepreneur who built some statons in upstate NY that were acquired by > the Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and the Outlet > Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). > > -d > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Fybush" > To: "Dave Doherty" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> Dave Doherty wrote: >>> Hey Scott- >>> >>> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >>> >> >> With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and will >> sign off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now WROC-TV...while the >> station on channel 13 that now bears the WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years >> old, having signed on in 1962 as WOKR(TV). >> >> It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: WHDH 850 >> spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, then went on to >> again loan its calls to a different station (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years >> later. >> >> (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such examples >> exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both associated with WTIC >> 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the years, both associated with >> WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs in Detroit, both associated with >> WWJ 950. I can't come up with any others at the moment...) >> >> s >> > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 10 23:44:00 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:44:00 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com><18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com><4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Message-ID: >>It seems that old WRG was an entrepreneur who built some statons in >>upstate NY that were acquired by the Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and the Outlet Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). A little inaccuracy here. Cap Cities did indeed own WTEN (and WROW AM-FM), but WPRO AM-FM-TV were originally owned by the Cherry and Webb department store chain. Cherry and Webb's principal competitor in Providence, The Outlet Company, owned WJAR and WJAR-TV. Cap Cities bought the WPRO stations sometime in the '60s, if memory serves. WKBW and WKBW-TV in Buffalo were added to the family, too. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "Scott Fybush" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:20 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Hi Scott- > > Albany had a pretty confusing early TV history, too. > > My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which was > co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I think was > a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in > the early 50's, and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the > consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I went to the > WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, and I recall the tower > sections stacked on the ground with the weeds growing up over them. > > WROW (590) was co-owned with channel 10. > > Channel 10 was originally WROW-TV on channel 41, eventually became three > UHF stations, WCDA(41), WCDB(29), and WCDC (originally WMGT on channel 74, > but eventually WCDC on 19). > > WCDA was on the WRPI tower in Troy, WCDB was on a very early 1000' tower > in Vail Mills (licensed to Hagaman), on the south end of Scanadaga Lake, > and WCDC still exists on Mount Greylock in the Berkshires. When they got > channel 10, WCDA and WCDB were abandoned. They removed the tower at Vail > Mills, and I guess they donated the Troy tower to RPI. I visited the Vail > Mills site years ago, and the concrete was still there. As a kid, I > free-climbed the WRPI tower (yes, the statute of limitations passed a long > time ago). > > Of course, GE Broadcasting was the powerhouse in the market from the > beginning. WGY (reputedly named for Wirless General electric schenectadY) > was arguably the first 50kW station in the world. WGFM was an obvious > choice of call signs. Channel 6 was named for Dr. Walter Ransom Gail > Baker, a GE and IRE engineering luminary who also spent some time at GE > competitor RCA (http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Walter_Baker) > > Interestingly, there is a tie between the GE stations and channel 10 > involving none other than WRGBaker. It seems that old WRG was an > entrepreneur who built some statons in upstate NY that were acquired by > the Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and the Outlet > Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). > > -d > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Fybush" > To: "Dave Doherty" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> Dave Doherty wrote: >>> Hey Scott- >>> >>> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >>> >> >> With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and will >> sign off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now WROC-TV...while the >> station on channel 13 that now bears the WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years >> old, having signed on in 1962 as WOKR(TV). >> >> It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: WHDH 850 >> spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, then went on to >> again loan its calls to a different station (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years >> later. >> >> (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such examples >> exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both associated with WTIC >> 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the years, both associated with >> WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs in Detroit, both associated with >> WWJ 950. I can't come up with any others at the moment...) >> >> s >> > From keith.fornal@cox.net Wed Jun 10 23:59:33 2009 From: keith.fornal@cox.net (Keith Fornal) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:59:33 -0400 Subject: WBZ-TV Anniversary In-Reply-To: <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: WLNE has added 2 local newscasts this year. They started a Sunday morning newscast at 10am which follows This Week with George Stephanopoulos. This week after dropping the King World Syndicated programming they started a weeknight 7pm newscast. Seems to me that the new owners are trying a lot harder to compete then Freedom ever did. Personally I'd watch 6 before 12 or 64. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Carney Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 6:06 AM To: kvahey@comcast.net; Boston Radio Group Subject: Re: WBZ-TV Anniversary Agreed about WLNE - they had enough trouble finding a buyer when Freedom put them up for sale a few years ago. They're now 4th in billing (WJAR, WPRI and WNAC are ahead) and things aren't going to turn around in this economy. They would be better off going the way of WZMY - no news and a lot of paid-for programming, but that's unseemly for a VHF network affiliate. ________________________________ From: Kevin Vahey To: Maureen Carney Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 11:03:31 PM Subject: Re: WBZ-TV Anniversary I would be willing to bet nobody at 1170 even knew (well maybe Jack) I am more concerned that WLNE could pull the plug. From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 11 00:13:24 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:13:24 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com><18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com><4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <804E29F539654FE3ADEBF887A8D748F9@skywaves.com> Hi, Doug- Thanks for the correction. I wonder if anyone will care about the early history of broadcasting in a generation or two. Witness the concurrent discussion on the list, it seems the powers that be don't care anything about preserving the history even now - even on the eave of what is arguably the greatest event in all of broadcasting history - the mass extermination of analog TV on Friday. In twenty years, will anybody care that W*** was on channel 10 and is now on some UHF channel proclaiming that it is still on channel 10? I doubt it. Will W*** still be in business then? -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Dave Doherty" ; "Scott Fybush" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:44 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > >>>It seems that old WRG was an entrepreneur who built some statons in >>>upstate NY that were acquired by the > Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and the Outlet > Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). > > A little inaccuracy here. Cap Cities did indeed own WTEN (and WROW > AM-FM), but WPRO AM-FM-TV were originally owned by the Cherry and Webb > department store chain. Cherry and Webb's principal competitor in > Providence, The Outlet Company, owned WJAR and WJAR-TV. > > Cap Cities bought the WPRO stations sometime in the '60s, if memory > serves. WKBW and WKBW-TV in Buffalo were added to the family, > -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Doherty" > To: "Scott Fybush" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:20 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Hi Scott- >> >> Albany had a pretty confusing early TV history, too. >> >> My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which was >> co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I think >> was a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the >> air in the early 50's, and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again >> until the consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I went >> to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, and I recall the >> tower sections stacked on the ground with the weeds growing up over them. >> >> WROW (590) was co-owned with channel 10. >> >> Channel 10 was originally WROW-TV on channel 41, eventually became three >> UHF stations, WCDA(41), WCDB(29), and WCDC (originally WMGT on channel >> 74, but eventually WCDC on 19). >> >> WCDA was on the WRPI tower in Troy, WCDB was on a very early 1000' tower >> in Vail Mills (licensed to Hagaman), on the south end of Scanadaga Lake, >> and WCDC still exists on Mount Greylock in the Berkshires. When they got >> channel 10, WCDA and WCDB were abandoned. They removed the tower at Vail >> Mills, and I guess they donated the Troy tower to RPI. I visited the Vail >> Mills site years ago, and the concrete was still there. As a kid, I >> free-climbed the WRPI tower (yes, the statute of limitations passed a >> long time ago). >> >> Of course, GE Broadcasting was the powerhouse in the market from the >> beginning. WGY (reputedly named for Wirless General electric schenectadY) >> was arguably the first 50kW station in the world. WGFM was an obvious >> choice of call signs. Channel 6 was named for Dr. Walter Ransom Gail >> Baker, a GE and IRE engineering luminary who also spent some time at GE >> competitor RCA (http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Walter_Baker) >> >> Interestingly, there is a tie between the GE stations and channel 10 >> involving none other than WRGBaker. It seems that old WRG was an >> entrepreneur who built some statons in upstate NY that were acquired by >> the Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and the >> Outlet Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). >> >> -d >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Scott Fybush" >> To: "Dave Doherty" >> Cc: >> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> >>> Dave Doherty wrote: >>>> Hey Scott- >>>> >>>> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >>>> >>> >>> With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and will >>> sign off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now WROC-TV...while the >>> station on channel 13 that now bears the WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years >>> old, having signed on in 1962 as WOKR(TV). >>> >>> It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: WHDH >>> 850 spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, then went >>> on to again loan its calls to a different station (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) >>> years later. >>> >>> (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such examples >>> exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both associated with >>> WTIC 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the years, both associated >>> with WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs in Detroit, both associated >>> with WWJ 950. I can't come up with any others at the moment...) >>> >>> s >>> >> > > From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 11 00:46:09 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:46:09 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <804E29F539654FE3ADEBF887A8D748F9@skywaves.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> <804E29F539654FE3ADEBF887A8D748F9@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <18992.35857.370475.367740@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > In twenty years, will anybody care that W*** was on channel 10 and is now on > some UHF channel proclaiming that it is still on channel 10? I doubt it. > Will W*** still be in business then? I was going to say "well, I hope and expect that my mother will live that long", but she doesn't care, either. She doesn't identify with the local station at all -- for her, "CBS" is no different from "HG" or "Bravo", just a channel that she watches sometimes. I don't think she ever watches the local TV news. -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 11 02:00:31 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:00:31 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <214E41C7CF6549EEB56B454FB7D5832C@DougDrown> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <214E41C7CF6549EEB56B454FB7D5832C@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A30653F.27570.E4C74D@joe.attorneyross.com> On 10 Jun 2009 at 23:33, Doug Drown wrote: > Somewhat the same but not quite: The original WABC in New York that > became WCBS. A few years later (1953, I think) ABC managed to obtain > the old call letters and WJZ-TV 7 was thus transformed into WABC-TV. > (We could throw DuMont's WABD 5 into all this too, just to confuse > things all the more.) Still later, WAAM-TV 13 in Baltimore became the > present WJZ-TV, while the WAAM calls (which actually originated in > Newark) were picked up by WHRV (AM) in Ann Arbor. Today the WHRV > calls are held by an NPR FM affiliate in Hampton Roads, Virginia. And now I believe there are again WJZ radio stations in Baltimore. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 11 02:00:32 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:00:32 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <4A306540.12559.E4C94B@joe.attorneyross.com> On 10 Jun 2009 at 23:20, Dave Doherty wrote: > My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which was > co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I think > was a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. WTRI-TV was on channel 35. It originally was a nominal CBS affiliate (as WTRY radio was a CBS affiliate). It went off when CBS shifted its affiliation to channel 41. Somewhere around that same time WROW radio became the CBS radio affiliate. I don't know if there was any connection. During all of this, WRGB, nominally an NBC affiliate, carried a lot of programs from CBS, ABC, and DuMont as well. A year or so later WTRI returned to the air as a full ABC affiliate, at which time WCDA, etc. became a full CBS affiliate and WRGB became a full NBC affiliate. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From m_carney@yahoo.com Thu Jun 11 06:13:47 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WLNE (was WBZ-TV Anniversary) In-Reply-To: References: <1141339743-1244603012-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-718302732-@bxe1124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <717235.64835.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <955885.68219.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Keith said: >WLNE has added 2 local newscasts this year. They started a Sunday morning >newscast at 10am which follows This Week with George Stephanopoulos. This >week after dropping the King World Syndicated programming they started a >weeknight 7pm newscast. I do have to say I was pleasantly surprised at their news coverage (love the "Buddy TV" segments with former Providence mayor Buddy Cianci), and how much WJAR had slipped. Yet WJAR still dominates the market. Global is trying, but market forces don't seem to be with small ownership groups (Sunbeam seems to be the exception, for now). There is a segment of the population who doesn't care about news - they want their "Dr. Phil" and "American Idol". Losing the King World programming leaves them with the impression that the station doesn't care about their preferences and ulimately them, and they won't tune into the news. It just reinforces the "bottom of the market" perception even if it's not true. From mward@iname.com Thu Jun 11 02:39:24 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:39:24 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <18992.35857.370475.367740@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> <804E29F539654FE3ADEBF887A8D748F9@skywaves.com> <18992.35857.370475.367740@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A30A69C.8020601@iname.com> Garrett Wollman wrote: > I was going to say "well, I hope and expect that my mother will live > that long", but she doesn't care, either. She doesn't identify with > the local station at all -- for her, "CBS" is no different from "HG" > or "Bravo", just a channel that she watches sometimes. I don't think > she ever watches the local TV news. It's the same with my 68 year-old father. Exactly the same. This man, who grew up watching "3, 5 and 8", now has a full-blown DirecTV HDTV setup...he mostly watches cable/satellite channels. I can't remember the last time he watched local news. If I gave him a test to name the local TV stations and their channels, he MIGHT remember the historic 3, 5 and 8 (the Cleveland market's historic NBC, ABC and CBS affiliates, 8 going to Fox in the New World deal), but he'd have no idea of the call letters, and he wouldn't care. From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 11 08:11:52 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:11:52 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com><18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com><4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Message-ID: WTRI-TV was on Channel 35 on Bald Mountain, north of Troy. I don't know where the WTRI-TV studios were, though. WTRI (AM) had its studios in the (I think) Proctor's Theater Building at 92 Fourth St in downtown Troy. The tower that was originally built by WROW-TV Channel 41 and for well over 40 years now has been home to WRPI (FM) 91.5 is NOT in Troy; it's in North Greenbush, which, if I'm not mistaken, does not even have a common border with Troy. Isn't Rensselaer between N Greenbush and Troy (or is N Greenbush east of Rensselaer--and not north of Rensselaer, as I seem to remember it)? ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "Scott Fybush" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:20 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Hi Scott- > > Albany had a pretty confusing early TV history, too. > > My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which > was co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I > think was a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. WTRI-FM > went off the air in the early 50's, and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM > partner again until the consolidation movement in the 90's. In the > late 1950's, I went to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with > my Dad, and I recall the tower sections stacked on the ground with > the weeds growing up over them. > > WROW (590) was co-owned with channel 10. > > Channel 10 was originally WROW-TV on channel 41, eventually became > three UHF stations, WCDA(41), WCDB(29), and WCDC (originally WMGT on > channel 74, but eventually WCDC on 19). > > WCDA was on the WRPI tower in Troy, WCDB was on a very early 1000' > tower in Vail Mills (licensed to Hagaman), on the south end of > Scanadaga Lake, and WCDC still exists on Mount Greylock in the > Berkshires. When they got channel 10, WCDA and WCDB were abandoned. > They removed the tower at Vail Mills, and I guess they donated the > Troy tower to RPI. I visited the Vail Mills site years ago, and the > concrete was still there. As a kid, I free-climbed the WRPI tower > (yes, the statute of limitations passed a long time ago). > > Of course, GE Broadcasting was the powerhouse in the market from the > beginning. WGY (reputedly named for Wirless General electric > schenectadY) was arguably the first 50kW station in the world. WGFM > was an obvious choice of call signs. Channel 6 was named for Dr. > Walter Ransom Gail Baker, a GE and IRE engineering luminary who also > spent some time at GE competitor RCA > (http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Walter_Baker) > > Interestingly, there is a tie between the GE stations and channel 10 > involving none other than WRGBaker. It seems that old WRG was an > entrepreneur who built some statons in upstate NY that were acquired > by the Outlet Company. At one time, Cap Cities owned both WTEN and > the Outlet Company's WPRO-TV (now WPRI). > > -d > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Fybush" > To: "Dave Doherty" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> Dave Doherty wrote: >>> Hey Scott- >>> >>> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >>> >> >> With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and >> will sign off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now >> WROC-TV...while the station on channel 13 that now bears the >> WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years old, having signed on in 1962 as >> WOKR(TV). >> >> It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: >> WHDH 850 spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, >> then went on to again loan its calls to a different station >> (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years later. >> >> (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such >> examples exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both >> associated with WTIC 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the >> years, both associated with WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs >> in Detroit, both associated with WWJ 950. I can't come up with any >> others at the moment...) >> >> s >> > From mattosborne1976@yahoo.com Thu Jun 11 07:46:00 2009 From: mattosborne1976@yahoo.com (Matthew Osborne) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... Message-ID: <899666.38973.qm@web55802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Just a couple clarifications from a local... WTRY did indeed have an FM partner again well before the 1990s. Although I don't know the exact date, WTRY-FM 106.5 signed on the air sometime in the 1960s or 70s, probably from the same Helderberg Mountain transmit site. If anyone here is more clear on this history, please correct me - it started out as mainly a simulcast of the AM, until the FCC cracked down on this. They then gradually became a Beautiful Music - Easy Listening station in the 70s, changing call letters to WHSH (personal side note - one of my first clear memories of hearing anything on the radio was of my grandfather listening to WHSH, and hearing an announcer give those call letters). This lasted until 1980, when they switched to rock and became WPYX (PYX 106). Until just the last couple years, their studios were still at the AM 980 transmitter site on WTRY Rd just off Route 7 in Niskayuna (known by some as 'the bunker'). Dave, I am originally from Broadalbin, and have always wondered exactly where the old WCDB tower was located (nobody I ever talked to there even knew what I was talking about when I would ask them about it). Would you be able to tell me where exactly that was? Matt Osborne Schenectady, NY --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Dave Doherty wrote: > My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, > which was co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned > WTRI-TV, which I think was a UHF that eventually morphed > into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in the early 50's, > and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the > consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I > went to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, > and I recall the tower sections stacked on the ground with > the weeds growing up over them. > From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 11 08:25:15 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:25:15 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com><18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com><4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <214E41C7CF6549EEB56B454FB7D5832C@DougDrown> Message-ID: And when WAAM merged with WODA (they were both shared-time stations, though they may not have shared time with each other), the resulting station became WOV. The corporation that owned WOV (itself a shared-time station--sharing time with WHBI, Newark) was known as Wodaam Corp. Wodaam was not a Dutch name, as I had thought for many years. Dutch names are common enough in New York City and the Hudson Valley; after all, the city, then known as Nieuw Amsterdaam, was founded by a Dutchman--Hendrick Hudson. Rather, Wodaam was an amalgamation of WODA and (W)AAM. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Scott Fybush" ; "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:33 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Somewhat the same but not quite: The original WABC in New York that > became WCBS. A few years later (1953, I think) ABC managed to > obtain the old call letters and WJZ-TV 7 was thus transformed into > WABC-TV. (We could throw DuMont's WABD 5 into all this too, just to > confuse things all the more.) Still later, WAAM-TV 13 in Baltimore > became the present WJZ-TV, while the > WAAM calls (which actually originated in Newark) were picked up by > WHRV (AM) in Ann Arbor. Today the WHRV calls are held by an NPR FM > affiliate in > Hampton Roads, Virginia. > > Let's all take a deep breath . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3. > > -Doug > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Scott Fybush" > To: "Dave Doherty" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Dave Doherty wrote: >>> Hey Scott- >>> >>> RIP WHAM-TV analog: Age 60 years plus one day. >>> >> >> With one confusing twist: the WHAM-TV that signed on in 1949 and >> will sign off Friday at age 60 years plus a day is now >> WROC-TV...while the station on channel 13 that now bears the >> WHAM-TV calls is only 46+ years old, having signed on in 1962 as >> WOKR(TV). >> >> It's a nearly identical situation to the two WHDH-TVs in Boston: >> WHDH 850 spawned WHDH-TV 5, outlived those calls on its TV sister, >> then went on to again loan its calls to a different station >> (ex-WNAC-TV/WNEV on 7) years later. >> >> (And it gives rise to a trivia question: how many other such >> examples exist out there? Hartford has had two WTIC-TVs, both >> associated with WTIC 1080. Syracuse has had two WSYR-TVs over the >> years, both associated with WSYR 570. There have been two WWJ-TVs >> in Detroit, both associated with WWJ 950. I can't come up with any >> others at the moment...) >> >> s >> > From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 11 09:02:46 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:02:46 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <899666.38973.qm@web55802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wasn't WCDB on Channel 29 in the Mohawk Valley, near Amsterdam? Didn't it go off the air when Channel 10, WTEN, went on the air from the 1350' tower in Vail Mills, just south of the Sacondaga Reservoir west of Amsterdam or Gloversville? CapCities got the FCC to drop in Channel 10 there because the spot was just 170 miles from Rochester, Providence, and either Ottawa or Montreal (wherever the Canadian channel 10 was). Channel 10 later moved to the Helderbergs when the FCC granted applications for short-spaced VHFs. If CapCities had realized the Channel 10 possibility when they built Channel 29 (I don't think they did), they could have built only one tower--the one in Vail Mills--and they could have put the Channel 10 antenna on the Channel 29 tower. I don't think it worked that way, though. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Osborne" To: "Scott Fybush" ; "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:46 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > Just a couple clarifications from a local... > > WTRY did indeed have an FM partner again well before the 1990s. > Although I don't know the exact date, WTRY-FM 106.5 signed on the > air sometime in the 1960s or 70s, probably from the same Helderberg > Mountain transmit site. If anyone here is more clear on this > history, please correct me - it started out as mainly a simulcast of > the AM, until the FCC cracked down on this. They then gradually > became a Beautiful Music - Easy Listening station in the 70s, > changing call letters to WHSH (personal side note - one of my first > clear memories of hearing anything on the radio was of my > grandfather listening to WHSH, and hearing an announcer give those > call letters). This lasted until 1980, when they switched to rock > and became WPYX (PYX 106). Until just the last couple years, their > studios were still at the AM 980 transmitter site on WTRY Rd just > off Route 7 in Niskayuna (known by some as 'the bunker'). > > Dave, I am originally from Broadalbin, and have always wondered > exactly where the old WCDB tower was located (nobody I ever talked > to there even knew what I was talking about when I would ask them > about it). Would you be able to tell me where exactly that was? > > Matt Osborne > Schenectady, NY > > > --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, >> which was co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned >> WTRI-TV, which I think was a UHF that eventually morphed >> into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in the early 50's, >> and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the >> consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I >> went to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, >> and I recall the tower sections stacked on the ground with >> the weeds growing up over them. >> > > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 11 08:49:50 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:49:50 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <214E41C7CF6549EEB56B454FB7D5832C@DougDrown> <4A30653F.27570.E4C74D@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <8021DDB0EA1F493BAC963DE1666C651E@SatU205S5044> Yes, but, I don't think there was ever previously a WJZ radio in Baltimore or a surrounding community. The original WJZ was in Newark NJ and later in New York City. In fact, for a while, there was both a WJZ (AM) and a WJZ-FM in New York City. Today, those stations are Citadel's WABC (AM) and WPLJ (FM). ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Doug Drown" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:00 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > On 10 Jun 2009 at 23:33, Doug Drown wrote: > >> Somewhat the same but not quite: The original WABC in New York >> that >> became WCBS. A few years later (1953, I think) ABC managed to >> obtain >> the old call letters and WJZ-TV 7 was thus transformed into >> WABC-TV. >> (We could throw DuMont's WABD 5 into all this too, just to confuse >> things all the more.) Still later, WAAM-TV 13 in Baltimore became >> the >> present WJZ-TV, while the WAAM calls (which actually originated in >> Newark) were picked up by WHRV (AM) in Ann Arbor. Today the WHRV >> calls are held by an NPR FM affiliate in Hampton Roads, Virginia. > > And now I believe there are again WJZ radio stations in Baltimore. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 11 08:49:59 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:49:59 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> <4A306540.12559.E4C94B@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been a year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY (AM) to WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV Channel 35 to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe still WROW-TV). However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the switch), WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the former owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based group that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in independent stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that WROW (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved to WPTR. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:00 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > On 10 Jun 2009 at 23:20, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, which >> was >> co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned WTRI-TV, which I >> think >> was a UHF that eventually morphed into channel 13. > > WTRI-TV was on channel 35. It originally was a nominal CBS affiliate > (as WTRY radio was a CBS affiliate). It went off when CBS shifted > its affiliation to channel 41. Somewhere around that same time WROW > radio became the CBS radio affiliate. I don't know if there was any > connection. During all of this, WRGB, nominally an NBC affiliate, > carried a lot of programs from CBS, ABC, and DuMont as well. A year > or so later WTRI returned to the air as a full ABC affiliate, at > which time WCDA, etc. became a full CBS affiliate and WRGB became a > full NBC affiliate. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 11 11:02:55 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:02:55 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <899666.38973.qm@web55802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That may well be, Dan. I did not live in the area until 1962 or 63, so most of my knowledge of earlier times is oral history from people I worked with at WOKO (1460), WAST (13), and WGY/WGFM/WRGB (810/95.5/6) in the late 60's and early 70's. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Matthew Osborne" ; "Scott Fybush" ; "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:02 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > Wasn't WCDB on Channel 29 in the Mohawk Valley, near Amsterdam? Didn't > it go off the air when Channel 10, WTEN, went on the air from the > 1350' tower in Vail Mills, just south of the Sacondaga Reservoir west > of Amsterdam or Gloversville? CapCities got the FCC to drop in Channel > 10 there because the spot was just 170 miles from Rochester, > Providence, and either Ottawa or Montreal (wherever the Canadian > channel 10 was). Channel 10 later moved to the Helderbergs when the > FCC granted applications for short-spaced VHFs. If CapCities had > realized the Channel 10 possibility when they built Channel 29 (I > don't think they did), they could have built only one tower--the one > in Vail Mills--and they could have put the Channel 10 antenna on the > Channel 29 tower. I don't think it worked that way, though. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Osborne" > To: "Scott Fybush" ; "Dave Doherty" > > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:46 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> Just a couple clarifications from a local... >> >> WTRY did indeed have an FM partner again well before the 1990s. >> Although I don't know the exact date, WTRY-FM 106.5 signed on the >> air sometime in the 1960s or 70s, probably from the same Helderberg >> Mountain transmit site. If anyone here is more clear on this >> history, please correct me - it started out as mainly a simulcast of >> the AM, until the FCC cracked down on this. They then gradually >> became a Beautiful Music - Easy Listening station in the 70s, >> changing call letters to WHSH (personal side note - one of my first >> clear memories of hearing anything on the radio was of my >> grandfather listening to WHSH, and hearing an announcer give those >> call letters). This lasted until 1980, when they switched to rock >> and became WPYX (PYX 106). Until just the last couple years, their >> studios were still at the AM 980 transmitter site on WTRY Rd just >> off Route 7 in Niskayuna (known by some as 'the bunker'). >> >> Dave, I am originally from Broadalbin, and have always wondered >> exactly where the old WCDB tower was located (nobody I ever talked >> to there even knew what I was talking about when I would ask them >> about it). Would you be able to tell me where exactly that was? >> >> Matt Osborne >> Schenectady, NY >> >> >> --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Dave Doherty wrote: >> >>> My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, >>> which was co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned >>> WTRI-TV, which I think was a UHF that eventually morphed >>> into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in the early 50's, >>> and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the >>> consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I >>> went to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, >>> and I recall the tower sections stacked on the ground with >>> the weeds growing up over them. >>> >> >> >> > > From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 11 11:18:53 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:18:53 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <899666.38973.qm@web55802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2790D895E331431EA768BB1462BE15DF@skywaves.com> Hi, Matt- Interesting bit of history. I remember listening to WHSH, but I never associated it with WTRY. I recall the Vail Mills tower from pre-high-school days (Bethlehem Central, here). It was the biggest thing I had ever seen outside of New York City. By the time I was driving (1967), it was gone. I found a 1960 topo map (Utica 1x2 degree) at the USGS site that shows the tower. It's where I remembered it, north of 155 between Vail Mills and Broadalbin, west of 2nd Ave. I do not recall how I got there exactly, but a good start would be to head north from 155 on Second Ave for 1/4 mile or so and look for a road or path to the left. It was definitely west of 2nd Ave. I'll email you the map clip O/L. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Matthew Osborne" ; "Scott Fybush" ; "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:02 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > Wasn't WCDB on Channel 29 in the Mohawk Valley, near Amsterdam? Didn't > it go off the air when Channel 10, WTEN, went on the air from the > 1350' tower in Vail Mills, just south of the Sacondaga Reservoir west > of Amsterdam or Gloversville? CapCities got the FCC to drop in Channel > 10 there because the spot was just 170 miles from Rochester, > Providence, and either Ottawa or Montreal (wherever the Canadian > channel 10 was). Channel 10 later moved to the Helderbergs when the > FCC granted applications for short-spaced VHFs. If CapCities had > realized the Channel 10 possibility when they built Channel 29 (I > don't think they did), they could have built only one tower--the one > in Vail Mills--and they could have put the Channel 10 antenna on the > Channel 29 tower. I don't think it worked that way, though. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Osborne" > To: "Scott Fybush" ; "Dave Doherty" > > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:46 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> Just a couple clarifications from a local... >> >> WTRY did indeed have an FM partner again well before the 1990s. >> Although I don't know the exact date, WTRY-FM 106.5 signed on the >> air sometime in the 1960s or 70s, probably from the same Helderberg >> Mountain transmit site. If anyone here is more clear on this >> history, please correct me - it started out as mainly a simulcast of >> the AM, until the FCC cracked down on this. They then gradually >> became a Beautiful Music - Easy Listening station in the 70s, >> changing call letters to WHSH (personal side note - one of my first >> clear memories of hearing anything on the radio was of my >> grandfather listening to WHSH, and hearing an announcer give those >> call letters). This lasted until 1980, when they switched to rock >> and became WPYX (PYX 106). Until just the last couple years, their >> studios were still at the AM 980 transmitter site on WTRY Rd just >> off Route 7 in Niskayuna (known by some as 'the bunker'). >> >> Dave, I am originally from Broadalbin, and have always wondered >> exactly where the old WCDB tower was located (nobody I ever talked >> to there even knew what I was talking about when I would ask them >> about it). Would you be able to tell me where exactly that was? >> >> Matt Osborne >> Schenectady, NY >> >> >> --- On Wed, 6/10/09, Dave Doherty wrote: >> >>> My Dad worked for a short time in the late 40's at WTRI-FM, >>> which was co-owned with WTRY (980, now WOFX)) and spawned >>> WTRI-TV, which I think was a UHF that eventually morphed >>> into channel 13. WTRI-FM went off the air in the early 50's, >>> and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the >>> consolidation movement in the 90's. In the late 1950's, I >>> went to the WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, >>> and I recall the tower sections stacked on the ground with >>> the weeds growing up over them. >>> >> >> >> > > From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 11 11:44:22 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:44:22 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <4A30A69C.8020601@iname.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> <804E29F539654FE3ADEBF887A8D748F9@skywaves.com> <18992.35857.370475.367740@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A30A69C.8020601@iname.com> Message-ID: <18993.9814.171727.506797@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > This man, who grew up watching "3, 5 and 8", now has a full-blown > DirecTV HDTV setup...he mostly watches cable/satellite channels. I > can't remember the last time he watched local news. I have to say, though, that I think my mother *would* watch the local news -- but not at 6:00 (she's rarely home that early) nor at 10 or 11 (she's already in bed). Come to think of it, she might actually watch the morning weather-sports-traffic (and oh, here's something we saw in the paper that might qualify as news) shows. -GAWollman From aerie.ma@comcast.net Thu Jun 11 13:08:39 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:08:39 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion Message-ID: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> Looking at the web pages for Channels 2, 4, 5, and 7 today, it impresses me that Channels 2, 4, and 5 barely mention conversion day since their DTV stations are already on and will remain where they are. Channel 7 (or as I call it, "the Armageddon Channel"), however, has a big banner reminding people to rescan, where to get help, a walk-in DTV center, etc. etc. The only thing is, someone in web design forgot to activate the links on the banner and clicking on it will do you no good at the moment. From Joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 11 16:14:38 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:14:38 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: > IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been a > year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY (AM) to > WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV Channel 35 > to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe still > WROW-TV). I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that WTRI returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV season that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its own station. > However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the switch), > WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the former > owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based group > that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a > fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in independent > stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and > Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that WROW > (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do > very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved > to WPTR. Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to WROW, ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. The only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From raccoonradio@gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:11:12 2009 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> Message-ID: <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> I noticed that as well. I believe Ch 4 shuts off analog at 12:31 pm tomorrow and others will do it a second before midnight On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jim Hall wrote: > Looking at the web pages for Channels 2, 4, 5, and 7 today, it impresses me > that Channels 2, 4, and 5 barely mention conversion day since their DTV > stations are already on and will remain where they are. Channel 7 (or as I > call it, "the Armageddon Channel"), however, has a big banner reminding > people to rescan, where to get help, a walk-in DTV center, etc. etc. ?The > only thing is, someone in web design forgot to activate the links on the > banner and clicking on it will do you no good at the moment. > > From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 11 18:12:40 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:12:40 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I noticed that as well. I believe Ch 4 shuts off analog at 12:31 pm > tomorrow and others will do it a second before midnight Nope. Channel 4 is supposed to run nightlight for a month, as I believe will channel 5. Channel 2 will run two weeks of nightlight. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 11 22:30:30 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:30:30 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu><1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> Are you saying that Channel 7 will not relocate its DTV signal from Channel 43 (I think that's the temporary assignment) to Channel 7 for a month after tomorrow? That would seem to be what would have to happen for nightlight to appear on Channel 7 for a month. If so, rescanning won't accomplish anything with Channel 7 for another whole month. I don't watch 7 much, but if what I think you've suggested is correct, I'm bummed. I wanted to find out whether the 7 signal was going to be OK or troublesome. I've been waiting more than a year since I got the DTV converter (for my analog TV) and just a year since I got my DTV receiver (replaced my other analog set). Are you going to tell me that since waiting a year hasn't hurt me, waiting another month clearly won't either? ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Bob Nelson" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:12 PM Subject: Re: Digital TV Conversion > < said: > >> I noticed that as well. I believe Ch 4 shuts off analog at 12:31 pm >> tomorrow and others will do it a second before midnight > > Nope. Channel 4 is supposed to run nightlight for a month, as I > believe will channel 5. Channel 2 will run two weeks of nightlight. > > -GAWollman > From jjlehmann@comcast.net Thu Jun 11 22:37:41 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:37:41 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu><1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <006f01c9eb06$c2d3ee90$487bcbb0$@net> > Are you saying that Channel 7 will not relocate its DTV signal from > Channel 43 (I think that's the temporary assignment) to Channel 7 for > a month after tomorrow? That would seem to be what would have to > happen for nightlight to appear on Channel 7 for a month. If so, > rescanning won't accomplish anything with Channel 7 for another whole > month. I don't watch 7 much, but if what I think you've suggested is > correct, I'm bummed. I wanted to find out whether the 7 signal was > going to be OK or troublesome. I've been waiting more than a year > since I got the DTV converter (for my analog TV) and just a year since > I got my DTV receiver (replaced my other analog set). Are you going to > tell me that since waiting a year hasn't hurt me, waiting another > month clearly won't either? Only channels 2, 4, and 5 will be staying on the air after tomorrow. 7's analog going off, and the digital moving from 42 to 7 is supposed to happen around midnight tomorrow night. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From scott@fybush.com Thu Jun 11 22:40:23 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:40:23 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu><1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Are you saying that Channel 7 will not relocate its DTV signal from > Channel 43 (I think that's the temporary assignment) to Channel 7 for > a month after tomorrow? 2, 4 and 5 all go nightlight. 7 does not - it will flash-cut from 42 to 7 tomorrow night, as I understand it. From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 11 22:43:39 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:43:39 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <006f01c9eb06$c2d3ee90$487bcbb0$@net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <006f01c9eb06$c2d3ee90$487bcbb0$@net> Message-ID: <18993.49371.147426.323838@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Only channels 2, 4, and 5 will be staying on the air after tomorrow. 7's > analog going off, and the digital moving from 42 to 7 is supposed to happen > around midnight tomorrow night. 23:59 is the word I have from the station. Make sure your recording devices are recording! -GAWollman From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 11 22:49:58 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:49:58 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> Message-ID: <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > 2, 4 and 5 all go nightlight. 7 does not - it will flash-cut from 42 to > 7 tomorrow night, as I understand it. Here's the full list, based on FCC filings: 2 6p-12m, then nightlight to 6/26 4 12n-6p, then nightlight to 7/12 5 6p-12m, then nightlight to 7/12 7 6p-12m (again, 12:59p is the word I have), flash cut 9 6p-12m, flash cut 27 6p-12m, ch. 66 will take over RF 27 38 12n-6p 56 6p-12m 66 6p-12m, will move DTV from RF 23 to RF 27 Already gone: 11, 21 (?), 25, 44, 46, 48, 50, 58 (?), 60, 62, 68 -GAWollman From jjlehmann@comcast.net Thu Jun 11 22:59:02 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:59:02 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> > Here's the full list, based on FCC filings: > > 2 6p-12m, then nightlight to 6/26 > 4 12n-6p, then nightlight to 7/12 > 5 6p-12m, then nightlight to 7/12 > 7 6p-12m (again, 12:59p is the word I have), flash cut > 9 6p-12m, flash cut > 27 6p-12m, ch. 66 will take over RF 27 > 38 12n-6p > 56 6p-12m > 66 6p-12m, will move DTV from RF 23 to RF 27 > > Already gone: 11, 21 (?), 25, 44, 46, 48, 50, 58 (?), 60, 62, 68 What do those times mean? This is a list of times that was posted on radio-info: 11:59 AM - WGBH (2) 12:30 PM - WBZ (4) 12:59 PM - WCVB (5) 1:00 PM - WSBK (38) 11:59 PM - WHDH (7), WMUR (9), WLVI (56), WUTF (66) 27 has also been gone for a couple months, as far as I know. Maybe they were modifying the WUNI transmitter to become the new WUTF-DT transmitter? Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 11 23:03:01 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:03:01 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> Message-ID: <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: >> Here's the full list, based on FCC filings: >> >> 2 6p-12m, then nightlight to 6/26 >> 4 12n-6p, then nightlight to 7/12 >> 5 6p-12m, then nightlight to 7/12 [etc.] > What do those times mean? Those are the shutdown times that the stations filed with the FCC. The Commission did not require precise-to-the-minute times, just an indication of which quarter of the day. Where did radio-info get their times? -GAWollman From scott@fybush.com Thu Jun 11 23:07:18 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:07:18 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> Message-ID: <4A31C666.7070503@fybush.com> Jeff Lehmann wrote: >> Here's the full list, based on FCC filings: (snip) > What do those times mean? This is a list of times that was posted on > radio-info: > > 11:59 AM - WGBH (2) > 12:30 PM - WBZ (4) > 12:59 PM - WCVB (5) > 1:00 PM - WSBK (38) > 11:59 PM - WHDH (7), WMUR (9), WLVI (56), WUTF (66) > > 27 has also been gone for a couple months, as far as I know. Maybe they were > modifying the WUNI transmitter to become the new WUTF-DT transmitter? Here's my understanding based on events of the last few days: the FCC has backed off enforcing the six-hour windows it had asked stations to commit to. In addition, there are certain last-minute requirements, in particular maintaining an open call center for a fixed period following analog shutdown, that have caused stations to reconsider their shutdown times, often at the last second. For instance, just in the last few hours, I've learned that WGRZ 2 in Buffalo will be doing analog - a decision made just today - and that my own WXXI 21 has changed its flip to nightlight from 11:30 PM Friday to 8 AM Friday. I think just about any list out there, very much including my own in last week's NERW, needs to be considered suspect...and that the situation may change at any second between now and 11:59:59 PM tomorrow. s From jjlehmann@comcast.net Thu Jun 11 23:07:55 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:07:55 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <007101c9eb0a$fb462b90$f1d282b0$@net> > Those are the shutdown times that the stations filed with the FCC. > The Commission did not require precise-to-the-minute times, just an > indication of which quarter of the day. Where did radio-info get > their times? They were just posted by "bostonmediaguy," so nothing official. An engineer from WBZ/WSBK posted those same times for WBZ and WSBK on the AVS forums, so those are most likely accurate. The time for WBZ is when the regular programming ends, and nightlight begins. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From mward@iname.com Thu Jun 11 23:20:37 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:20:37 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <4A31C666.7070503@fybush.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <4A31C666.7070503@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4A31C985.2040307@iname.com> Scott Fybush wrote: > Here's my understanding based on events of the last few days: the FCC > has backed off enforcing the six-hour windows it had asked stations to > commit to. In addition, there are certain last-minute requirements, in > particular maintaining an open call center for a fixed period following > analog shutdown, that have caused stations to reconsider their shutdown > times, often at the last second. This happened in Toledo with WUPW/36 (Fox)...they were planning on dumping analog 36 at 6 PM, but moved to 10 AM due to the call center issue. WKYC/3 locally (NBC) has been running its new DT 17 facility almost continuously since it first lit up earlier this afternoon. I wonder if the FCC is being charitable about stations bringing "post-transition only" DTV assignments a day early. I presume they can log it to testing... From dave@skywaves.net Thu Jun 11 23:26:01 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:26:01 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044> <4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <75FD7B51200D4166AC9BE711785199F2@skywaves.com> I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the shakeup. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: > >> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been a >> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY (AM) to >> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV Channel 35 >> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe still >> WROW-TV). > > I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that WTRI > returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV season > that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its > own station. > >> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the switch), >> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the former >> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based group >> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in independent >> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that WROW >> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do >> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved >> to WPTR. > > Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to WROW, > ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. The > only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > > From dave@skywaves.net Fri Jun 12 00:20:40 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:20:40 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> <521b7fd10906112041jac6fc53re78fdc94dd90f8a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Rick- The original WTRI-FM site - the one I visited with my Dad - was definitely on Heldeberg. They may have moved to Bald Mountain at some point, but my parents lived in Altamont in the very late 40's to be close to the transmitter. Channel 13 analog is on Bald Mountain on a big tower, and has been there from at least the late 60's. I wonder whether the Bald Mountain tower was moved from Vail Mills. That would explain some tower sections on the ground there. The Channel 13 tower is probably 850' or so, and Vail Mills was several hundred feet higher. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Kelly" To: "Dave Doherty" Cc: "Scott Fybush" ; Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:41 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > A couple of brief corrections, as I recall: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: >> and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the >> consolidation movement in the 90's. > > Actually, 106.5FM licensed to Albany, WDKC was owned by Kops-Monahan > (along with WTRY) signed on in the late 1960's - later changed calls > briefly to WTRY-FM (and then to WHSH, then to WPYX) > >> In the late 1950's, I went to the >> WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, and I recall the tower >> sections stacked on the ground with the weeds growing up over them. > > You're thinking of the Channel 35 (WTRI-TV) tower site on Bald > Mountain in Brunswick, NY outside of Troy (called Bald Hill by Scott). > We'd ride our bikes up the mountain and spend the day up there in my > teen years. the pieces of the Channel 35 towers were still up there > (late 1960's). > > -Rick Kelly > www.northeastairchecks.com > From linc45r-n@lincster.com Fri Jun 12 00:23:59 2009 From: linc45r-n@lincster.com (linc45r-n@lincster.com) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:23:59 -0700 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com> <23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> Message-ID: Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. Linc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had some >correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout in Delmar >was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior to that, the >transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in Menands. They built >the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they must have been affiliated >with ABC - or somebody - prior to the shakeup. > > -d > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Joseph Ross" > To: "Dan.Strassberg" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> >>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been a >>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY (AM) to >>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV Channel 35 >>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe still >>> WROW-TV). >> >> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that WTRI >> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV season >> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its >> own station. >> >>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the switch), >>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the former >>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based group >>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in independent >>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that WROW >>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do >>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved >>> to WPTR. >> >> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to WROW, >> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. The >> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >> >> -- >> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >> >> >> > > > From kc1ih@mac.com Thu Jun 11 23:36:37 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:36:37 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: At 10:30 PM -0400 6/11/09, Dan.Strassberg wrote: >Are you saying that Channel 7 will not relocate its DTV signal from >Channel 43 (I think that's the temporary assignment) to Channel 7 for >a month after tomorrow? That would seem to be what would have to >happen for nightlight to appear on Channel 7 for a month. If so, >rescanning won't accomplish anything with Channel 7 for another whole >month. I don't watch 7 much, but if what I think you've suggested is >correct, I'm bummed. I wanted to find out whether the 7 signal was >going to be OK or troublesome. I've been waiting more than a year >since I got the DTV converter (for my analog TV) and just a year since >I got my DTV receiver (replaced my other analog set). Are you going to >tell me that since waiting a year hasn't hurt me, waiting another >month clearly won't either? > WHDH-DT will switch from channel 42 to channel 7 at 11:59 PM Friday 6/12. At that time WHDH-TV (analog) will be turned off forever. -- Larry Weil WHDH/WLVI Master Control From rickkelly@gmail.com Thu Jun 11 23:41:50 2009 From: rickkelly@gmail.com (Rick Kelly) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:41:50 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <521b7fd10906112041jac6fc53re78fdc94dd90f8a@mail.gmail.com> A couple of brief corrections, as I recall: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: > and AFAIK WTRY didn't have an FM partner again until the > consolidation movement in the 90's. Actually, 106.5FM licensed to Albany, WDKC was owned by Kops-Monahan (along with WTRY) signed on in the late 1960's - later changed calls briefly to WTRY-FM (and then to WHSH, then to WPYX) > In the late 1950's, I went to the > WTRI-FM site on Heldeberg Mountain with my Dad, and I recall the tower > sections stacked on the ground with the weeds growing up over them. You're thinking of the Channel 35 (WTRI-TV) tower site on Bald Mountain in Brunswick, NY outside of Troy (called Bald Hill by Scott). We'd ride our bikes up the mountain and spend the day up there in my teen years. the pieces of the Channel 35 towers were still up there (late 1960's). -Rick Kelly www.northeastairchecks.com From joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 12 01:05:47 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:05:47 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu>, <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com>, <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A31A9EB.31153.759305@joe.attorneyross.com> On 11 Jun 2009 at 18:12, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Nope. Channel 4 is supposed to run nightlight for a month, as I > believe will channel 5. Channel 2 will run two weeks of nightlight. What's nightlight? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 12 01:05:48 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:05:48 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <899666.38973.qm@web55802.mail.re3.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: <4A31A9EC.6593.7596E5@joe.attorneyross.com> On 11 Jun 2009 at 9:02, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Wasn't WCDB on Channel 29 in the Mohawk Valley, near Amsterdam? I remember the TV listings saying WCDA-WCDB, Albany-Hagaman. An article that I have from the Sunday 22 April 1956 Albany Times Union Centennial Edition says that it was in Glenville, Schenectady County. The same article mentions that WTRI would return to the air as an ABC affiliate on 1 July and that WCDA-WCDB would become a full CBS affiliate on 1 August, whereupon WRGB would replace the CBS shows it was carrying with more NBC shows. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 12 01:05:48 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:05:48 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <75FD7B51200D4166AC9BE711785199F2@skywaves.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <75FD7B51200D4166AC9BE711785199F2@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <4A31A9EC.32222.7597B7@joe.attorneyross.com> On 11 Jun 2009 at 23:26, Dave Doherty wrote: > I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had some > correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout in > Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior to > that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in > Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they > must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the > shakeup. Well, I don't know, but I remember that WOKO had no network affiliation prior to the big swap. WROW was "ABC for the Capital District." -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From kvahey@comcast.net Fri Jun 12 00:08:49 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:08:49 -0500 Subject: so what will be legal ID as of Sat? Message-ID: <4fc429770906112108q4c709ej9932f5f56c602d65@mail.gmail.com> So as of June 13th do stations use DT or TV on ID From raccoonradio@gmail.com Fri Jun 12 02:51:32 2009 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:51:32 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <1fbbbced0906112351n68e7c6t9ed3ff323b4cb9e2@mail.gmail.com> Right; I stand corrected, though I could put it as "ends regular programming" on the analog signal and runs the nightlight w/ info On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < said: > >> I noticed that as well. I believe Ch 4 shuts off analog at 12:31 pm >> tomorrow and others will do it a second before midnight > > Nope. ?Channel 4 is supposed to run nightlight for a month, as I > believe will channel 5. ?Channel 2 will run two weeks of nightlight. > > -GAWollman > > From raccoonradio@gmail.com Fri Jun 12 02:54:56 2009 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:54:56 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <4A31A9EB.31153.759305@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A31A9EB.31153.759305@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <1fbbbced0906112354w2161cbefs346399e5f30ac9d@mail.gmail.com> I think it's running informational programming/scrolls about the switchover. Ch 6 in New Bedford was doing that for awhile. It will run for a couple weeks or a month. Right after Ch 6 went to nightlight, I could pick up the audio on my car stereo and it went back and forth from Spanish to English. I was in Rutland VT a couple days before Burlington switched off and the WCAX/3 newscast mentioned the nightlight feature. They also had a map showing what areas the new digital signal would cover. On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:05 AM, A. Joseph Ross wrote: > On 11 Jun 2009 at 18:12, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >> Nope. ?Channel 4 is supposed to run nightlight for a month, as I >> believe will channel 5. ?Channel 2 will run two weeks of nightlight. > > What's nightlight? > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 617.367.0468 > ?92 State Street, Suite 700 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?http://www.attorneyross.com > > > From rickkelly@gmail.com Fri Jun 12 06:41:58 2009 From: rickkelly@gmail.com (Rick Kelly) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:41:58 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <4A305662.2070809@fybush.com> <18747EFC8A704C118264B16A0F2CD7A8@skywaves.com> <4A306192.9030106@fybush.com> <4801CABAD73B40A18991BBC7677F6A24@skywaves.com> <521b7fd10906112041jac6fc53re78fdc94dd90f8a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <521b7fd10906120341i5bdcb163ha0aae009c10cda4b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Dave Doherty wrote: > The original WTRI-FM site - the one I visited with my Dad - was definitely > on Heldeberg. I was talkin' about WTRI-TV... they were on Bald Mountain. When 35 went off, and WAST-TV Channel 13 replaced them, WAST built a new, much taller tower - which the marketed as "The Friendly Giant". Rick Kelly From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 12 07:17:04 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:17:04 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044> <4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com> <75FD7B51200D4166AC9BE711785199F2@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <72B30AB294724B31BCE4AC5CA0E67A74@SatU205S5044> If you are referring to the station best known as WAST and currently (well, it WAS currently yesterday, 6/11/09) on Channel 13 in Albany, it took to the air after the freeze (1954?) on Channel 35 as WTRI (TV) and transmitted from Bald Mountain, north of Troy. The studios could well have been in Menands. Dunno. What I do know is that the only TV in Albany-Schenectady-Troy in 1952 was General Electric's WRGB (TV) Schenectady, which at that time may still have been on Channel 4. Even then, however, I'm pretty sure that WRGB transmitted from the Helderbergs. The first time the Tri Cities had more than one over-the-air TV signal was after the freeze was lifted. I doubt whether that was earlier than 1953. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:26 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout >in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior to >that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they >must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >shakeup. > > -d > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Joseph Ross" > To: "Dan.Strassberg" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> >> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> >>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been >>> a >>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY (AM) >>> to >>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>> Channel 35 >>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe still >>> WROW-TV). >> >> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >> WTRI >> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV season >> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its >> own station. >> >>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the switch), >>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the former >>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>> group >>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in independent >>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that WROW >>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do >>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved >>> to WPTR. >> >> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to WROW, >> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. The >> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >> >> -- >> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >> >> >> > From wollman@bimajority.org Fri Jun 12 09:38:52 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:38:52 -0400 Subject: so what will be legal ID as of Sat? In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906112108q4c709ej9932f5f56c602d65@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906112108q4c709ej9932f5f56c602d65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18994.23148.316200.525752@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > So as of June 13th do stations use DT or TV on ID They use whatever callsign is given on their license, just as before. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 12 09:51:49 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:51:49 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com> <23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> Message-ID: <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> If you are talking about radio-network affiliations in the Capital District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. It was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to this day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was on your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least a few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO moved. When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. From its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able to provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the move, WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U facilities on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the same time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe twice) on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove me wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named Al Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out among 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; WXKW had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with an extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where budgets (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had a Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the WOKO plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced spread. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower > that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may > still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. > > Linc > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Doherty" > To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" > > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout >>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they >>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>shakeup. >> >> -d >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> >>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>> >>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been >>>> a >>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>> (AM) to >>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>> Channel 35 >>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>> still >>>> WROW-TV). >>> >>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>> WTRI >>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>> season >>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its >>> own station. >>> >>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>> switch), >>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>> former >>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>> group >>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>> independent >>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>> WROW >>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do >>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved >>>> to WPTR. >>> >>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>> WROW, >>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>> The >>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>> >>> -- >>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From wollman@bimajority.org Fri Jun 12 09:55:43 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:55:43 -0400 Subject: More on call signs Message-ID: <18994.24159.888567.653657@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> The Commission released a Public Notice (DA 09-1253) last week explaining how this is going to work. In essence, they will allow either "-DT" or "-TV" suffixes for post-transition facilities, and will consider them equivalent. However, stations wishing to use "-DT" must still request it as a normal call sign change. By default, stations will keep their current call signs. (Last time I looked, I never found any provision in the rules that authorized "-DT".) -GAWollman From billohno@gmail.com Fri Jun 12 07:15:24 2009 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:15:24 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <4A3238CC.4040303@gmail.com> Mark Watson wrote: > On this day (June 10th) in 1951, Ike and Maurice Cohen put WCAP (980 > Lowell) on the air for it's first day of broadcasting. 58 years later, > WCAP is still locally owned and operated, with Clark Smidt's Merrimack > Valley Radio LLC continuing the commitment to locally owned and > focused radio the Cohen brothers started. And WCAP's main studio is > still in the same place it's been since day one. And my lovely wife, Melissa, reminds me that June 10th, while a big "AM98 Weekend" day in broadcasting history, was an even bigger day in the celebration of her birth. Ah, perspective. Bill O'Neill From jjlehmann@comcast.net Fri Jun 12 12:43:38 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:43:38 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <00ab01c9eb7c$efd1b5a0$cf7520e0$@net> > > Those are the shutdown times that the stations filed with the FCC. > > The Commission did not require precise-to-the-minute times, just an > > indication of which quarter of the day. Where did radio-info get > > their times? > > They were just posted by "bostonmediaguy," so nothing official. An > engineer from WBZ/WSBK posted those same times for WBZ and WSBK on the > AVS forums, so those are most likely accurate. The time for WBZ is when > the regular programming ends, and nightlight begins. Well so far the end of analog has been a bust here in the Boston area. WGBH did not end regular programming at 11:59 AM. WBZ did go to nightlight at 12:30, but with absolutely no fanfare at all. Thanks for nothing WBZ... and I won't be expecting anything from 38 at 1 PM either. It's nice to see on youtube some of the stations (owned by smaller companies) in other markets actually taking the time to acknowledge the historical significance of the event. One of the best I've seen so far is WFSB-3 in Hartford. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From mkr@matthewsworkbench.com Fri Jun 12 12:33:32 2009 From: mkr@matthewsworkbench.com (Matthew Reed) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:33:32 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <1fbbbced0906112354w2161cbefs346399e5f30ac9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A31A9EB.31153.759305@joe.attorneyross.com> <1fbbbced0906112354w2161cbefs346399e5f30ac9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A32835C.2030500@matthewsworkbench.com> Bob Nelson wrote: > I was in Rutland VT a couple days before Burlington switched off and the WCAX/3 > newscast mentioned the nightlight feature. They also had a map showing > what areas the new digital signal would cover. The WCAX nightlight was mostly the National Association of Broadcasters video demonstrating (in both English and Spanish) setting up a converter box. WCAX interspersed that with their own video showing that coverage map and pointing out that many of their analog viewers wouldn't be able to receive the digital signal. WCAX interrupted the video loop to run their news broadcasts and also "Across the Fence." -- Matthew Reed http://www.matthewsworkbench.com mkr@matthewsworkbench.com From paulranderson@charter.net Fri Jun 12 12:34:37 2009 From: paulranderson@charter.net (Paul Anderson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:34:37 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> Message-ID: <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> > What do those times mean? This is a list of times that was posted on > radio-info: > > 11:59 AM - WGBH (2) > 12:30 PM - WBZ (4) > 12:59 PM - WCVB (5) > 1:00 PM - WSBK (38) > 11:59 PM - WHDH (7), WMUR (9), WLVI (56), WUTF (66) As of 12:30 PM, WGBH is still running regular programming, but WBZ has switched to "all DTV instructions, all the time". Paul From raccoonradio@mail.com Fri Jun 12 13:43:14 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:43:14 -0500 Subject: Digital TV Conversion Message-ID: <20090612174314.88BC6905C32@ws1-5a.us4.outblaze.com> Yes; I didn't see the actual nightlight of WCAX/3 (though I heard the audio of Ch 6 New Bedford later) but when I was in VT (President's Day weekend I believe) there was a feature on the Ch 3 news showing a map (and also they said it would be on their site) outlining areas in green or orange depending on whom would not get the new signal, or who would. >>many of their analog viewers wouldn't be able to receive the digital signal. Unless they got cable or satellite... On the map some areas in nearby Addison County or maybe even Chitteden County itself were out of luck. There were Vermont postcards years ago (maybe still around) that showed a (big) satellite dish in someone's back yard. Caption: "Vermont's Official Flower" :) From Joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 12 13:46:32 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:46:32 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu>, <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net>, <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> Message-ID: <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 12 Jun 2009 Paul Anderson wrote: > > What do those times mean? This is a list of times that was posted on > > radio-info: > > > > 11:59 AM - WGBH (2) > > 12:30 PM - WBZ (4) > > 12:59 PM - WCVB (5) > > 1:00 PM - WSBK (38) > > 11:59 PM - WHDH (7), WMUR (9), WLVI (56), WUTF (66) > > As of 12:30 PM, WGBH is still running regular programming, but WBZ has > switched to "all DTV instructions, all the time". I thought the transition was tonight. You mean I missed it? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From raccoonradio@mail.com Fri Jun 12 13:46:29 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:46:29 -0500 Subject: Digital TV Conversion Message-ID: <20090612174629.238D3905C32@ws1-5a.us4.outblaze.com> I only have one TV and it's got cable; I didn't see any announcement about the switchoff ("at this time we will end our analog broadcasts"? No.). At least from what I saw via Comcast the signal went into the usual 12:30 pm soap opera. So those watching digitally or via cable got no recognition of the moment (unless they mentioned it earlier on their noon newscast) Later today and tomorrow I can check out TV signals with the TV sound portion of a Walkman I have. So I guess on 2, 4, and 5 it would be the nightlight of "all digital TV instructions all the time" for the designated period. From wollman@bimajority.org Fri Jun 12 14:27:56 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:27:56 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I thought the transition was tonight. You mean I missed it? The transition happens throughout the day today. -GAWollman From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Fri Jun 12 14:44:50 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:44:50 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A32A222.4070702@ttlc.net> Garrett Wollman wrote: > The transition happens throughout the day today. > Look for lots of Analog TVs on the sidewalk for the next couple of weeks. FREE!!!! From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 12 14:53:52 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:53:52 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com><18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A32A222.4070702@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> In my town, and I suspect many others, you have to go to the town yard and pay $15.00 cash for a sticker that you place on each TV you want taken away. Then you have to lug the TV or TVs to curbside early on your designated trash-pickup day. I had a set that I couldn't manage by myself (too big and too heavy for me). Big Brother/Big Sister took two sets for just about the cost of two stickers and they came inside and picked them up. Any permits required were their responsibility. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Kirk" To: "Garrett Wollman" Cc: ; "A. Joseph Ross" Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Digital TV Conversion > Garrett Wollman wrote: >> The transition happens throughout the day today. >> > Look for lots of Analog TVs on the sidewalk for the next couple of > weeks. FREE!!!! > > > From raccoonradio@gmail.com Fri Jun 12 15:06:21 2009 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:06:21 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A32A222.4070702@ttlc.net> <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <1fbbbced0906121206s1add54c6w92ec6bd2f2cdbbf7@mail.gmail.com> In Beverly occasionally there will be a day when you can lug your computer, computer monitor, or old TV set down to the high school and get rid of it either for free (comp.) or for a small fee ($3 for the comp. monitor, for example). Before the pickup day I went to a comp. repair place and "sold" the old comp. I had to them for $3 (they would use for parts; it was really outdated) and that paid for my disposal fee of the monitor. From lglavin@mail.com Fri Jun 12 15:55:16 2009 From: lglavin@mail.com (Laurence Glavin) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:55:16 -0500 Subject: Digital TV Conversion Message-ID: <20090612195516.570A6BE407F@ws1-9.us4.outblaze.com> >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dan.Strassberg" >To: "Roger Kirk" , "Garrett Wollman" >Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org, "A. Joseph Ross" >Subject: Re: Digital TV Conversion >Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:53:52 -0400 >In my town, and I suspect many others, you have to go to the town yard >and pay $15.00 cash for a sticker that you place on each TV you want >taken away. Then you have to lug the TV or TVs to curbside early on >your designated trash-pickup day. I had a set that I couldn't manag >by myself (too big and too heavy for me). Big Brother/Big Sister took >two sets for just about the cost of two stickers and they came inside >and picked them up. Any permits required were their responsibility. Last summer, Waste Management and Sony offered free pickup of TVs, computers, VCRSs and maybe some other stuff, if you brought them down to the stadium where the Patriots play, in Foxboro. The only cost then would have been the gasoline and wear-and-tear on my vehicle, but I went down there, and was impressed with the efficiency of the whole operation, and the personnel couldn't have been nicer. Now, I was left with my big TV on cable and the tabletop model I use with a digital-to-analog box. Good deal! Anyway, this was before anyone NOT reading the Sunday NY Times would have thought the general economy was ok, but I was astounded be the horde of retail outlets on the stadium grounds, just a short distance from all the similar or identical outlets on route 1, not to mention a cineplex and beaucoups (a little French lingo) restaurants. I wondered then how all these businesses could survice while competitors and co-owned faclities were vying for the same consumers! Sort of like all the radio stations playing the same recordings or right-wing talk shows, right? -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Fri Jun 12 16:09:05 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:09:05 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: WOKO was the original CBS affiliate for the Capital District. When did WTRY grab that away? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > If you are talking about radio-network affiliations in the Capital > District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. It > was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any > network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been > Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N > (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to this > day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The > studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in > Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was on > your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least a > few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany > shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO moved. > When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed > (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second > tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. From > its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able to > provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the move, > WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U facilities > on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the same > time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric > silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally > fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell > Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe twice) > on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( > > Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove me > wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: > WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named Al > Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out among > 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the > manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; WXKW > had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with an > extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where budgets > (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had a > Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be > wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the WOKO > plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I > don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the > 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced spread. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" > ; "Dan.Strassberg" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower >> that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may >> still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. >> >> Linc >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dave Doherty" >> To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" >> >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout >>>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they >>>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>>shakeup. >>> >>> -d >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >>> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>>> >>>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been >>>>> a >>>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>>> (AM) to >>>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>>> Channel 35 >>>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>>> still >>>>> WROW-TV). >>>> >>>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>>> WTRI >>>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>>> season >>>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its >>>> own station. >>>> >>>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>>> switch), >>>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>>> former >>>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>>> group >>>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>>> independent >>>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>>> WROW >>>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do >>>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved >>>>> to WPTR. >>>> >>>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>>> WROW, >>>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>>> The >>>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > From nostaticatall@charter.net Fri Jun 12 15:46:05 2009 From: nostaticatall@charter.net (Dave Tomm) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:46:05 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <1fbbbced0906121206s1add54c6w92ec6bd2f2cdbbf7@mail.gmail.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A32A222.4070702@ttlc.net> <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> <1fbbbced0906121206s1add54c6w92ec6bd2f2cdbbf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wellesley has an RDF (Recycling & Disposal Facility) that takes in electronics all year round--no fee. They also have a reusables area where working items can be dropped off and others can pick them up if desired. I fully expect it will look like Best Buy circa 1998 over the next month or so..... On Jun 12, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Bob Nelson wrote: > In Beverly occasionally there will be a day when you can lug your > computer, computer monitor, or old TV set down to the high school and > get rid of it either for free (comp.) or > for a small fee ($3 for the comp. monitor, for example). > > Before the pickup day I went to a comp. repair place and "sold" the > old comp. I had to them > for $3 (they would use for parts; it was really outdated) and that > paid for my disposal fee > of the monitor. From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Fri Jun 12 17:18:57 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:18:57 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com><18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A32A222.4070702@ttlc.net> <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A32C641.5070001@ttlc.net> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > In my town, and I suspect many others, you have to go to the town yard > and pay $15.00 cash for a sticker that you place on each TV you want > taken away. Then you have to lug the TV or TVs to curbside early on > your designated trash-pickup day. Apparently, Billerica has the same bulk disposal policy with pre-paid, curbside disposal. End of June, the prices are going up. Right now, everybody's cleaning house. I'm surprised that they didn't raise the prices for TVs before June 12th. From kvahey@comcast.net Fri Jun 12 18:36:40 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:36:40 -0500 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4fc429770906121536t746bcb32x75add0364830e522@mail.gmail.com> The creative folks at Weigel Broadcasting in Chicago have come up with a novel plan Low power Channel 23 will simulcast WCIU channel 26 and they will also simulcast the newscasts of WGN-9 and WWMAQ-5. WWME-LP's signal covers most of Cook County. The other issue will be if WBBM-DT will fare better on channel 11 than it did on 3 where tuners 2 miles away couldn't get a signal From scott@fybush.com Fri Jun 12 20:02:00 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:02:00 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906121536t746bcb32x75add0364830e522@mail.gmail.com> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <49CE66D3-A44A-4DA7-A329-F18EA87774B8@charter.net> <4A325C38.5175.38A373@Joe.attorneyross.com> <18994.40492.844471.298898@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4fc429770906121536t746bcb32x75add0364830e522@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A32EC78.6040905@fybush.com> Kevin Vahey wrote: > The creative folks at Weigel Broadcasting in Chicago have come up with > a novel plan > > Low power Channel 23 will simulcast WCIU channel 26 and they will also > simulcast the newscasts of WGN-9 and WWMAQ-5. > > WWME-LP's signal covers most of Cook County. > > The other issue will be if WBBM-DT will fare better on channel 11 than > it did on 3 where tuners 2 miles away couldn't get a signal WBBM-DT is actually on 12, instead of 11, to escape co-channel issues with stations in other nearby markets. The engineers at WBBM told me last week that they'd already done an overnight test of DT12 and found the results more than met their expectations. Weigel is also simulcasting CBS affiliate WDJT 58 on an analog LPTV it owns in Milwaukee, WYTU-LP 63. s From jjlehmann@comcast.net Fri Jun 12 21:59:20 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:59:20 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <003501c9ebca$9130deb0$b3929c10$@net> > Well so far the end of analog has been a bust here in the Boston area. > WGBH did not end regular programming at 11:59 AM. WBZ did go to > nightlight at 12:30, but with absolutely no fanfare at all. Thanks for > nothing WBZ... and I won't be expecting anything from 38 at 1 PM > either. I've got the videos of the WBZ end of regular programming and the WSBK sign off up on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZC-4caB0E4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1K3j056iTk I've got 3 recorders ready to go for midnight to catch 2, 5, and 7. So if anyone else could record and post 56 (or even 66? Haha), that'd be great. Also, I've heard that WMUR will be looking for signal reports once they go to DT on 9, compared to the current DT on 59. So if anyone has any of those, I'll pass them along as well. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Fri Jun 12 23:09:01 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:09:01 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <003501c9ebca$9130deb0$b3929c10$@net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <003501c9ebca$9130deb0$b3929c10$@net> Message-ID: <4A33184D.40703@ttlc.net> Jeff Lehmann wrote: > I've got the videos of the WSBK sign off up on youtube: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1K3j056iTk > Real smooth fade to black! From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 12 23:38:46 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:38:46 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044> My guess would be that WTRY picked up the CBS Radio affiliation when it went full time. Dunno when that was but I believe it was just before the start of World War II. When I arrived in Troy (September '52), the Capital district AM dial had gotten pretty full. Aside from WHAZ, which was a non-comm share timer (sharing with WEVD and WBBR in New York City; THAT WBBR was unrelated to the current one) owned by RPI and operating exactly six hours a week (Monday 6:00PM to midnight--but licensed to stay on until Tuesday at 3:00AM!), you had WROW, WGY, WXKW, WTRY, WSNY (1240 Schenectady--not much of a signal in Albany or Troy), WABY, WOKO, and WPTR. Of those, WROW, WXKW, and WPTR had all signed on in 1947 or 1948. Until duopolies ended in 1943, WOKO and WABY were co-owned. It was before my time, but I believe that WTRY began as a daytimer. I think the original sign-on might have been in 1939. The transmitter was north of Latham Circle. I wasn't there then, but I think that in 1941, WTRY added a second tower at the original site and went full-time with 1 kW-U DA-1. After the War, WTRY moved to Niskayuna where it built the three-tower array that still stands and increased to 5 kW-U DA-1. I think WTRY was already the CBS affiliate when the Niskayuna site went on the air. Sometime after CKGM Montreal moved from 980 to 990, WTRY became ND days, keeping the former DA-1 pattern at night. So until WTRY went full time, the network lineup probably would have been NBC: WGY, CBS: WOKO, ABC and Mutual (found on the same station in quite a few markets): WABY. Generally speaking, the networks did not affiliate with daytimers, although there were exceptions (more with Mutual than the other networks), and NBC and CBS would affiliate only with stations where they could be the sole network (but, again, there were exceptions). BTW, as I recall the Capital District FM dial in 1952, there were four or five stations: WEVR 91.3 Troy (Hudson Valley Tech), WFLY 92.3 Troy (transmitting from the Helderbergs, owned by the Troy Record, Rural Radio Network/'QXR Network), WROW-FM 93.9, and WGFM 99.5 (sister of WGY, transmitting from the WRGB (TV) site in the Helderbergs). I think that WAMC (90.7?) had already been built (or maybe was soon to be built) atop Mt Greylock and was easily audible in Troy and the rest of the Capital District. WROW-FM was simulcasting WROW for six hours a day with 800W @ ~20' AAT from a telephone pole adjacent to the WROW Tx building (then in Glenmont). ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:09 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > WOKO was the original CBS affiliate for the Capital District. When > did WTRY grab that away? -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "Boston Radio Interest" > > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> If you are talking about radio-network affiliations in the Capital >> District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. >> It >> was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any >> network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been >> Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N >> (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to >> this >> day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The >> studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in >> Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was >> on >> your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least >> a >> few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany >> shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO >> moved. >> When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed >> (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second >> tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. >> From >> its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able >> to >> provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the >> move, >> WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U >> facilities >> on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the >> same >> time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric >> silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally >> fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell >> Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe >> twice) >> on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( >> >> Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove >> me >> wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: >> WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named >> Al >> Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out >> among >> 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the >> manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; >> WXKW >> had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with >> an >> extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where >> budgets >> (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had >> a >> Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be >> wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the >> WOKO >> plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I >> don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the >> 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced >> spread. >> >> ----- >> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" >> ; "Dan.Strassberg" >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower >>> that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may >>> still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. >>> >>> Linc >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Dave Doherty" >>> To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" >>> >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM >>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>>>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the >>>>buildout >>>>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>>>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>>>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems >>>>they >>>>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>>>shakeup. >>>> >>>> -d >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >>>> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >>>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have >>>>>> been >>>>>> a >>>>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>>>> (AM) to >>>>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>>>> Channel 35 >>>>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>>>> still >>>>>> WROW-TV). >>>>> >>>>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>>>> WTRI >>>>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>>>> season >>>>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had >>>>> its >>>>> own station. >>>>> >>>>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>>>> switch), >>>>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>>>> former >>>>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>>>> group >>>>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>>>> independent >>>>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>>>> WROW >>>>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to >>>>>> do >>>>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then >>>>>> moved >>>>>> to WPTR. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>>>> WROW, >>>>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>>>> The >>>>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>>>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>>>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 13 00:25:45 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:25:45 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <72B30AB294724B31BCE4AC5CA0E67A74@SatU205S5044> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <72B30AB294724B31BCE4AC5CA0E67A74@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A32F209.3397.4D798E@joe.attorneyross.com> On 12 Jun 2009 at 7:17, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > If you are referring to the station best known as WAST and currently > (well, it WAS currently yesterday, 6/11/09) on Channel 13 in Albany, > it took to the air after the freeze (1954?) on Channel 35 as WTRI (TV) > and transmitted from Bald Mountain, north of Troy. The studios could > well have been in Menands. Dunno. What I do know is that the only TV > in Albany-Schenectady-Troy in 1952 was General Electric's WRGB (TV) > Schenectady, which at that time may still have been on Channel 4. Even > then, however, I'm pretty sure that WRGB transmitted from the > Helderbergs. The first time the Tri Cities had more than one > over-the-air TV signal was after the freeze was lifted. I doubt > whether that was earlier than 1953. According to the Times Union article, WROW-TV went on the air in October 1953 from a temporary tower -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 13 00:25:46 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:25:46 -0400 Subject: End of Analog Message-ID: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> I had my small 2-inch portable on at midnight, when the transition took place. I was on channel 5 when the transition took place -- probably a mistake, since 7 might have been more interesting. Channel 7 is gone on this analog set. Channels 2, 4. and 5 have DTV instructions. On UHF, everything is gone except a weak signal arounc channel 26 or something, I assume an LP station. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 13 00:25:46 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:25:46 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com> On 12 Jun 2009 at 23:38, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > So until WTRY went full time, the network lineup probably would have > been NBC: WGY, CBS: WOKO, ABC and Mutual (found on the same station > in quite a few markets): WABY. Generally speaking, the networks did > not affiliate with daytimers, although there were exceptions (more > with Mutual than the other networks), Sometime later, in the late 50s, early 60s, in the Boston area, ABC was on daytimer WTAO 740. I think some ABC programs sometimes may have been carried on the co-owned FM station, WXHR. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 13 00:25:46 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:25:46 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu>, <67AE465E46E84C75AD0A4CCC494394CD@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A32F20A.10782.4D7AA7@joe.attorneyross.com> On 12 Jun 2009 at 14:53, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > In my town, and I suspect many others, you have to go to the town yard > and pay $15.00 cash for a sticker that you place on each TV you want > taken away. Then you have to lug the TV or TVs to curbside early on > your designated trash-pickup day. I had a set that I couldn't manage > by myself (too big and too heavy for me). Big Brother/Big Sister took > two sets for just about the cost of two stickers and they came inside > and picked them up. Any permits required were their responsibility. In Brookline, we have a drop-off center open every Thursday morning through October. It's free, but you have to prove that you're a resident of Brookline. A drivers license was enough when dropped of a CRT monitor a few weeks ago. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 13 01:09:22 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:09:22 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I had my small 2-inch portable on at midnight, when the transition > took place. I was on channel 5 when the transition took place -- > probably a mistake, since 7 might have been more interesting. > Channel 7 is gone on this analog set. Channels 2, 4. and 5 have DTV > instructions. On UHF, everything is gone except a weak signal arounc > channel 26 or something, I assume an LP station. The schedule for 7 and 56 was as follows: 11:56 - drop 56 analog by remote control from the 7 tx building 11:59 - drop 42 (transitional digital) by remote control 11:59:30 - shut down the old 7 analog Larcan (took about 15 seconds) 11:59:45 - remotely operate antenna switch to put new 7 tx on the antenna 11:59:51 - power up new 7 digital tx (took about five seconds) 31:00 - carry old Larcan in pieces to dumpster All of the work was performed by Brian Edgerton under the supervision of Director of Engineering Jim Shultis. According to Jim, the old 7 transmitter was the oldest Larcan still operating. -GAWollman From john@minutemancomm.com Sat Jun 13 01:34:51 2009 From: john@minutemancomm.com (John Mullaney) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:34:51 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3C270EDFFB2B4FB293869E976DBFD72D@johnster1> Sadly I don't think so... Brian Edgerton has been a Boston area broadcast engineer in both radio and television, for nearly 40 years. Please help if you can. --- Forwarded message--- One of our members - Brian Edgerton, of WHDH-TV, had a mild stroke recently and is now recuperating from an operation. As a temporary Employee he has no medical coverage from the company, nor will he be receiving his salary during his absence from work. If you are in a position to be of assistance, please send a donation to the union with Brian's name in the memo line. We will collect any money sent in and make sure that he gets it. Thank you Send to: IBEW Local 1228 Brian Edgerton fund 77 Access Rd. Norwood, MA 02062 -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Garrett Wollman Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:09 AM To: A. Joseph Ross Cc: Boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org Subject: End of Analog < said: > I had my small 2-inch portable on at midnight, when the transition > took place. I was on channel 5 when the transition took place -- > probably a mistake, since 7 might have been more interesting. > Channel 7 is gone on this analog set. Channels 2, 4. and 5 have DTV > instructions. On UHF, everything is gone except a weak signal arounc > channel 26 or something, I assume an LP station. The schedule for 7 and 56 was as follows: 11:56 - drop 56 analog by remote control from the 7 tx building 11:59 - drop 42 (transitional digital) by remote control 11:59:30 - shut down the old 7 analog Larcan (took about 15 seconds) 11:59:45 - remotely operate antenna switch to put new 7 tx on the antenna 11:59:51 - power up new 7 digital tx (took about five seconds) 31:00 - carry old Larcan in pieces to dumpster All of the work was performed by Brian Edgerton under the supervision of Director of Engineering Jim Shultis. According to Jim, the old 7 transmitter was the oldest Larcan still operating. -GAWollman From raccoonradio@gmail.com Sat Jun 13 03:09:05 2009 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:09:05 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <1fbbbced0906130009v791e4b05w45d88f9d3fb6d7df@mail.gmail.com> After midnight while at work I put on Ch 5 on the "TV sound" portion of my Walkman and heard them doing a nightlight informational show: "Now, remember you won't be able to pick up stations after the switchover in February otherwise..." Oopsie, an older program! From m_carney@yahoo.com Sat Jun 13 06:02:26 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:02:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <1fbbbced0906130009v791e4b05w45d88f9d3fb6d7df@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <1fbbbced0906130009v791e4b05w45d88f9d3fb6d7df@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <850624.30137.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm not sure what time you were listening, but they were running a couple of different programs and the 1st one after midnight (with Susan Wornick) talked about June 12. They were also running them on their website. I will say kudos to WCVB for having more than just the NAB infomercial. From john@minutemancomm.com Sat Jun 13 07:14:36 2009 From: john@minutemancomm.com (John Mullaney) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:14:36 -0400 Subject: End of Analog References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com><18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><3C270EDFFB2B4FB293869E976DBFD72D@johnster1> <18995.15826.290526.637217@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Okay that's great news! I was under the impression he couldn't work anymore from the stories that I had been hearing. Glad to hear he is back. John -----Original Message----- From: Garrett Wollman [mailto:wollman@bimajority.org] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:49 AM To: John Mullaney Subject: RE: End of Analog < said: > Sadly I don't think so... You're welcome to believe that there was an impostor introduced to me as Brian Edgerton, but I'm more inclined to believe that the Brian Edgerton who I met, who walked stiffly and told me that he had just spent three weeks in the hospital, was in fact the Brian Edgerton. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 13 07:41:06 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:41:06 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 Message-ID: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> The end of analog on 7 was very unceremonious; the carriers were cut for the last time right in the middle of a Toyota commercial. I assume that the balance of the commercial aired in DTV, also on Channel 7. For me, the good news is that--on both my old analog TV/converter box and my DTV receiver--I am having no trouble, so far, with picture or sound quality or reliability of reception of the only major Boston station that is broadcasting DTV on VHF. Moreover, the rescanning process on the DTV converter box appeared to go without a hitch. Not so with my year-old Panasonic LCD DTV receiver, however. The problem is more annoying than serious; it does not affect the picture, sound, or apparent reliability of reception, but it's annoying and I can't figure out how to correct it. Besides affecting 7-1 and 7-2, the problem also appears on 66-1 (there is no 66-2). When I use the remote's up/down arrow keys to select channels, I now have two 7-1s, two 7-2s, and two 66-1s. In all three cases, if I use the arrow keys to tune to these channels and approach them from a lower-numbered channel, the program appears on the first instance of the channel that I encounter; the second instance simply elicits the no-signal message. Entering the channel/subchannel designation from the remote's numeric keypad, I can get the appropriate program. I tried editing the list of stations by turning "off" the second instance of each of these channels that appeared in the list of signals the receiver displayed after the channel scan, but that simply made it impossible to select those channels via the up/down arrows. Fortunately, the programs remained accessible from the remote's numeric keypad. Anyhow, it seems that if I want to be able to reach 7-1, 7-2, or 66-1 via the up/down arrows, I must have two instances of each channel/subchannel combination. Eliminating the second instance eliminates both instances. I haven't tried eliminating the first instance because I fear that that would also make it impossible to reach those channels from the keypad. Also, on repeated rescans, I've observed that the receiver "remembers" on/off designations from previous scans, whereas I thought that rescanning would clear them. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 13 06:57:45 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:57:45 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044> <4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044> The most famous and long-running case of CBS on a daytimer that I can think of (OK, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a daytimer; it was a limited-time station) was WHCU (a commercial station, then owned by Cornell U) in Ithaca NY. WHCU was allowed to stay on the air until New Orleans sunset. WHCU did not get to operate full time until the early 1980s, I believe, but with the great soil conductivity north of Ithaca and (eventually) a 5-kW ND (it was 1 kW ND for many years) daytime signal on 870, WHCU was the best game on the AM dial between Syracuse and Rochester, especially when you consider that NBC's Red Network had locked up the big signals in those two citues (WSYR and WHAM) and CBS had to settle for high-on-the dial signals there--WFBL 1390 and WHEC 1460. Seems to me that I've also heard that one of the four radio networks at one point was affiliated with WEDO McKeesport, a 1-kW ND daytime-only Pittsburgh-market station on 810. Like WHCU, WEDO (one of the first stations that Jerry Williams worked for--I don't think Williams had yet discovered two-way talk at that time) has an excellent signal for its power. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:25 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > On 12 Jun 2009 at 23:38, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > >> So until WTRY went full time, the network lineup probably would >> have >> been NBC: WGY, CBS: WOKO, ABC and Mutual (found on the same >> station >> in quite a few markets): WABY. Generally speaking, the networks did >> not affiliate with daytimers, although there were exceptions (more >> with Mutual than the other networks), > > Sometime later, in the late 50s, early 60s, in the Boston area, ABC > was on daytimer WTAO 740. I think some ABC programs sometimes may > have been carried on the co-owned FM station, WXHR. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Jun 13 08:19:43 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:19:43 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044> <4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <53F6EB1C9E1142E9A4BA32781AC735E1@DougDrown> Wasn't WORL also an ABC affiliate for a while? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:25 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > On 12 Jun 2009 at 23:38, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > >> So until WTRY went full time, the network lineup probably would have >> been NBC: WGY, CBS: WOKO, ABC and Mutual (found on the same station >> in quite a few markets): WABY. Generally speaking, the networks did >> not affiliate with daytimers, although there were exceptions (more >> with Mutual than the other networks), > > Sometime later, in the late 50s, early 60s, in the Boston area, ABC > was on daytimer WTAO 740. I think some ABC programs sometimes may > have been carried on the co-owned FM station, WXHR. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Jun 13 08:21:25 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:21:25 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044><4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com> <4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> WHEB in Portsmouth (1-kw daytimer on 750) was an NBC affiliate, at least in the '60s. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:57 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > The most famous and long-running case of CBS on a daytimer that I can > think of (OK, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a daytimer; it was a > limited-time station) was WHCU (a commercial station, then owned by > Cornell U) in Ithaca NY. WHCU was allowed to stay on the air until New > Orleans sunset. WHCU did not get to operate full time until the early > 1980s, I believe, but with the great soil conductivity north of Ithaca and > (eventually) a 5-kW ND (it was 1 kW ND for many years) daytime signal on > 870, WHCU was the best game on the AM dial between Syracuse and Rochester, > especially when you consider that NBC's Red Network had locked up the big > signals in those two citues (WSYR and WHAM) and CBS had to settle for > high-on-the dial signals there--WFBL 1390 and WHEC 1460. > > Seems to me that I've also heard that one of the four radio networks at > one point was affiliated with WEDO McKeesport, a 1-kW ND daytime-only > Pittsburgh-market station on 810. Like WHCU, WEDO (one of the first > stations that Jerry Williams worked for--I don't think Williams had yet > discovered two-way talk at that time) has an excellent signal for its > power. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Joseph Ross" > To: "Dan.Strassberg" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:25 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> On 12 Jun 2009 at 23:38, Dan.Strassberg wrote: >> >>> So until WTRY went full time, the network lineup probably would have >>> been NBC: WGY, CBS: WOKO, ABC and Mutual (found on the same station >>> in quite a few markets): WABY. Generally speaking, the networks did >>> not affiliate with daytimers, although there were exceptions (more >>> with Mutual than the other networks), >> >> Sometime later, in the late 50s, early 60s, in the Boston area, ABC >> was on daytimer WTAO 740. I think some ABC programs sometimes may >> have been carried on the co-owned FM station, WXHR. >> >> -- >> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 >> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >> >> > From paulranderson@charter.net Sat Jun 13 08:39:33 2009 From: paulranderson@charter.net (Paul Anderson) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:39:33 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <003501c9ebca$9130deb0$b3929c10$@net> References: <0E9773821C7547EDBE46533D62BCCE5E@fs.uml.edu> <1fbbbced0906111311u4608286fpf7867543a2ab1b0d@mail.gmail.com> <18993.33112.197790.528131@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6C2EAA3543614190BB5064743D7F3149@SatU205S5044> <4A31C017.8080008@fybush.com> <18993.49750.696844.202158@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <007001c9eb09$bd94d310$38be7930$@net> <18993.50533.10400.659210@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <003501c9ebca$9130deb0$b3929c10$@net> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Jeff Lehmann wrote: > Also, I've heard that WMUR will be looking for signal reports once > they go > to DT on 9, compared to the current DT on 59. So if anyone has any > of those, > I'll pass them along as well. WMUR had a crawl at the bottom of the screen leading up to midnight last night indicating they would turn off both their analog and digital transmitters at midnight and their digital signal would return at 2 AM. (Their transitional digital channel was 59 and now they're back on 9.) The analog signal went off at precisely 12:00 midnight with no notice or fanfare other than the previously-mentioned crawl. The picture on my cable system was "stuck" at what was showing at 12:00 (happened to be some text about Elvis Costello, about whom Nightline was doing a story) but I didn't wait up until 2 AM to see what happened then. I liked the front-page story in the Nashua Telegraph yesterday that said the decade-old tradition of watching WMUR on channel 59 was coming to an end! It was a cute way of approaching the story, given that most people probably weren't aware that WMUR had been broadcasting in digital on 59 for years. I don't have a digital TV so I can't offer a reception report. Paul From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Jun 13 10:18:34 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:18:34 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044><4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com><4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044> <433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> Message-ID: <244CDF0FB8504C7499AFD8F0FABBBA08@DougDrown> Dan, you mentioned the strong signals of some of these old daytimers (such as WHCU, which I could sometimes pull in around dusk in Massachusetts) that may have made them exceptions to the rule regarding network affiliation. That theory is probably correct. For years, the CBS affiliate in the Springfield-Holyoke area was daytimer WACE (730), whose 5-kw clear channel signal was the strongest by far in the central Connecticut Valley. I used to live in Royalston, near Athol, where WACE --- a good forty-five miles away --- came in almost as well as nearby WCAT. It would have been the strongest CBS signal in our area, WFGL in Fitchburg and WCBS itself being distant seconds. I should imagine NBC would have regarded WHEB, which was only 1 kw but offered a powerhouse signal at 750, as offering a strategic signal for a sizeable area not quite covered by WCSH, WGIR or whatever Boston station was carrying NBC at the time. -Doug -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:21 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > WHEB in Portsmouth (1-kw daytimer on 750) was an NBC affiliate, at least > in the '60s. > > -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "A. Joseph Ross" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:57 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> The most famous and long-running case of CBS on a daytimer that I can >> think of (OK, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a daytimer; it was a >> limited-time station) was WHCU (a commercial station, then owned by >> Cornell U) in Ithaca NY. WHCU was allowed to stay on the air until New >> Orleans sunset. WHCU did not get to operate full time until the early >> 1980s, I believe, but with the great soil conductivity north of Ithaca >> and (eventually) a 5-kW ND (it was 1 kW ND for many years) daytime signal >> on 870, WHCU was the best game on the AM dial between Syracuse and >> Rochester, especially when you consider that NBC's Red Network had locked >> up the big signals in those two citues (WSYR and WHAM) and CBS had to >> settle for high-on-the dial signals there--WFBL 1390 and WHEC 1460. >> >> Seems to me that I've also heard that one of the four radio networks at >> one point was affiliated with WEDO McKeesport, a 1-kW ND daytime-only >> Pittsburgh-market station on 810. Like WHCU, WEDO (one of the first >> stations that Jerry Williams worked for--I don't think Williams had yet >> discovered two-way talk at that time) has an excellent signal for its >> power. >> >> ----- >> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:25 AM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> On 12 Jun 2009 at 23:38, Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>> >>>> So until WTRY went full time, the network lineup probably would have >>>> been NBC: WGY, CBS: WOKO, ABC and Mutual (found on the same station >>>> in quite a few markets): WABY. Generally speaking, the networks did >>>> not affiliate with daytimers, although there were exceptions (more >>>> with Mutual than the other networks), >>> >>> Sometime later, in the late 50s, early 60s, in the Boston area, ABC >>> was on daytimer WTAO 740. I think some ABC programs sometimes may >>> have been carried on the co-owned FM station, WXHR. >>> >>> -- >>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 >>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>> >>> >> > From iraapple@comcast.net Sat Jun 13 10:44:27 2009 From: iraapple@comcast.net (iraapple@comcast.net) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:44:27 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044><4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com><4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044> <433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> Message-ID: If you have the information, I would be curious to know when Jerry was supposed to have worked for WEDO, McKeesport, PA. Also, WEDO, according to the owner at that time, Ed Hirshberg (sp) was the first, or at least one of the first stations to use a jingle ID which was simply: "W E D O, On your Ra-de-o, in McKeesport, P.A." Thanks, Ira Apple -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Doug Drown Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:21 AM To: Dan.Strassberg; A. Joseph Ross Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... WHEB in Portsmouth (1-kw daytimer on 750) was an NBC affiliate, at least in the '60s. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:57 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > The most famous and long-running case of CBS on a daytimer that I can > think of (OK, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a daytimer; it was a > limited-time station) was WHCU (a commercial station, then owned by > Cornell U) in Ithaca NY. WHCU was allowed to stay on the air until New > Orleans sunset. WHCU did not get to operate full time until the early > 1980s, I believe, but with the great soil conductivity north of Ithaca and > (eventually) a 5-kW ND (it was 1 kW ND for many years) daytime signal on > 870, WHCU was the best game on the AM dial between Syracuse and Rochester, > especially when you consider that NBC's Red Network had locked up the big > signals in those two citues (WSYR and WHAM) and CBS had to settle for > high-on-the dial signals there--WFBL 1390 and WHEC 1460. > > Seems to me that I've also heard that one of the four radio networks at > one point was affiliated with WEDO McKeesport, a 1-kW ND daytime-only > Pittsburgh-market station on 810. Like WHCU, WEDO (one of the first > stations that Jerry Williams worked for--I don't think Williams had yet > discovered two-way talk at that time) has an excellent signal for its > power. > > ----- From marklaurence@mac.com Sat Jun 13 10:48:14 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:48:14 -0400 Subject: Where did channel 7 go? Message-ID: <0853E9DF-9AD8-49B1-B754-18C7A59CD758@mac.com> For people who have prepared for digital TV, their biggest question today is probably "what happened to WHDH." It's probably hard for the station to explain that they've moved - to channel 7! But for the many people who've been watching all-digital TV for months, the big impact of Friday's change is that WHDH has subtly disappeared from their TV. All the other channels are there as before, so there's not too much temptation to hit the rarely-used rescan button. The amazing thing is, as of Saturday morning there's nothing about the frequency move on channel 7's own website. In fact, their Digital Transition Information page is still referring to "7NBC Digital Channel 41". There's a big banner proclaiming "All TV is now digital" on their front page, but all the boxes that look like links don't work. There's one small box that says "remember to rescan" but no explanation of what that means or how to do it. So while channels 2, 4, and 5 are droning on about that pesky converter box, channel 7 is left high and dry, and their on-air viewers will have to figure things out on their own. The good news is that for people who figured out the need to rescan, channel 7 seems to have a better signal than before. As for the other poster's reference to "a weak signal on channel 26," I think that's WHDN, a low power digital station that feeds a lot of Deutsche Welle programming from a sister station in Miami. They sometimes map to channel 6 on my digital TV, and a lot of the time they don't come in at all. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDN From raccoonradio@gmail.com Sat Jun 13 11:09:23 2009 From: raccoonradio@gmail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:09:23 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <850624.30137.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <1fbbbced0906130009v791e4b05w45d88f9d3fb6d7df@mail.gmail.com> <850624.30137.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1fbbbced0906130809u81a99b0seb0f9e3376bf7b66@mail.gmail.com> I was listening about 12:30 or 1 am. I think it was a man stating that Feb 12 was the date so that was prob the other one. On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Maureen Carney wrote: > I'm not sure what time you were listening, but they were running a couple of > different programs and the 1st one after midnight (with Susan Wornick) > talked about June 12. They were also running them on their website. I will > say kudos to WCVB for having more than just the NAB infomercial. > > > From aerie.ma@comcast.net Sat Jun 13 11:15:47 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:15:47 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> Although I have Comcast cable, I do keep a Terk amplified indoor antenna on my HD LCD-TV for the few occasions when the cable goes out. At about 25 miles due North from Boston, I received all the Boston-area DTV stations on UHF, plus those from New Hampshire. When WENH shut down analog a while back, and moved the DTV transmitter to RF Channel 11, I lost it. Last night, I lost both WHDH and WMUR when they moved the digital transmitters to the VHF channels, with the VHF part of the Terk antenna fully extended. I am wondering if the desire to save money on their electric bills amounted to shooting themselves in the foot for these stations that moved back to VHF. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Dan.Strassberg Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:41 AM To: Boston Radio Interest Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 The end of analog on 7 was very unceremonious; the carriers were cut for the last time right in the middle of a Toyota commercial. I assume that the balance of the commercial aired in DTV, also on Channel 7. For me, the good news is that--on both my old analog TV/converter box and my DTV receiver--I am having no trouble, so far, with picture or sound quality or reliability of reception of the only major Boston station that is broadcasting DTV on VHF. Moreover, the rescanning process on the DTV converter box appeared to go without a hitch. Not so with my year-old Panasonic LCD DTV receiver, however. The problem is more annoying than serious; it does not affect the picture, sound, or apparent reliability of reception, but it's annoying and I can't figure out how to correct it. Besides affecting 7-1 and 7-2, the problem also appears on 66-1 (there is no 66-2). When I use the remote's up/down arrow keys to select channels, I now have two 7-1s, two 7-2s, and two 66-1s. In all three cases, if I use the arrow keys to tune to these channels and approach them from a lower-numbered channel, the program appears on the first instance of the channel that I encounter; the second instance simply elicits the no-signal message. Entering the channel/subchannel designation from the remote's numeric keypad, I can get the appropriate program. I tried editing the list of stations by turning "off" the second instance of each of these channels that appeared in the list of signals the receiver displayed after the channel scan, but that simply made it impossible to select those channels via the up/down arrows. Fortunately, the programs remained accessible from the remote's numeric keypad. Anyhow, it seems that if I want to be able to reach 7-1, 7-2, or 66-1 via the up/down arrows, I must have two instances of each channel/subchannel combination. Eliminating the second instance eliminates both instances. I haven't tried eliminating the first instance because I fear that that would also make it impossible to reach those channels from the keypad. Also, on repeated rescans, I've observed that the receiver "remembers" on/off designations from previous scans, whereas I thought that rescanning would clear them. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 From mattosborne1976@yahoo.com Sat Jun 13 10:13:15 2009 From: mattosborne1976@yahoo.com (Matthew Osborne) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: VHF-low DTV signals Message-ID: <552485.965.qm@web55808.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Out here in the "hinterlands" of the Albany NY market (Schenectady to be exact), we are one of the few places which have a DTV channel on the VHF-Low band (WRGB has reverted its signal back to RF channel 6). Eager to see how this would work in the "real world", I woke up this morning and ran the rescan on all of my TVs. On both analog sets with converter boxes, the rescan ran without a hitch and I immediately got WRGB-DT on RF channel 6 with no noticeable interference issues (unless I run the paper shredder or other 'noisy' electrical equipment, of course). My LG CRT HDTV set from 2005, however, was a bit more tricky. The rescan ran, but it did not pick up channel 6. I had to manually add it, and it showed up with 'No signal' for at least 30 seconds before suddenly coming on. I changed the channel, then went back to 6 and noticed it once again showed a signal meter level 0. Just as before, about 30 seconds later it suddenly showed up, but the signal was having periodic audio dropouts. I left it on for about 20 minutes, and gradually the dropouts ceased and now I can change channels and come back to 6 with the signal immediately coming up unlike before. Its almost like the tuner in that holds the old RF channel in memory for a while, and kept reverting to RF 39 each time I changed to 6. But after a while, that old mapping cleared out, the tuner somehow adjusted to the signal (is this even possible on a unit that old??) and all now seems to be well. Also, since the audio dropouts cleared up, I am now seeing signal strength of about 80% on it (For the record, I have rabbit ears with a UHF loop antenna on all of my TVs in the house). I know Bangor ME is another one of these markets (with WLBZ-DT reverting back to RF channel 2). Any word from people up there yet as far as signal quality/reception now that they're back on 2? I am very interested to see how these cases turn out in the real world, and if the reception issues screamed about by some will come to fruition or not. (Silly side note - I love a couple of the posters on AVSForum that I've seen complaining about having issues with the VHF-Low DTV channels, even though they are clearly using UHF-only antennas). Matt Osborne Schenectady, NY From map@mapinternet.com Sat Jun 13 13:26:50 2009 From: map@mapinternet.com (Mark Casey) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:26:50 -0400 Subject: DTV Tuner problems & DTV changeover References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <02F1891DA5994937B3B671B428FA3EEE@yourm3vezyx8af> Many of the DTV sets and converter boxes have decoding problems. My Sharp DTV (about 5 yrs-old, so, probably 1st or 2nd generation DTV tuner) will not decode WFSB-3-4, but will decode the first 3 just fine. There are channel number decoding issues also. One of my TV's decodes CH 61 as its' RF channel--CH31. The other TV's decode it as CH 61. For more than a year one of my TV's was decoding it it 2 places, 31 and 61. And, I've seen and heard of many other decoding problems from other friends and some of my other converter boxes. Right now DTV CH20 (-1 & -2), Waterbury, CT is gone from RF CH12. It appears during the rescan (as CH 20) but not in the rescanned lineup. My guess is that it will be several days, if not more, for all the DTV stations that must make changes to get up to full, or near to full, power. Mark Casey K1MAP near Springfield ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:41 AM Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 The end of analog on 7 was very unceremonious; the carriers were cut for the last time right in the middle of a Toyota commercial. I assume that the balance of the commercial aired in DTV, also on Channel 7. For me, the good news is that--on both my old analog TV/converter box and my DTV receiver--I am having no trouble, so far, with picture or sound quality or reliability of reception of the only major Boston station that is broadcasting DTV on VHF. Moreover, the rescanning process on the DTV converter box appeared to go without a hitch. Not so with my year-old Panasonic LCD DTV receiver, however. The problem is more annoying than serious; it does not affect the picture, sound, or apparent reliability of reception, but it's annoying and I can't figure out how to correct it. Besides affecting 7-1 and 7-2, the problem also appears on 66-1 (there is no 66-2). When I use the remote's up/down arrow keys to select channels, I now have two 7-1s, two 7-2s, and two 66-1s. In all three cases, if I use the arrow keys to tune to these channels and approach them from a lower-numbered channel, the program appears on the first instance of the channel that I encounter; the second instance simply elicits the no-signal message. Entering the channel/subchannel designation from the remote's numeric keypad, I can get the appropriate program. I tried editing the list of stations by turning "off" the second instance of each of these channels that appeared in the list of signals the receiver displayed after the channel scan, but that simply made it impossible to select those channels via the up/down arrows. Fortunately, the programs remained accessible from the remote's numeric keypad. Anyhow, it seems that if I want to be able to reach 7-1, 7-2, or 66-1 via the up/down arrows, I must have two instances of each channel/subchannel combination. Eliminating the second instance eliminates both instances. I haven't tried eliminating the first instance because I fear that that would also make it impossible to reach those channels from the keypad. Also, on repeated rescans, I've observed that the receiver "remembers" on/off designations from previous scans, whereas I thought that rescanning would clear them. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 13 13:57:51 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:57:51 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044><4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com><4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044> <433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> Message-ID: <0BAE98E3470043159D110A77545A8EF8@SatU205S5044> Sorry, I don't have the dates for Jerry Williams at WEDO or at WCYB Bristol Tennesee/Virginia, where he said he worked just before WEDO. I suspect the authors of his recently published biography (at least one of them sometimes posts here) might have the info, though. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'Doug Drown'" ; "'Dan.Strassberg'" ; "'A. Joseph Ross'" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:44 AM Subject: RE: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > If you have the information, I would be curious to know when Jerry > was > supposed to have worked for WEDO, McKeesport, PA. > > Also, WEDO, according to the owner at that time, Ed Hirshberg (sp) > was the > first, or at least one of the first stations to use a jingle ID > which was > simply: "W E D O, On your Ra-de-o, in McKeesport, P.A." > > Thanks, > > Ira Apple > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of > Doug Drown > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:21 AM > To: Dan.Strassberg; A. Joseph Ross > Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > WHEB in Portsmouth (1-kw daytimer on 750) was an NBC affiliate, at > least in > the '60s. > > -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "A. Joseph Ross" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:57 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> The most famous and long-running case of CBS on a daytimer that I >> can >> think of (OK, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a daytimer; it was a >> limited-time station) was WHCU (a commercial station, then owned by >> Cornell U) in Ithaca NY. WHCU was allowed to stay on the air until >> New >> Orleans sunset. WHCU did not get to operate full time until the >> early >> 1980s, I believe, but with the great soil conductivity north of >> Ithaca and > >> (eventually) a 5-kW ND (it was 1 kW ND for many years) daytime >> signal on >> 870, WHCU was the best game on the AM dial between Syracuse and >> Rochester, > >> especially when you consider that NBC's Red Network had locked up >> the big >> signals in those two citues (WSYR and WHAM) and CBS had to settle >> for >> high-on-the dial signals there--WFBL 1390 and WHEC 1460. >> >> Seems to me that I've also heard that one of the four radio >> networks at >> one point was affiliated with WEDO McKeesport, a 1-kW ND >> daytime-only >> Pittsburgh-market station on 810. Like WHCU, WEDO (one of the first >> stations that Jerry Williams worked for--I don't think Williams had >> yet >> discovered two-way talk at that time) has an excellent signal for >> its >> power. >> >> ----- > From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 13 15:25:50 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:25:50 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <0BAE98E3470043159D110A77545A8EF8@SatU205S5044> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044> <4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com> <4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044> <433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> <0BAE98E3470043159D110A77545A8EF8@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <18995.64830.857798.597890@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Sorry, I don't have the dates for Jerry Williams at WEDO or at WCYB > Bristol Tennesee/Virginia, where he said he worked just before WEDO. I > suspect the authors of his recently published biography (at least one > of them sometimes posts here) might have the info, though. Speaking of /Burning Up the Air/, I saw it remaindered at New England Mobile Book Fair today, so those who still haven't bought a copy and live close to Newton may want to head over and get one cheap. -GAWollman From rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com Sat Jun 13 15:50:29 2009 From: rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com (Rick Levy) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:50:29 -0400 Subject: VHF-low DTV signals Message-ID: <56F3F8732C2C42C298D8468F13DEE709@Titan> Matt Osborne wrote: >>I know Bangor ME is another one of these markets (with WLBZ-DT reverting >>back to RF channel 2). Any word from people up there yet as far as signal >>quality/reception now that they're back on 2?<< We won't know the answer to that for a while. They are not due to complete the transition 'til some time in August, and remain on channel 25 for now. Rick Levy Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP Cambridge, Mass. www.broadcastsignallab.com www.rfsigns.com From n1qgs@yahoo.com Sat Jun 13 15:01:37 2009 From: n1qgs@yahoo.com (John Bolduc) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digital TV Conversion - CH9 WMUR Manchester NH Message-ID: <847212.50067.qm@web30705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Channel 9 was off the air for only 18 minutes, not the two hours they had indicated. Outdoor antenna reception from two homes both 12-14 miles from transmitter are both just fine. Just a slightly weaker signal indication (ie 80 vs 86). Also a bit less atable on the signal strength wavering often from 78-82. Indoors at both locations 12-14 miles away from the transmitter, the previous potent RF59 WMUR signal is totally non receivable on RF9 on indoor rabit ears. John B Londonderry NH From gallen2@nescaum.org Sat Jun 13 17:54:37 2009 From: gallen2@nescaum.org (George Allen) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:54:37 -0400 Subject: more on the Armageddon Channel Message-ID: 7 that is. Being reasonably aware [and an EE at that], even I had to struggle to get ch. 7 today. First, after a rescan, my DTV didn't have any "7". No 7 even when manually entered. Hmmm... I can SEE the TV towers, even tho I'm in Swampscott (and you can see how I see them too on a clear day/night, at http://hazecam.net/boston.html ). Every other Boston (and many other) DTV channel came in fine. Eventually I figured out that I had analog 7 set to skip in the DTV setup. That was half the solution after another rescan. Then I had to extend the wabbit ears on my indoor Terk from the 9" 'stabilizer' function they had been serving the last year or so. Finally, after another rescan, there it was, sort of. Walk around the room and it breaks up. Boy, whatever OTA viewers they had, they have a lot fewer now... George From aerie.ma@comcast.net Sat Jun 13 18:13:46 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:13:46 -0400 Subject: more on the Armageddon Channel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <606E711EE92341BE9EB793E75C1895F6@aeriema> Yeah, If I hold my Terk up over my head with the VHF dipoles extended, I can get an in-out pixellated picture on 7.1 and 7.2. If Comcast goes out, I'll think I'll just watch something else...he he. Reminds me of an early "Married With Children" when Fox was mostly on fringe UHF stations. Al would tell Peg and the kids to "assume Fox Network viewing positions" and one would hold the antenna up, another would cover it with aluminum foil, etc. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of George Allen Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 5:55 PM To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: more on the Armageddon Channel 7 that is. Being reasonably aware [and an EE at that], even I had to struggle to get ch. 7 today. First, after a rescan, my DTV didn't have any "7". No 7 even when manually entered. Hmmm... I can SEE the TV towers, even tho I'm in Swampscott (and you can see how I see them too on a clear day/night, at http://hazecam.net/boston.html ). Every other Boston (and many other) DTV channel came in fine. Eventually I figured out that I had analog 7 set to skip in the DTV setup. That was half the solution after another rescan. Then I had to extend the wabbit ears on my indoor Terk from the 9" 'stabilizer' function they had been serving the last year or so. Finally, after another rescan, there it was, sort of. Walk around the room and it breaks up. Boy, whatever OTA viewers they had, they have a lot fewer now... George From dmoisan@davidmoisan.org Sat Jun 13 18:47:11 2009 From: dmoisan@davidmoisan.org (David Moisan) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:47:11 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: <3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> <3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> Message-ID: I had thought WHDH-DT would run at low power for a while until their antenna is swapped out (their analog antenna is not suitable for VSB, I'd heard.) -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Jim Hall Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:16 AM To: 'Boston Radio Interest' Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 Although I have Comcast cable, I do keep a Terk amplified indoor antenna on my HD LCD-TV for the few occasions when the cable goes out. At about 25 miles due North from Boston, I received all the Boston-area DTV stations on UHF, plus those from New Hampshire. From aerie.ma@comcast.net Sat Jun 13 19:06:39 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:06:39 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044><3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> Message-ID: <8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> I seem to remember having heard that too. And the FCC predicted coverage maps do show two listings for WHDH digital, one with 15 kW and one with 30 kW. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of David Moisan Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:47 PM To: 'Boston Radio Interest' Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 I had thought WHDH-DT would run at low power for a while until their antenna is swapped out (their analog antenna is not suitable for VSB, I'd heard.) From dillane@sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 13 19:18:46 2009 From: dillane@sbcglobal.net (Bill Dillane) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:18:46 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion Message-ID: <003101c9ec7d$5511b220$ff351660$@net> Some people caught the last minutes of analog and uploaded files to YouTube. WHDH - includes a Conan O'Brien bit about the switch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KBwfdOlc18 WBZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZC-4caB0E4 WTNH-8 New Haven - turned of xmitter during the middle of a commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX6Y7Chb9Ns WFSB-3 Hartford - An actual sign-off that included the 1957 WTIC-TV-3 test pattern and sign-on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztee7Q-jKGo From m_carney@yahoo.com Sat Jun 13 19:51:21 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: more on the Armageddon Channel In-Reply-To: <606E711EE92341BE9EB793E75C1895F6@aeriema> References: <606E711EE92341BE9EB793E75C1895F6@aeriema> Message-ID: <499680.53342.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Not only "Married With Children", but I was also thinking of "The Simpsons" episode where Sideshow Bob had all TV channels shut down. The Channel Ocho finale with Bumblebee Man, Kent Brockman admitting some news stories were fake, Bob flipping through empty channels, Krusty broadcasting on the low-power 12 watt emergency station, and "the esteemed representatives of television" (Bumblebee Man, Krusty, Kent Brockman, Dr. Who) being brought in. From atolz@comcast.net Sat Jun 13 20:13:17 2009 From: atolz@comcast.net (Alan Tolz) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:13:17 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <91C81444C90045F6BBCF8483171D81BD@SatU205S5044><4A32F20A.1757.4D7B97@joe.attorneyross.com><4B39ACEAF00940AA875C8491866AAEA0@SatU205S5044><433721E0B6DA423D8F0DF57465DD1B15@DougDrown> Message-ID: <8CD69DDBC9654E6E92E80029C48A0D90@mediacenter> Jerry worked for WEDO for a very short period in 1948 after being fired from a station in Braddock, PA. He went to the Braddock station in 1948 as a newsman...it was his second professional radio job after starting out in 1946 in Bristol, VA-TN. >From WEDO he went to WKAP in Allentown, PA. Alan Tolz ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'Doug Drown'" ; "'Dan.Strassberg'" ; "'A. Joseph Ross'" Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:44 AM Subject: RE: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > If you have the information, I would be curious to know when Jerry was > supposed to have worked for WEDO, McKeesport, PA. > > Also, WEDO, according to the owner at that time, Ed Hirshberg (sp) was the > first, or at least one of the first stations to use a jingle ID which was > simply: "W E D O, On your Ra-de-o, in McKeesport, P.A." > > Thanks, > > Ira Apple > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > Doug Drown > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:21 AM > To: Dan.Strassberg; A. Joseph Ross > Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > WHEB in Portsmouth (1-kw daytimer on 750) was an NBC affiliate, at least > in > the '60s. > > -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "A. Joseph Ross" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:57 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> The most famous and long-running case of CBS on a daytimer that I can >> think of (OK, it wasn't, strictly speaking, a daytimer; it was a >> limited-time station) was WHCU (a commercial station, then owned by >> Cornell U) in Ithaca NY. WHCU was allowed to stay on the air until New >> Orleans sunset. WHCU did not get to operate full time until the early >> 1980s, I believe, but with the great soil conductivity north of Ithaca >> and > >> (eventually) a 5-kW ND (it was 1 kW ND for many years) daytime signal on >> 870, WHCU was the best game on the AM dial between Syracuse and >> Rochester, > >> especially when you consider that NBC's Red Network had locked up the big >> signals in those two citues (WSYR and WHAM) and CBS had to settle for >> high-on-the dial signals there--WFBL 1390 and WHEC 1460. >> >> Seems to me that I've also heard that one of the four radio networks at >> one point was affiliated with WEDO McKeesport, a 1-kW ND daytime-only >> Pittsburgh-market station on 810. Like WHCU, WEDO (one of the first >> stations that Jerry Williams worked for--I don't think Williams had yet >> discovered two-way talk at that time) has an excellent signal for its >> power. >> >> ----- > > From dave@skywaves.net Sat Jun 13 21:20:16 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:20:16 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: Hi Dan- I had a memo from Healy to the board, and may still have it somewhere. It was from the late 40's or early 50's. In it he said that they could not justify the cost of the buildout in Delmar without a network affiliation. Clearly, it was written when WOKO was at that old site north of Albany, probably in Menands. I did not know they shared it with WABY, but it was definitely not the site WABY was using by the the late 1960s. Thanks for pinning down the frequency of WXKW. I knew it was somewhere around there. The CE at WROW in the late 60's, whose name escapes me now, described the machinations they had to go through with that pattern, which according to him never worked right. His opinion was that the construction of the NY Thruway through their transmitter plant was a mercy because the investors got most of their money back on the land taking. As I recall, the description that came down to me was a six tower array with some really odd spacings and orientations. By the time I worked at WOKO in 1967, the CE was Charlie Heisler. We had a Bauer 5kW main and an ancient Western Electric 1kW aux with mercury vapor rectifiers and TH type power tubes. I don't recall him mentioning an earlier Gates 5kW, but the Bauer was fairly new at the time, and it had clearly replaced something. I just assumed it was a WE 5kW, but I have nothing on which to base that assumption. Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous locations - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a shared-time facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly even farther south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as "Mount Beacon" -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Boston Radio Interest" Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > ons in the Capital > District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. It > was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any > network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been > Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N > (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to this > day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The > studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in > Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was on > your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least a > few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany > shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO moved. > When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed > (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second > tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. From > its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able to > provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the move, > WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U facilities > on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the same > time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric > silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally > fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell > Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe twice) > on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( > > Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove me > wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: > WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named Al > Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out among > 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the > manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; WXKW > had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with an > extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where budgets > (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had a > Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be > wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the WOKO > plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I > don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the > 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced spread. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" > ; "Dan.Strassberg" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower >> that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may >> still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. >> >> Linc >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dave Doherty" >> To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" >> >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the buildout >>>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems they >>>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>>shakeup. >>> >>> -d >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >>> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>>> >>>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have been >>>>> a >>>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>>> (AM) to >>>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>>> Channel 35 >>>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>>> still >>>>> WROW-TV). >>>> >>>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>>> WTRI >>>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>>> season >>>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had its >>>> own station. >>>> >>>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>>> switch), >>>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>>> former >>>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>>> group >>>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>>> independent >>>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>>> WROW >>>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to do >>>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then moved >>>>> to WPTR. >>>> >>>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>>> WROW, >>>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>>> The >>>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > orneyross.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From kc1ih@mac.com Sat Jun 13 22:43:03 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:43:03 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: <8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> <3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> <8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> Message-ID: At 7:06 PM -0400 6/13/09, Jim Hall wrote: >I seem to remember having heard that too. And the FCC predicted coverage >maps do show two listings for WHDH digital, one with 15 kW and one with 30 >kW. The reason for that is that only half of the transmitter has been installed. Only after the old Larcan analog transmitter is removed can the other half of the Harris DTV transmitter be installed. I also notice that most of the people who are having trouble are using Terk antennas, which I have always thought of as being over-priced junque. It might be worth people's time trying something else, just make sure you buy it from a store with a good return policy, so you can try it out and return it if there isn't an improvement. At that rate, buy one of every indoor antenna the store has, and return all except one after experimenting with them all. Then pass along here which one worked best. -- Larry Weil WHDH/WLVI Master Control From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 13 23:13:12 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:13:12 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044> <3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> Message-ID: <18996.27336.373397.447179@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I had thought WHDH-DT would run at low power for a while until their > antenna is swapped out (their analog antenna is not suitable for > VSB, I'd heard.) The modulation mode makes no difference to the antenna -- the bandwidth is the same. The original construction permit for channel 7 specified a circularly-polarized antenna, and after that was granted they decided that it wasn't worth the cost of replacing the antenna, so they asked the FCC for an amendment for the maximum horizontally-polarized ERP, which is the 30 kW you see in the files, and that's what they're operating with right now. The existing antenna system has 8.9 dB of gain; the TPO for 30 kW is 3.67 kW. The current antenna is a Dielectric TWB9-7 with 0.75 degree of electrical beam tilt; a comparable new antenna of the same type has 9.54 dB gain and weighs 11,000 pounds. (The antenna they specified in the previous application weighs about the same and has 10.0 dB of gain.) There's some theory that you might want a circularly- or elliptically-polarized antenna and a high-UHF channel if you want to be able to reach mobile devices. (I'm not sure what Qualcomm MediaFLO is using for antennas on channel 55.) -GAWollman From mattosborne1976@yahoo.com Sun Jun 14 00:06:55 2009 From: mattosborne1976@yahoo.com (Matthew Osborne) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digital TV Conversion - CH9 WMUR Manchester NH Message-ID: <188858.68287.qm@web55807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Wow, I'm surprised at the number of issues being experienced by folks on this list with VHF DTV reception. Now granted, I only live about 20 air miles from the Helderberg Mountain transmit site of all Albany NY market DTV signals, but I just have a plain old set of rabbit ears with a UHF loop antenna, with an attached fine-tuning knob. I have had no trouble whatsoever getting consistently strong, reliable signals on WXXA (RF channel 7) and WNYT (RF channel 12), as well as all the UHFs for almost 3 years now. Further, as of this morning, I am also getting strong and consistent reception of WRGB (RF channel 6). I'm hearing all of your stories about having antenna setups *FAR* more elaborate and expensive than what I have, and am just amazed at the number of issues being encountered. Has anyone else here tried the old-fashioned rabbit ears with a UHF loop antenna and built-in fine tuning antenna approach yet? I don't know how distant I could go and still get the reception I get now with this, but its worked well for me so far. Matt Osborne Schenectady, NY --- On Sat, 6/13/09, John Bolduc wrote: > > Channel 9 was off the air for only 18 minutes, not the two > hours they had indicated.? Outdoor antenna reception > from two homes both 12-14 miles from transmitter are both > just fine. Just a slightly weaker signal indication (ie 80 > vs 86). Also a bit less atable on the signal strength > wavering often from 78-82. > > Indoors at both locations 12-14 miles away from the > transmitter, the previous potent RF59 WMUR signal is totally > non receivable on RF9 on indoor rabit ears. > From marklaurence@mac.com Sun Jun 14 08:39:18 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:39:18 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion - CH9 WMUR Manchester NH In-Reply-To: <188858.68287.qm@web55807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <188858.68287.qm@web55807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Matthew Osborne wrote: > Has anyone else here tried the old-fashioned rabbit ears with a UHF > loop antenna and built-in fine tuning antenna approach yet? I > don't know how distant I could go and still get the reception I get > now with this, but its worked well for me so far. I've tried the UHF loop, a top-rated indoor antenna, and a large rooftop-style antenna that's in my attic. The attic antenna works best, but they all have similar results. In or near Boston, you can get a dozen signals. But if you're trying to pick up stations in several markets, or something beyond 20-25 miles, it can take hours of trial and error. The way most TVs or converters work, the screen goes blank while they're scanning, and then you're limited to the stations that were picked up in the last scan. From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Jun 14 11:11:38 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:11:38 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044><3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema><8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> Message-ID: <7157E3E9AD334C1FB96BD81C1E6D0BCF@SatU205S5044> FWIW, I don't have a Terk antenna and I have so far not experienced any reception problems with Channel 7's VHF DTV signal. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: "Boston Radio Interest'" Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:43 PM Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 > At 7:06 PM -0400 6/13/09, Jim Hall wrote: > >>I seem to remember having heard that too. And the FCC predicted >>coverage >>maps do show two listings for WHDH digital, one with 15 kW and one >>with 30 >>kW. > > The reason for that is that only half of the transmitter has been > installed. Only after the old Larcan analog transmitter is removed > can the other half of the Harris DTV transmitter be installed. > > I also notice that most of the people who are having trouble are > using Terk antennas, which I have always thought of as being > over-priced junque. It might be worth people's time trying > something else, just make sure you buy it from a store with a good > return policy, so you can try it out and return it if there isn't an > improvement. At that rate, buy one of every indoor antenna the > store has, and return all except one after experimenting with them > all. Then pass along here which one worked best. > > -- > Larry Weil > WHDH/WLVI Master Control From jjlehmann@comcast.net Sun Jun 14 11:23:46 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:23:46 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: <7157E3E9AD334C1FB96BD81C1E6D0BCF@SatU205S5044> References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044><3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema><8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> <7157E3E9AD334C1FB96BD81C1E6D0BCF@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <005301c9ed04$1c3b7300$54b25900$@net> > FWIW, I don't have a Terk antenna and I have so far not experienced > any reception problems with Channel 7's VHF DTV signal. I picked up one of the Terk indoor antennas with the amp on sale at You Do It Electronics just to have something to bring on trips, and so far it doesn't seem that bad to me. It does seem to perform better on UHF than VHF. Down here in Hanson, 20 miles south of Boston, I am able to get a stable picture with no pixilation on WHDH-DT once I position it right. I'm also able to get WNAC-DT 12 and WPRI-DT 13. The major Boston UHF signals are a bit stronger than these though. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Jun 14 11:06:30 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <2AF101D8CB434E2A856FE4EBA337D580@SatU205S5044> WXKW's array was six towers, all right, but aside from the fact that it was a six-tower in-line (end fire) and such arrays are rare (though WXKW's was hardly unique), there was nothing especially remarkable about the tower orientations or spacing. The array was a beautiful sight. Six 300' (just about 90 degrees at 850) Blaw-Knox square cross-section self supporters spaced 1/4-wavelength apart. The most common form of six-tower array is the 3x2 side-fire parallelogram and such an array could have produced a pattern like WXKW's (a narrow inverted figure-eight, with a decent lobe down the Hudson Valley toward Hudson and Catskill and the main lobe toward the Tri-Cities, although Schenectady was enough off center that the signal there was nothing special, especially considering that WGY, with its transmitter a few miles southwest of downtown Schenectady--just where it is today--probably trashed WXKW's fourth-adjacent signal in Schenectady on a lot of the cheap All-American-Five tabletop radios of the day). The problem with a side-fire parallelogram was the site geometry, which was not suited to it (with a full ground system, it would have required a lot a little more than 1/3 mile wide from east to west). Had WXKW not gone dark in 1953, the plan was to rebuild the array on the existing Selkirk site as a 2x3 end-fire parallelogram. Those are more common than six-tower in-lines but much less common than side-fire 3x2's. Although a 2x3 would have been better suited than a 3x2 to the narrow but deep site, the trouble with the idea was that WXKW's big problem was KOA, and 2x3's don't null as deeply to the sides as 3x2's do. So I think it was unclear that the idea would have worked. The way I heard the story was that in the end, WXKW's owner, Stephen Rintoul, sold the license to WROW's owner, Harry Goldman, for $50,000. I assume that the transmitter site in Selkirk was part of the sale, but I don't know that. A surprising thing was that, even though WROW's studios were a cramped dump in an old apartment building at the top of State St, very close to the Capitol building, whereas WXKW's studios were a showplace in a bank building on a street off State St near the River, Goldman elected not to move WROW to the former WXKW studios. Either Goldman was too cheap to pay the rent or he figured that with TV coming soon, he was going to have to move to a different location anyhow. And move, he did--to N Greenbush. I do not believe that any WXKW shareholders made out on the Thruway land-taking in Selkirk, but again, I don't know that to be the case. In any event, IIRC, it was quite a few years after WXKW went dark in the fall of 1953, that the Thruway began work on the Berkshire Extension with its bridge across the Hudson in Selkirk. It was that project that took the former WXKW property. As far as I can remember, work on the Berkshire Extension had not yet commenced when I graduated from RPI in May of '56. On the other hand, WROW's shareholders (Capital Cities?) probably did profit when the Thruway took the original WROW site in Glenmont. The Thruway replaced the land and replicated the WROW array but with taller, more efficient towers, which imprived the station's already excellent daytime coverage. The night power (still nominally 1 kw) had to be limited to the field achieved with the original 300' towers, however, because there was a Canadian station pretty much due north of Albany. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:20 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > Hi Dan- > > I had a memo from Healy to the board, and may still have it > somewhere. It was from the late 40's or early 50's. In it he said > that they could not justify the cost of the buildout in Delmar > without a network affiliation. Clearly, it was written when WOKO was > at that old site north of Albany, probably in Menands. I did not > know they shared it with WABY, but it was definitely not the site > WABY was using by the the late 1960s. > > Thanks for pinning down the frequency of WXKW. I knew it was > somewhere around there. The CE at WROW in the late 60's, whose name > escapes me now, described the machinations they had to go through > with that pattern, which according to him never worked right. His > opinion was that the construction of the NY Thruway through their > transmitter plant was a mercy because the investors got most of > their money back on the land taking. As I recall, the description > that came down to me was a six tower array with some really odd > spacings and orientations. > > By the time I worked at WOKO in 1967, the CE was Charlie Heisler. We > had a Bauer 5kW main and an ancient Western Electric 1kW aux with > mercury vapor rectifiers and TH type power tubes. I don't recall him > mentioning an earlier Gates 5kW, but the Bauer was fairly new at the > time, and it had clearly replaced something. I just assumed it was a > WE 5kW, but I have nothing on which to base that assumption. > > Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early > history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous > locations - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a > shared-time facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly > even farther south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as > "Mount Beacon" > > -d > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan.Strassberg" > To: "Boston Radio Interest" > > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> ons in the Capital >> District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. >> It >> was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any >> network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been >> Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N >> (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to >> this >> day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The >> studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in >> Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was >> on >> your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least >> a >> few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany >> shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO >> moved. >> When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed >> (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second >> tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. >> From >> its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able >> to >> provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the >> move, >> WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U >> facilities >> on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the >> same >> time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric >> silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally >> fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell >> Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe >> twice) >> on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( >> >> Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove >> me >> wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: >> WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named >> Al >> Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out >> among >> 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the >> manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; >> WXKW >> had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with >> an >> extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where >> budgets >> (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had >> a >> Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be >> wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the >> WOKO >> plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I >> don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the >> 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced >> spread. >> >> ----- >> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" >> ; "Dan.Strassberg" >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower >>> that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may >>> still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. >>> >>> Linc >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Dave Doherty" >>> To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" >>> >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM >>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>>>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the >>>>buildout >>>>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>>>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>>>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems >>>>they >>>>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>>>shakeup. >>>> >>>> -d >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >>>> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >>>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have >>>>>> been >>>>>> a >>>>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>>>> (AM) to >>>>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>>>> Channel 35 >>>>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>>>> still >>>>>> WROW-TV). >>>>> >>>>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>>>> WTRI >>>>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>>>> season >>>>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had >>>>> its >>>>> own station. >>>>> >>>>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>>>> switch), >>>>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>>>> former >>>>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>>>> group >>>>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>>>> independent >>>>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>>>> WROW >>>>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to >>>>>> do >>>>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then >>>>>> moved >>>>>> to WPTR. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>>>> WROW, >>>>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>>>> The >>>>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>>>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>>>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> orneyross.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > From kc1ih@mac.com Sun Jun 14 11:11:04 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:11:04 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion - CH9 WMUR Manchester NH In-Reply-To: References: <188858.68287.qm@web55807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 8:39 AM -0400 6/14/09, Mark Laurence wrote: > >I've tried the UHF loop, a top-rated indoor antenna, and a large >rooftop-style antenna that's in my attic. The attic antenna works >best, but they all have similar results. In or near Boston, you can >get a dozen signals. But if you're trying to pick up stations in >several markets, or something beyond 20-25 miles, it can take hours >of trial and error. The way most TVs or converters work, the >screen goes blank while they're scanning, and then you're limited to >the stations that were picked up in the last scan. My Insignia box from Best Buy (actually a rebranded Zenith) allows one to manually tune the channels. So if you know the actual RF channel of a station you want to try to receive, you can tune the box to that channel and then experiment with the antenna(s) to your heart's content. There's even a signal strength indicator that shows when you are in the manual tune mode which is very nice. Note that I bought this box when the coupons first came out, I don't know if it's still available. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From jjlehmann@comcast.net Sun Jun 14 12:21:35 2009 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:21:35 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion - CH9 WMUR Manchester NH In-Reply-To: References: <188858.68287.qm@web55807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009101c9ed0c$301087f0$903197d0$@net> > My Insignia box from Best Buy (actually a rebranded Zenith) allows > one to manually tune the channels. So if you know the actual RF > channel of a station you want to try to receive, you can tune the box > to that channel and then experiment with the antenna(s) to your > heart's content. There's even a signal strength indicator that shows > when you are in the manual tune mode which is very nice. Note that I > bought this box when the coupons first came out, I don't know if it's > still available. Yes these boxes are still available, just a slightly different version than when they first came out. The only difference that I know of is that they now pass through the analog signals. Most reports from the other TV Dxers that I've seen seem to agree that this is one of the best ones out there. I'm not sure what the exact model number of the Insignia is, but the Zenith is the DTT901, where the first version was the DTT900. Jeff Lehmann Hanson, MA From map@mapinternet.com Sun Jun 14 12:37:51 2009 From: map@mapinternet.com (Mark Casey) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:37:51 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044><3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema><8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> Message-ID: Even though I'm a fan of VHF high band (CH 7-13) for it's ability to be recieved over rough terrain better than UHF, I've got to think that the 625 to 825kw that CH 2, 4 & 5 ( RF19, 30, & 20) are licensed for (now), has got to be better than 29.7kw on CH 7. Anyone know if CH7 could go more than about 30kw? The real winners of the on-air DTV channel selection process may be the stations that went to a low uhf channel and, lacking any interference issues, can run 1000kw or close to that. Mark Casey, K1MAP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: "Boston Radio Interest'" Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:43 PM Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 At 7:06 PM -0400 6/13/09, Jim Hall wrote: >I seem to remember having heard that too. And the FCC predicted coverage >maps do show two listings for WHDH digital, one with 15 kW and one with 30 >kW. The reason for that is that only half of the transmitter has been installed. Only after the old Larcan analog transmitter is removed can the other half of the Harris DTV transmitter be installed. I also notice that most of the people who are having trouble are using Terk antennas, which I have always thought of as being over-priced junque. It might be worth people's time trying something else, just make sure you buy it from a store with a good return policy, so you can try it out and return it if there isn't an improvement. At that rate, buy one of every indoor antenna the store has, and return all except one after experimenting with them all. Then pass along here which one worked best. -- Larry Weil WHDH/WLVI Master Control From stuff@struff.com Sun Jun 14 13:49:12 2009 From: stuff@struff.com (David Struffolino) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:49:12 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion Message-ID: It stinks, IMHO. I have a portable TV with a single telescoping antenna that I used to take outside in my yard and I used to get 7 and 9 and 11 crystal clear, as well as spotty reception of 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 25, and 38 depending on which way I moved the antenna. I have a small TV in the kitchen hooked up to an antenna on my roof and used to get 7 and 9 perfectly along with a little better results on 2, 4, 5, 8, 25, and 38. Now, using that same roof-top antenna and converter boxes and a signal amp I got from Radio Shack, I get 2 and 7. That's all. From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Jun 14 14:15:26 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:15:26 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18997.15934.320328.870125@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Now, using that same roof-top antenna and converter boxes and a signal amp I > got from Radio Shack, I get 2 and 7. That's all. Is that a dual-band antenna on your roof? -GAWollman From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sun Jun 14 16:02:25 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:02:25 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10><3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> <2AF101D8CB434E2A856FE4EBA337D580@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <9979FFD02764454F8C5C649E9DDC2903@DougDrown> This is fascinating history. There must have been a subsequent resurrection of WXKW sometime in the '60s, as I vaguely remember a station with those calls that briefly operated out of Troy when I was a teen, on either 1590 or 1600 kHz. I listened to it a few times when I visited the area. It actually was a pretty decent station, with a Top 40 format, IIRC. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Dave Doherty" ; Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > WXKW's array was six towers, all right, but aside from the fact that > it was a six-tower in-line (end fire) and such arrays are rare (though > WXKW's was hardly unique), there was nothing especially remarkable > about the tower orientations or spacing. The array was a beautiful > sight. Six 300' (just about 90 degrees at 850) Blaw-Knox square > cross-section self supporters spaced 1/4-wavelength apart. The most > common form of six-tower array is the 3x2 side-fire parallelogram and > such an array could have produced a pattern like WXKW's (a narrow > inverted figure-eight, with a decent lobe down the Hudson Valley > toward Hudson and Catskill and the main lobe toward the Tri-Cities, > although Schenectady was enough off center that the signal there was > nothing special, especially considering that WGY, with its transmitter > a few miles southwest of downtown Schenectady--just where it is > today--probably trashed WXKW's fourth-adjacent signal in Schenectady > on a lot of the cheap All-American-Five tabletop radios of the day). > > The problem with a side-fire parallelogram was the site geometry, > which was not suited to it (with a full ground system, it would have > required a lot a little more than 1/3 mile wide from east to west). > Had WXKW not gone dark in 1953, the plan was to rebuild the array on > the existing Selkirk site as a 2x3 end-fire parallelogram. Those are > more common than six-tower in-lines but much less common than > side-fire 3x2's. Although a 2x3 would have been better suited than a > 3x2 to the narrow but deep site, the trouble with the idea was that > WXKW's big problem was KOA, and 2x3's don't null as deeply to the > sides as 3x2's do. So I think it was unclear that the idea would have > worked. > > The way I heard the story was that in the end, WXKW's owner, Stephen > Rintoul, sold the license to WROW's owner, Harry Goldman, for $50,000. > I assume that the transmitter site in Selkirk was part of the sale, > but I don't know that. A surprising thing was that, even though WROW's > studios were a cramped dump in an old apartment building at the top of > State St, very close to the Capitol building, whereas WXKW's studios > were a showplace in a bank building on a street off State St near the > River, Goldman elected not to move WROW to the former WXKW studios. > Either Goldman was too cheap to pay the rent or he figured that with > TV coming soon, he was going to have to move to a different location > anyhow. And move, he did--to N Greenbush. > > I do not believe that any WXKW shareholders made out on the Thruway > land-taking in Selkirk, but again, I don't know that to be the case. > In any event, IIRC, it was quite a few years after WXKW went dark in > the fall of 1953, that the Thruway began work on the Berkshire > Extension with its bridge across the Hudson in Selkirk. It was that > project that took the former WXKW property. As far as I can remember, > work on the Berkshire Extension had not yet commenced when I graduated > from RPI in May of '56. > > On the other hand, WROW's shareholders (Capital Cities?) probably did > profit when the Thruway took the original WROW site in Glenmont. The > Thruway replaced the land and replicated the WROW array but with > taller, more efficient towers, which imprived the station's already > excellent daytime coverage. The night power (still nominally 1 kw) had > to be limited to the field achieved with the original 300' towers, > however, because there was a Canadian station pretty much due north of > Albany. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Doherty" > To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; > > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:20 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Hi Dan- >> >> I had a memo from Healy to the board, and may still have it >> somewhere. It was from the late 40's or early 50's. In it he said >> that they could not justify the cost of the buildout in Delmar >> without a network affiliation. Clearly, it was written when WOKO was >> at that old site north of Albany, probably in Menands. I did not >> know they shared it with WABY, but it was definitely not the site >> WABY was using by the the late 1960s. >> >> Thanks for pinning down the frequency of WXKW. I knew it was >> somewhere around there. The CE at WROW in the late 60's, whose name >> escapes me now, described the machinations they had to go through >> with that pattern, which according to him never worked right. His >> opinion was that the construction of the NY Thruway through their >> transmitter plant was a mercy because the investors got most of >> their money back on the land taking. As I recall, the description >> that came down to me was a six tower array with some really odd >> spacings and orientations. >> >> By the time I worked at WOKO in 1967, the CE was Charlie Heisler. We >> had a Bauer 5kW main and an ancient Western Electric 1kW aux with >> mercury vapor rectifiers and TH type power tubes. I don't recall him >> mentioning an earlier Gates 5kW, but the Bauer was fairly new at the >> time, and it had clearly replaced something. I just assumed it was a >> WE 5kW, but I have nothing on which to base that assumption. >> >> Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early >> history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous >> locations - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a >> shared-time facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly >> even farther south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as >> "Mount Beacon" >> >> -d >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan.Strassberg" >> To: "Boston Radio Interest" >> >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> ons in the Capital >>> District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. >>> It >>> was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any >>> network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been >>> Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N >>> (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to >>> this >>> day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The >>> studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in >>> Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was >>> on >>> your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least >>> a >>> few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany >>> shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO >>> moved. >>> When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed >>> (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second >>> tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. >>> From >>> its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able >>> to >>> provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the >>> move, >>> WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U >>> facilities >>> on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the >>> same >>> time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric >>> silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally >>> fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell >>> Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe >>> twice) >>> on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( >>> >>> Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove >>> me >>> wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: >>> WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named >>> Al >>> Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out >>> among >>> 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the >>> manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; >>> WXKW >>> had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with >>> an >>> extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where >>> budgets >>> (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had >>> a >>> Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be >>> wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the >>> WOKO >>> plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I >>> don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the >>> 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced >>> spread. >>> >>> ----- >>> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >>> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: >>> To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" >>> ; "Dan.Strassberg" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>> Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower >>>> that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may >>>> still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. >>>> >>>> Linc >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Dave Doherty" >>>> To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" >>>> >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM >>>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>>> >>>> >>>>>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>>>>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the >>>>>buildout >>>>>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>>>>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>>>>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems >>>>>they >>>>>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>>>>shakeup. >>>>> >>>>> -d >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >>>>> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >>>>> Cc: >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>>>>> (AM) to >>>>>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>>>>> Channel 35 >>>>>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> WROW-TV). >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>>>>> WTRI >>>>>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>>>>> season >>>>>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had >>>>>> its >>>>>> own station. >>>>>> >>>>>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>>>>> switch), >>>>>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>>>>> former >>>>>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>>>>> group >>>>>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>>>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>>>>> independent >>>>>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>>>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>>>>> WROW >>>>>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then >>>>>>> moved >>>>>>> to WPTR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>>>>> WROW, >>>>>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>>>>> The >>>>>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>>>>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>>>>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> orneyross.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > From mward@iname.com Sun Jun 14 18:49:44 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:49:44 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion - CH9 WMUR Manchester NH In-Reply-To: <009101c9ed0c$301087f0$903197d0$@net> References: <188858.68287.qm@web55807.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <009101c9ed0c$301087f0$903197d0$@net> Message-ID: <4A357E88.2070504@iname.com> Jeff Lehmann wrote: > Yes these boxes are still available, just a slightly different version than > when they first came out. The only difference that I know of is that they > now pass through the analog signals. Most reports from the other TV Dxers > that I've seen seem to agree that this is one of the best ones out there. > I'm not sure what the exact model number of the Insignia is, but the Zenith > is the DTT901, where the first version was the DTT900. The Insignia pass-through update/901 clone is the NS-DXA1-APT. Same as the original, except for the pass-through capabilities and "APT" model number. I have two of these boxes, and they are highly recommended by me and many others. Our Fox former-O&O/now-affiliate WJW "Fox 8" moved from a strong signal on RF 31 to a not as strong signal on RF 8, and the Insignia box does a much better job with WJW than the built-in tuner in my HDTV, just one room away. The Insignia box is indeed a full electronic and physical clone of the Zenith. It is NOT unmitigated junk like most of the stuff Best Buy sells under that house brand. And Mr. Fybush has even lent me his Zenith remote when I left mine at home... From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Jun 14 20:24:34 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:24:34 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044><3244C109102D488A9B4B94C89E719661@aeriema> <8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema> Message-ID: <56E93AC24CFC4AD088AAD8BDB12A9DB8@SatU205S5044> I MAY have an explanation for why lower power works for DTV on Channel 7 than what seems necessary to get stable DTV reception on UHF channels. I note that even though the signal-strength indicator on my TV says that the Channel 7 signal is not as stong as the UHF signals, the Channel 7 signal strength does not seem to vary nearly as much. So as long as the signal is strong enough for the receiver to lock in, the signal appears less likely than the UHF signals to drop below the lock threshold. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hall" To: "'David Moisan'" ; "'Boston Radio Interest'" Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:06 PM Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 >I seem to remember having heard that too. And the FCC predicted >coverage > maps do show two listings for WHDH digital, one with 15 kW and one > with 30 > kW. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of > David Moisan > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:47 PM > To: 'Boston Radio Interest' > Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 > > I had thought WHDH-DT would run at low power for a while until their > antenna > is swapped out (their analog antenna is not suitable for VSB, I'd > heard.) > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Jun 14 20:03:32 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:03:32 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10><3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> <2AF101D8CB434E2A856FE4EBA337D580@SatU205S5044> <9979FFD02764454F8C5C649E9DDC2903@DougDrown> Message-ID: The WXKW calls have been in a lot of places since 1953. They probably spent the longest stretch on 1470 in Allentown PA. But I think their appearance in the Capital District on a 500W daytimer on 1600 was the first encore. Use of 1600 in the Capital District became possible when the 1600 E Longmeadow MA dropped its DA-D operation. I don't remember the dates for the second coming of WXKW, but my guess is mid to late '60s or else late '70s. I recruited at RPI for two employers and WXKW 1600 was on the air during at least one of those periods. I believe WXKW 1600 was licensed to Troy but the transmitter and probably the studios were in Watervliet. The people behind it were alumni of the original WXKW 850. I remember hearing announcer Lyell Boseley on the air at the 1600 station--I had met him originally when I visited the WXKW 850 studios in downtown Albany. I may also have heard John Mountier, a very talented announcer who was an alum of WXKW 850 and who, after that WXKW went dark, worked in Boston--at WVDA 1260 (successor to WNAC 1260 and predecessor of WEZE 1260--now 590). On the front of the bank building where the WXKW 850 studios were located was a large brass plaque bearing the WXKW call letters in a modernistic art-deco typeface. On the evening of the day when the station signed off for the last time, a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless here, drove to Albany and "liberated" the plaque. It remained in his posession to the day he died, and graced the family room of his first house and later the entry of the palatial home he built to replace it. Decades after he acquired the plaque, when he built his own radio station, he tried to get the WXKW calls for the new station but they were not available at that time. He had hoped to put the plaque on the wall at that station. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; "Dave Doherty" ; Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:02 PM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > This is fascinating history. There must have been a subsequent > resurrection of WXKW sometime in the '60s, as I vaguely remember a > station with those calls that briefly operated out of Troy when I > was a teen, on either 1590 or 1600 kHz. I listened to it a few > times when I visited the area. It actually was a pretty decent > station, with a Top 40 format, IIRC. -Doug > From gallen2@nescaum.org Sun Jun 14 22:11:18 2009 From: gallen2@nescaum.org (George Allen) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:11:18 -0400 Subject: Terk indoor antennas Message-ID: My observation with the Terk is that it's intended for UHF - it has a decent "real" antenna for that band. For VHF, it's just pwain ol' wabbit ears (can you tell I've been watching Looney Toon DVDs?). I suppose they figured their market was DTV and nearly all of that would be UHF. And they're ~95% right. It does a *very* nice job with UHF channels. I even got most Boston DTV channels with the Terk, signals bouncing off the south-facing valley [antenna pointing north - big hill to the south] in Antrim [near Hillsboro] NH last summer. George ______________________________________ From: Larry Weil To: "Boston Radio Interest'" Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:43:03 -0400 Subject: RE: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 I also notice that most of the people who are having trouble are using Terk antennas, which I have always thought of as being over-priced junque. It might be worth people's time trying something else, just make sure you buy it from a store with a good return policy, so you can try it out and return it if there isn't an improvement. At that rate, buy one of every indoor antenna the store has, and return all except one after experimenting with them all. Then pass along here which one worked best. Larry Weil WHDH/WLVI Master Control From dave@skywaves.net Sun Jun 14 23:57:45 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:57:45 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> <2AF101D8CB434E2A856FE4EBA337D580@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: Hi Dan- Thanks for filling in a lot of history. Everything you reported with regard to WXKW agrees with the oral history that was passed down to me. On the subject of the WROW move, though, the Thruway had nothing to do with it, as I understand. The property as it existed in 1967 was alongside the already-operating NY Thruway, to the west just below exit 23. A developer traded that property for a tract on the east side of the Thruway in Glenmont, a mile or two south, and a bunch of cash. Sometime in the mid-to-late-1970s, WROW moved to the new site and the old site was demolished. To this day, the old WROW site has not been developed. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan.Strassberg" To: "Dave Doherty" ; Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > WXKW's array was six towers, all right, but aside from the fact that > it was a six-tower in-line (end fire) and such arrays are rare (though > WXKW's was hardly unique), there was nothing especially remarkable > about the tower orientations or spacing. The array was a beautiful > sight. Six 300' (just about 90 degrees at 850) Blaw-Knox square > cross-section self supporters spaced 1/4-wavelength apart. The most > common form of six-tower array is the 3x2 side-fire parallelogram and > such an array could have produced a pattern like WXKW's (a narrow > inverted figure-eight, with a decent lobe down the Hudson Valley > toward Hudson and Catskill and the main lobe toward the Tri-Cities, > although Schenectady was enough off center that the signal there was > nothing special, especially considering that WGY, with its transmitter > a few miles southwest of downtown Schenectady--just where it is > today--probably trashed WXKW's fourth-adjacent signal in Schenectady > on a lot of the cheap All-American-Five tabletop radios of the day). > > The problem with a side-fire parallelogram was the site geometry, > which was not suited to it (with a full ground system, it would have > required a lot a little more than 1/3 mile wide from east to west). > Had WXKW not gone dark in 1953, the plan was to rebuild the array on > the existing Selkirk site as a 2x3 end-fire parallelogram. Those are > more common than six-tower in-lines but much less common than > side-fire 3x2's. Although a 2x3 would have been better suited than a > 3x2 to the narrow but deep site, the trouble with the idea was that > WXKW's big problem was KOA, and 2x3's don't null as deeply to the > sides as 3x2's do. So I think it was unclear that the idea would have > worked. > > The way I heard the story was that in the end, WXKW's owner, Stephen > Rintoul, sold the license to WROW's owner, Harry Goldman, for $50,000. > I assume that the transmitter site in Selkirk was part of the sale, > but I don't know that. A surprising thing was that, even though WROW's > studios were a cramped dump in an old apartment building at the top of > State St, very close to the Capitol building, whereas WXKW's studios > were a showplace in a bank building on a street off State St near the > River, Goldman elected not to move WROW to the former WXKW studios. > Either Goldman was too cheap to pay the rent or he figured that with > TV coming soon, he was going to have to move to a different location > anyhow. And move, he did--to N Greenbush. > > I do not believe that any WXKW shareholders made out on the Thruway > land-taking in Selkirk, but again, I don't know that to be the case. > In any event, IIRC, it was quite a few years after WXKW went dark in > the fall of 1953, that the Thruway began work on the Berkshire > Extension with its bridge across the Hudson in Selkirk. It was that > project that took the former WXKW property. As far as I can remember, > work on the Berkshire Extension had not yet commenced when I graduated > from RPI in May of '56. > > On the other hand, WROW's shareholders (Capital Cities?) probably did > profit when the Thruway took the original WROW site in Glenmont. The > Thruway replaced the land and replicated the WROW array but with > taller, more efficient towers, which imprived the station's already > excellent daytime coverage. The night power (still nominally 1 kw) had > to be limited to the field achieved with the original 300' towers, > however, because there was a Canadian station pretty much due north of > Albany. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Doherty" > To: "Dan.Strassberg" ; > > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:20 PM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> Hi Dan- >> >> I had a memo from Healy to the board, and may still have it >> somewhere. It was from the late 40's or early 50's. In it he said >> that they could not justify the cost of the buildout in Delmar >> without a network affiliation. Clearly, it was written when WOKO was >> at that old site north of Albany, probably in Menands. I did not >> know they shared it with WABY, but it was definitely not the site >> WABY was using by the the late 1960s. >> >> Thanks for pinning down the frequency of WXKW. I knew it was >> somewhere around there. The CE at WROW in the late 60's, whose name >> escapes me now, described the machinations they had to go through >> with that pattern, which according to him never worked right. His >> opinion was that the construction of the NY Thruway through their >> transmitter plant was a mercy because the investors got most of >> their money back on the land taking. As I recall, the description >> that came down to me was a six tower array with some really odd >> spacings and orientations. >> >> By the time I worked at WOKO in 1967, the CE was Charlie Heisler. We >> had a Bauer 5kW main and an ancient Western Electric 1kW aux with >> mercury vapor rectifiers and TH type power tubes. I don't recall him >> mentioning an earlier Gates 5kW, but the Bauer was fairly new at the >> time, and it had clearly replaced something. I just assumed it was a >> WE 5kW, but I have nothing on which to base that assumption. >> >> Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early >> history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous >> locations - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a >> shared-time facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly >> even farther south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as >> "Mount Beacon" >> >> -d >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan.Strassberg" >> To: "Boston Radio Interest" >> >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:51 AM >> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >> >> >>> ons in the Capital >>> District, the ABC affiliate in 1952 was most definitely WXKW 850. >>> It >>> was absolutely not WOKO 1460. I don't recall whether WOKO had any >>> network affiliation at that time. If it did, it would have been >>> Mutual. In 1952, WOKO was operating from Delmar with 5 kW-U DA-N >>> (three towers), the same facilities that the 1460 station uses to >>> this >>> day. I strongly doubt whether this setup was brand new in '52. The >>> studios were in a hotel whose name I can't recall on State St in >>> Albany--about half-way from the River to the State Capital. It was >>> on >>> your left as you walked up the hill. I am pretty sure that at least >>> a >>> few years before 1952, WOKO had moved from a site north of Albany >>> shared with WABY 1400. WABY continued at that site after WOKO >>> moved. >>> When the two AMs shared that site, the tower may have been diplexed >>> (AM diplexes existed in the '30s) or there may have been a second >>> tower. If there was a second tower, it no longer existed by 1952. >>> From >>> its old site, WOKO ran 1 kW-D/500W-N ND-U. Scott Fybush may be able >>> to >>> provide some clues about when WOKO increased power. Prior to the >>> move, >>> WOKO, WHEC Rochester, and WHP Harrisbutg had similar ND-U >>> facilities >>> on 1460 and all three increased power and went DA-N at about the >>> same >>> time. In the early/mid '50s, WOKO was owned by an eccentric >>> silver-haired gent named "Colonel" Jim Healey, who was totally >>> fascinated by the sound of his booming voice. He broadcast Lowell >>> Thamas-style news and commentary at least once each day (maybe >>> twice) >>> on WOKO. The commentaries were ad-libbed and really sounded it;>( >>> >>> Some more odd facts (OK; recollections--somebody is BOUND to prove >>> me >>> wrong on some point--and maybe more than one) that occurred to me: >>> WOKO's Chief Engineer in the early/mid 50s was an older guy named >>> Al >>> Sardi. He had a very thick Swedish accent. WOKO was odd-man out >>> among >>> 5- and 10-kW Capital District AMs of that era with regard to the >>> manufacturer of its transmitter. WROW and WTRY had RCA BTA-5Fs; >>> WXKW >>> had a BTA-10F (IIRC, from the front, it looked like a BTA-5F with >>> an >>> extra cabinet). Now somebody is going to say, so WOKO, where >>> budgets >>> (except those for Col. Healy's cigars) were always very tight, had >>> a >>> Gates--the very popular low-priced brand. And IIRC, that would be >>> wrong. Maybe Sardi--or the consulting engineer who designed the >>> WOKO >>> plant--was adamant that he didn't like RCA and didn't like Gates. I >>> don't know whether Healy owned the station or Sardi was CE when the >>> 5-kW Tx was purchased, but it was a Collins--the high-priced >>> spread. >>> >>> ----- >>> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) >>> eFax 1-707-215-6367 >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: >>> To: "Dave Doherty" ; "A. Joseph Ross" >>> ; "Dan.Strassberg" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>> >>> >>>> Very early on wasn't WOKO located on Mount Beacon? The two tower >>>> that supported the hammock were still there in the 1970's and may >>>> still be part of the head end for the local cable TV company. >>>> >>>> Linc >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Dave Doherty" >>>> To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dan.Strassberg" >>>> >>>> Cc: >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM >>>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>>> >>>> >>>>>I think WOKO was an ABC affiliate prior to that big swap. I had >>>>>some correspondence from the early 50's indicating that the >>>>>buildout >>>>>in Delmar was conditioned on a network affiliation with ABC. Prior >>>>>to that, the transmitter was on the north side of Albany, maybe in >>>>>Menands. They built the site in Delmar about 1952, so it seems >>>>>they >>>>>must have been affiliated with ABC - or somebody - prior to the >>>>>shakeup. >>>>> >>>>> -d >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "A. Joseph Ross" >>>>> To: "Dan.Strassberg" >>>>> Cc: >>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:14 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jun 2009 Dan.Strassberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> IIRC (I think it was in the spring of 1956 but it could have >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> year or more earlier than that), CBS radio switched from WTRY >>>>>>> (AM) to >>>>>>> WROW (AM) and CBS TV switched at the same time from WTRI-TV >>>>>>> Channel 35 >>>>>>> to whatever the station on channel 41 was then called (maybe >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> WROW-TV). >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it was earlier than that. It was sometime in 1956 that >>>>>> WTRI >>>>>> returned to the air as an ABC affiliate, and for the fall TV >>>>>> season >>>>>> that year, for the first time in that market, each network had >>>>>> its >>>>>> own station. >>>>>> >>>>>>> However, by the time of the switch (or AT the time of the >>>>>>> switch), >>>>>>> WTRY (AM) changed hands. I think Channel 35 stayed with the >>>>>>> former >>>>>>> owners of the AM but the AM was sold to a Providence RI-based >>>>>>> group >>>>>>> that also owned WEAN there. The guy who headed the group was a >>>>>>> fellow named Mowry Lowe. Lowe was a strong believer in >>>>>>> independent >>>>>>> stations and music-and-news formats (later known as MOR and >>>>>>> Top-40). Instead of picking up the ABC Radio affiliation that >>>>>>> WROW >>>>>>> (AM) was dropping, WTRY became an independent and continued to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> very well both in ratings and sales. I think ABC radio then >>>>>>> moved >>>>>>> to WPTR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, there was a big network shift at that time. CBS went to >>>>>> WROW, >>>>>> ABC went to WPTR, and Mutual, formerly on WPTR, moved to WOKO. >>>>>> The >>>>>> only affiliation that stayed the same was NBC on WGY. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >>>>>> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >>>>>> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> orneyross.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Jun 15 00:04:44 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:44 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044> <4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com> <23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10> <3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044> <2AF101D8CB434E2A856FE4EBA337D580@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <18997.51292.471484.670861@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Hi Dan- > Thanks for filling in a lot of history. [Good stuff deleted] [305 lines of quotation going five replies deep deleted] Just a gentle reminder from your moderator... Please trim unnecessary quotations when you reply. Some people read this list in digest form and don't have the option of "hitting n" to skip the accumulated junk. -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 15 00:04:12 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:12 -0400 Subject: Where did channel 7 go? In-Reply-To: <0853E9DF-9AD8-49B1-B754-18C7A59CD758@mac.com> References: <0853E9DF-9AD8-49B1-B754-18C7A59CD758@mac.com> Message-ID: <4A358FFC.28392.7BFB6D@joe.attorneyross.com> On 13 Jun 2009 at 10:48, Mark Laurence wrote: > As for the other poster's reference to "a weak signal on channel 26," > I think that's WHDN, a low power digital station that feeds a lot of > Deutsche Welle programming from a sister station in Miami. They > sometimes map to channel 6 on my digital TV, and a lot of the time > they don't come in at all. More here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDN But what I'm getting is an analog signal. Looks like a movie. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 15 00:04:10 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:10 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com>, <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> On 13 Jun 2009 at 1:09, Garrett Wollman wrote: > According to Jim, the old 7 transmitter was the oldest Larcan still > operating. What's a Larcan. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 15 00:04:10 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:10 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: <53F6EB1C9E1142E9A4BA32781AC735E1@DougDrown> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <53F6EB1C9E1142E9A4BA32781AC735E1@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A358FFA.18458.7BF444@joe.attorneyross.com> On 13 Jun 2009 at 8:19, Doug Drown wrote: > Wasn't WORL also an ABC affiliate for a while? -Doug I don't remember. Possibly. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 15 00:04:10 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:10 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <850624.30137.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com>, <1fbbbced0906130009v791e4b05w45d88f9d3fb6d7df@mail.gmail.com>, <850624.30137.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A358FFA.21677.7BF278@joe.attorneyross.com> On 13 Jun 2009 at 3:02, Maureen Carney wrote: > I'm not sure what time you were listening, but they were running a > couple of different programs and the 1st one after midnight (with > Susan Wornick) talked about June 12. They were also running them on > their website. I will say kudos to WCVB for having more than just the > NAB infomercial. Some of the programs I've seen were in Spanish. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 15 00:04:12 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:12 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... In-Reply-To: References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, Message-ID: <4A358FFC.13514.7BFC49@joe.attorneyross.com> On 13 Jun 2009 at 21:20, Dave Doherty wrote: > Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early > history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous locations > - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a shared-time > facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly even farther > south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as "Mount Beacon" I seem to remember something about their studios being in the Wellington Hotel. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From rac@gabrielmass.com Mon Jun 15 00:16:39 2009 From: rac@gabrielmass.com (Richard Chonak) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:16:39 -0400 Subject: Digital TV Conversion In-Reply-To: <18997.15934.320328.870125@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <18997.15934.320328.870125@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A35CB27.3070500@gabrielmass.com> As you might expect, hotel TV systems aren't likely to be up to date. Here in suburban DC, channels 4, 5, 7, and 9 are either off-air or night-light. The local channels are being fed to the rooms on analog channels in the 41-49 range, but a scan brought in WJLA's digital channels with these labels: 7-3 (WJLA-HD: ABC-7) 7-4 (WJLA-WX: wx display) 7-5 (WJLARTN: RTV) The DTV signals have been weak, and at times the labels have been switched around: "WJLA-HD" appeared on 7-5, but 7-5 has now reverted to Retro TV. --RC From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 15 00:04:13 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:04:13 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT moves from RF-42 to 7 In-Reply-To: References: <5B6A3E962AEF466BAB59F2E326B82A7F@SatU205S5044>, <8BC9E356AA8B4618857A549BD09578F1@aeriema>, Message-ID: <4A358FFD.12432.7BFF7F@joe.attorneyross.com> On 13 Jun 2009 at 22:43, Larry Weil wrote: > I also notice that most of the people who are having trouble are using > Terk antennas, which I have always thought of as being over-priced > junque. It might be worth people's time trying something else, just > make sure you buy it from a store with a good return policy, so you > can try it out and return it if there isn't an improvement. At that > rate, buy one of every indoor antenna the store has, and return all > except one after experimenting with them all. Then pass along here > which one worked best. Here in Brookline, I've put old antennas on my converter boxes. Of course, I have cable, so I don't use the off-air boxes very much, but with the coupon, they were cheap enough, so I bought them. On my bedroom TV, I have an old UHF-VHF rabbit ears, with a UHF ring antenna and two wire connectors, one of which is labelled UHF. I connected that one initially because all the DTV stations were on UHF. It worked fine. Friday night after midnight I re-scanned and found that, even on a UHF antenna, channel 7 comes in fine. I haven't re-scanned the other box yet. I set that up on the diningroom TV, but I haven't used it since. When I scanned it, I couldn't get channel 4. I'm planning to connect it to my small 2- inch TV in my study, which isn't connected to the cable. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Mon Jun 15 00:47:13 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:47:13 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <4A358FFC.13514.7BFC49@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <805A65DEF3C946BEA4DEC4700D35DC72@DougDrown> I have read some reference to WOKO's original tower(s) somewhere on Railroad.Net, of all places --- several years ago. The transmitting facility was located atop a mountain some distance down the Hudson from Albany. I'll try to locate the reference. It may take some doing. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:04 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > On 13 Jun 2009 at 21:20, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early >> history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous locations >> - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a shared-time >> facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly even farther >> south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as "Mount Beacon" > > I seem to remember something about their studios being in the > Wellington Hotel. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Mon Jun 15 00:18:36 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:18:36 -0500 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906142118s26909ca1i11249438e425bb80@mail.gmail.com> It's the type of transmitter they used.. er, rather the "brand" name.. like Harris, BE, Nautel are to AM/FM radio transmitters Paul On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 11:04 PM, A. Joseph Ross wrote: > On 13 Jun 2009 at 1:09, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > > According to Jim, the old 7 transmitter was the oldest Larcan still > > operating. > > What's a Larcan. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 > http://www.attorneyross.com > > > -- Sincerely, Paul B. Walker, Jr. www.onairdj.com walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com From kc1ih@mac.com Mon Jun 15 00:33:00 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:33:00 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: At 12:04 AM -0400 6/15/09, A. Joseph Ross wrote: >On 13 Jun 2009 at 1:09, Garrett Wollman wrote: > >> According to Jim, the old 7 transmitter was the oldest Larcan still >> operating. > >What's a Larcan. > It's a company that makes TV transmitters. Located in Mississauga, Ontario. I don't know about the claim that Channel 7's is the oldest, perhaps the oldest of that model. They are still in business and making transmitters, their website is http://www.larcan.com/Company/default.aspx. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From heritageradio@msn.com Mon Jun 15 03:04:05 2009 From: heritageradio@msn.com (thomas heathwood) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:04:05 -0400 Subject: Re-Scanning Message-ID: Does anyone know of a technically correct instruction page online describing RE-SCANNING ? Also a page describing Boston area "new" channel locations, and changes in probable reception. Thanks, Tom Heathwood HeritageRadio@msn.com 6/15 From sid@wrko.com Mon Jun 15 07:56:17 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:56:17 -0600 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>Does anyone know of a technically correct instruction page online describing RE-SCANNING ?<< How to re-scan depends on which converter box or digital TV you have. The instructions that came with either one are the best reference. >>Also a page describing Boston area "new" channel locations, and changes in probable reception.<< The coverage maps available at www.dtv.com are probably the best predictor of how reception will change, although terrain here in the northeast is so variable that sometimes the only way to find out is to try it. The online maps show analog coverage, digital coverage, and specific known areas that will either gain or lose reception as a result of the switch to digital. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From dave@skywaves.net Mon Jun 15 08:31:57 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:31:57 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com><05011C4163D74518AC63D70255E7BBE6@SatU205S5044><4A312D6E.2260.593DE2@Joe.attorneyross.com><23737825.1244777595045.JavaMail.root@n10><3745CDA1443E477A8954BC65C2EA85B6@SatU205S5044><2AF101D8CB434E2A856FE4EBA337D580@SatU205S5044> <18997.51292.471484.670861@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <0FA67CAA010B4E5AA38AC67285AD7EBA@skywaves.com> Sorry. :-( -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:04 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > < > said: > >> Hi Dan- >> Thanks for filling in a lot of history. > > [Good stuff deleted] > > [305 lines of quotation going five replies deep deleted] > > Just a gentle reminder from your moderator... Please trim unnecessary > quotations when you reply. Some people read this list in digest form > and don't have the option of "hitting n" to skip the accumulated junk. > > -GAWollman > > From marklaurence@mac.com Mon Jun 15 09:10:46 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:10:46 -0400 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> On Jun 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Sid Schweiger wrote: > The coverage maps available at www.dtv.com are probably the best > predictor of how reception will change, although terrain here in > the northeast is so variable that sometimes the only way to find > out is to try it. The online maps show analog coverage, digital > coverage, and specific known areas that will either gain or lose > reception as a result of the switch to digital. I just went to that website and it looks like one of those "parked" sites with a bunch of generic search links. From scott@fybush.com Mon Jun 15 10:29:07 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:29:07 -0400 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: <97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> Message-ID: <4A365AB3.8090400@fybush.com> Mark Laurence wrote: > On Jun 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Sid Schweiger wrote: > >> The coverage maps available at www.dtv.com are probably the best >> predictor of how reception will change, although terrain here in the >> northeast is so variable that sometimes the only way to find out is to >> try it. The online maps show analog coverage, digital coverage, and >> specific known areas that will either gain or lose reception as a >> result of the switch to digital. > > I just went to that website and it looks like one of those "parked" > sites with a bunch of generic search links. > As far as channel listings go, I think www.rabbitears.tv is about as good as it gets. It has market-by-market listings with both physical and virtual channels, lists of subchannels and other relevant data. s From aerie.ma@comcast.net Mon Jun 15 10:33:12 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:33:12 -0400 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: <97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> Message-ID: <106AC486FE7E4968BD8483815DEEFEF6@fs.uml.edu> It's www.dtv.gov, not .com -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Mark Laurence Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:11 AM To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org Subject: Re: Re-Scanning On Jun 15, 2009, at 7:56 AM, Sid Schweiger wrote: > The coverage maps available at www.dtv.com are probably the best > predictor of how reception will change, although terrain here in > the northeast is so variable that sometimes the only way to find > out is to try it. The online maps show analog coverage, digital > coverage, and specific known areas that will either gain or lose > reception as a result of the switch to digital. I just went to that website and it looks like one of those "parked" sites with a bunch of generic search links. From aerie.ma@comcast.net Mon Jun 15 10:40:27 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:40:27 -0400 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: <4A365AB3.8090400@fybush.com> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com><97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> <4A365AB3.8090400@fybush.com> Message-ID: <66A973A830EF495AB9B342C367DC7765@fs.uml.edu> I think it's http://www.rabbitears.info not .tv > As far as channel listings go, I think www.rabbitears.tv is about as good as it gets. It has market-by-market listings with both physical and virtual channels, lists of subchannels and other relevant data. s From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 15 10:51:49 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:51:49 -0500 Subject: nice DTV oops in Chicagoland Message-ID: <4fc429770906150751h779e6d1aib66fd0d804a14fd8@mail.gmail.com> Seems somebody at Comcast fumbled the ball on Friday when WBBM and WLS moved to new digital channels and the situatuon was not corrected until Sat From elipolo@earthlink.net Mon Jun 15 13:25:59 2009 From: elipolo@earthlink.net (Eli Polonsky) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:25:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Where did channel 7 go? Message-ID: <12693140.1245086759965.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rustique.atl.sa.earthlink.net> It wouldn't be WHDN because I don't believe they broadcast on analog in this area. What he got is probably actually analog ch. 24 WFXZ-CA, a low-power (mostly) Spanish station. Low power TV stations are allowed to continue broadcasting in analog. EP On 13 Jun 2009 at 10:48, Mark Laurence wrote: > As for the other poster's reference to "a weak signal on channel 26," > I think that's WHDN, a low power digital station that feeds a lot of > Deutsche Welle programming from a sister station in Miami. They > sometimes map to channel 6 on my digital TV, and a lot of the time > they don't come in at all. More here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDN But what I'm getting is an analog signal. Looks like a movie. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From kc1ih@mac.com Mon Jun 15 14:24:57 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:24:57 -0400 Subject: WHDH-TV Reception Problems Message-ID: <000001c9ede6$9bc80dd0$c4141bac@whdh.com> First, I apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message. I first sent this from the wrong address, then when I sent it from the right address I got a weird reject message, so I'm trying again! I've received a few e-mails from people experiencing reception problems with WHDH-DT. Please note that if you are not receiving the station, first make sure you have rescanned your TV or converter box on Saturday or later. If you scanned on Friday and not since it will definitely not work. If that does not solve the problem, the station has set up a help line for people with reception problems, it is (617) 248-5500. If you get a recording be sure to leave a message and someone from the engineering department will get back to you. In the meantime, it seems I posted some erroneous information the other day. The station is currently broadcasting at it's full licensed power, the part of the transmitter that remains to be installed is for backup purposes. Sorry for the confusion, like I said earlier sometimes even those of us at the station don't have the full info. That is why I urge you to contact the trouble number if you are having problems and not me. Larry Weil WHDH/WLVI Master Control From sid@wrko.com Mon Jun 15 12:03:21 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:03:21 -0600 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: <106AC486FE7E4968BD8483815DEEFEF6@fs.uml.edu> References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F7060F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> <97396734-089B-40C6-A6FE-07A67501928D@mac.com> <106AC486FE7E4968BD8483815DEEFEF6@fs.uml.edu> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680F70A85@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>It's www.dtv.gov, not .com<< That'll teach me to type something that early in the day without caffeine. :-) Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From rbello@belloassoc.com Mon Jun 15 13:07:36 2009 From: rbello@belloassoc.com (Ron Bello) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:07:36 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <124509200401@mx05.gis.net> I would not want to be in the transmitter business now. Over the past few years virtually every TV station has purchased a new transmitter or 2 for those returning to their original RF home. What happens to all those extra transmitters not to mention the retired units ? At 12:33 AM 6/15/2009, Larry Weil wrote: >At 12:04 AM -0400 6/15/09, A. Joseph Ross wrote: > >>On 13 Jun 2009 at 1:09, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> >>> According to Jim, the old 7 transmitter was the oldest Larcan still >>> operating. >> >>What's a Larcan. > >It's a company that makes TV transmitters. Located in Mississauga, >Ontario. I don't know about the claim that Channel 7's is the >oldest, perhaps the oldest of that model. They are still in >business and making transmitters, their website is >http://www.larcan.com/Company/default.aspx. > >-- >Larry Weil >Lake Wobegone, NH From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Jun 15 17:11:44 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:11:44 -0400 Subject: End of Analog In-Reply-To: <124509200401@mx05.gis.net> References: <4A32F20A.23416.4D7D0A@joe.attorneyross.com> <18995.13442.334002.936381@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A358FFA.8041.7BF1AF@joe.attorneyross.com> <124509200401@mx05.gis.net> Message-ID: <18998.47376.149527.661435@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Over the past few years virtually every TV station has purchased a > new transmitter or > 2 for those returning to their original RF home. What happens to all > those extra transmitters > not to mention the retired units ? The retired ones will either get scrapped or sold to someone who needs one. If they are analog-only, they are more likely to get scrapped or sold to someone in Central America; most digital-capable transmitters will become backups, either in the original station group or sold to another station with an appropriate channel assignment. All of the VHF-low-band DTV transmitters that will ever need to be built probably have been. (Most LPTVs and translators will have such low TPO, on the order of 1-10 watts, that they don't need a separate amplifier.) -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 16 00:31:06 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:31:06 -0400 Subject: Re-Scanning In-Reply-To: <66A973A830EF495AB9B342C367DC7765@fs.uml.edu> References: , <4A365AB3.8090400@fybush.com>, <66A973A830EF495AB9B342C367DC7765@fs.uml.edu> Message-ID: <4A36E7CA.12272.7E61D3@joe.attorneyross.com> On 15 Jun 2009 at 10:40, Jim Hall wrote: > I think it's http://www.rabbitears.info not .tv This doesn't work either -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From donald_astelle@yahoo.com Tue Jun 16 02:52:54 2009 From: donald_astelle@yahoo.com (Don A) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:52:54 -0400 Subject: Twitter..... Message-ID: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> Although it doesn't quite seem like my thing, for what it's worth, I am exploring Twitter. Anyone following anyone interesting in the radio world? From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Jun 16 03:07:04 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:07:04 -0400 Subject: Twitter..... In-Reply-To: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> References: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> Message-ID: <20090616070708.547201B4018@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 02:52 AM 6/16/2009, Don A wrote: >Although it doesn't quite seem like my thing, for what it's worth, I >am exploring Twitter. > >Anyone following anyone interesting in the radio world? I follow a few radio and TV folks I like, and a couple of journalists and media critics. Sometimes, there's very interesting info that they send out. But to be honest, much of what I read on Twitter seems self-indulgent and not very useful-- like when David Gregory of NBC announces what he ate for lunch... sigh... Okay fine, some tweets can also be inspiring, like the reports coming out of young people in Iran, but frankly, unless you are a big fan of text messaging and have lots of time on your hands, Twitter isn't all that exciting. I am sure I'll get a lot of folks who disagree with me... From sid@wrko.com Tue Jun 16 08:23:40 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:23:40 -0600 Subject: Twitter..... In-Reply-To: <20090616070708.547201B4018@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> References: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> <20090616070708.547201B4018@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84681458FED@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>Okay fine, some tweets can also be inspiring, like the reports coming out of young people in Iran, but frankly, unless you are a big fan of text messaging and have lots of time on your hands, Twitter isn't all that exciting.<< It also isn't all that reliable. We were going to try using it for emergency inter-company communications (for example, to notify all the engineering/IT people that e-mail or corporate networks were down, streaming was off-line, servers had crashed, etc.), and when we tested it about half of our people didn't receive their tweets at all. One of our corporate IT people theorizes that Twitter might use the UDP protocol, which doesn't require an acknowledgement that the transmitted data was received. That works well for something like streaming, but not for a messaging app and certainly not for something critical such as what we needed. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 16 10:46:20 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:46:20 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? Message-ID: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> Whenever the power goes out, I customarily reset my VCR clock (yeah, I still have one of those) to :00 on a network or cable station. I've discovered, however, that "on the hour" on one channel may not be "on the hour" on another. For example, we get both WCSH in Portland and WLBZ in Bangor, Gannett's co-owned NBC affiliates in Maine. WCSH's :00 is a second ahead of WLBZ's. All the network programming is a second or two off, as well. Same with the ABC affiliates here. What gives --- and how can I find a reliable way to set my clock? (I know, I know, go get an atomic clock . . . ) -Doug From sid@wrko.com Tue Jun 16 11:02:12 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> References: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84681459321@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< WWV: 303-499-7111. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From gallen2@nescaum.org Tue Jun 16 12:16:43 2009 From: gallen2@nescaum.org (George Allen) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:16:43 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? Message-ID: Or: http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java George ____________________________________________ From: Sid Schweiger To: Boston Radio Interest Board Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< WWV: 303-499-7111. From marklaurence@mac.com Tue Jun 16 11:31:02 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:31:02 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? Message-ID: <65778018507614114988977126878180953400-Webmail@me.com> On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 10:46AM, "Doug Drown" wrote: >how can I find a reliable way to set my clock? (I know, I know, go get an atomic clock . . . ) -Doug I have a watch that sets itself to WWV. Comparing it to many different "official" sources, it's always accurate to a fraction of a second. I just checked it with http://www.time.gov and that service seems just as accurate, so I'd suggest going there. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 16 12:57:34 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:57:34 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? References: Message-ID: Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't know about time.gov. The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' feeds, at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Allen" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:16 PM Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > Or: > http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java > George > ____________________________________________ > > From: Sid Schweiger > To: Boston Radio Interest Board > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 > Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< > > WWV: 303-499-7111. From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Jun 16 13:07:11 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:07:11 -0500 Subject: Twitter..... In-Reply-To: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> References: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906161007h1f973a79oc535efe39bd5beaa@mail.gmail.com> I've got twitter, facebok and myspace. I don't use myspace much at all, rarely use twitter but am on facebook everyday. -- Sincerely, Paul B. Walker, Jr. http://www.facebook/onairdj http://www.myspace.com/walkerbroadcasting http://www.twitter.com/walkerbroadcast On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Don A wrote: > > Although it doesn't quite seem like my thing, for what it's worth, I am > exploring Twitter. > > Anyone following anyone interesting in the radio world? > > > From sid@wrko.com Tue Jun 16 13:26:33 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:26:33 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84681459570@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>Why are the networks' feeds, at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station?<< I'd have to guess that at this point part of the problem is the delays inherent in digital signal processing. Different stations will send their signals through different equipment, which will introduce differing degrees of delay. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From marklaurence@mac.com Tue Jun 16 13:26:52 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:26:52 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? Message-ID: <69489437167600288749950774964204895114-Webmail@me.com> On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 12:57PM, "Doug Drown" wrote: >Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't know >about time.gov. > >The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' feeds, >at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug It could be satellite delays, or processing delays in creating digital signals. Broadcast time tones are totally unreliable now. My favorite example is WBZ when you hear two top-of-the-hour tones about 10 seconds apart, and I doubt that either of them are on time when you actually hear them. If you're listening to digital or satellite radio there's a 7-10 second delay for processing, and that's not counting any delay for bleeping content on talk shows. There's a similar delay for cable TV, more so for satellite TV. Counting down on New Year's Eve, I was flipping between stations on my digital cable TV and there were huge discrepancies. From kc1ih@mac.com Tue Jun 16 13:45:03 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:45:03 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting Message-ID: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> From: Jim Shultis Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:21 PM To: Engineering Department Subject: FW: E-MAIL RESPONSE FYI- WE ARE NOW UP ON CH 42- PLEASE LET OUR VIEWERS KNOW We received your recent e-mail regarding our digital channel. We are now simulcasting our digital signal on Channel 7 and on Channel 42 (our pre-transition digital channel). In order to see us on Channel 42, you will need to rescan again. To rescan, press "menu" on your remote. Then choose "auto-scan" or "installation." This begins the rescan process---it may take several minutes to complete this process. Like a number of other stations in cities across the country, WHDH is experiencing signal difficulties following the transition that took place on June 12. The signal difficulties we are experiencing are a result of post-transition power allocation assigned by the FCC that is not sufficient to maintain the signal strength that we had prior to the transition. We are petitioning the FCC to adjust the technical parameters so that we will be able to improve reception. In the meantime, we will continue to simulcast on Channel 42 so that viewers will be able to receive our signal. We appreciate your patience as we resolve this matter. From kc1ih@mac.com Tue Jun 16 13:52:47 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:52:47 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001401c9eeab$42acd0d0$c7151bac@whdh.com> Part of the answer is satellite delay, there is a delay of about a half-second for each satellite hop. There are also delays due to digital encoding and decoding. Also shows are not always scheduled to start exactly on the hour or half-hour. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Doug Drown Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:58 PM To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; George Allen Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't know about time.gov. The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' feeds, at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Allen" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:16 PM Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > Or: > http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java > George > ____________________________________________ > > From: Sid Schweiger > To: Boston Radio Interest Board > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 > Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< > > WWV: 303-499-7111. From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Tue Jun 16 14:14:23 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:14:23 -0400 Subject: Twitter..... References: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro> <20090616070708.547201B4018@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <5087D69558C942A3A32EEE618F385E51@teddesktop> No disagreement here. Truthfully, I don't understand the thrill in communicating generally trivial daily events...like..."I'm sitting at my computer writing about Twitter and just came back from the Dentist. Wow! Really? Ted Larsen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Halper" To: "Don A" ; "BRI+" Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:07 AM Subject: Re: Twitter..... > At 02:52 AM 6/16/2009, Don A wrote: > >>Although it doesn't quite seem like my thing, for what it's worth, I am >>exploring Twitter. >> >>Anyone following anyone interesting in the radio world? > > I follow a few radio and TV folks I like, and a couple of journalists and > media critics. Sometimes, there's very interesting info that they send > out. But to be honest, much of what I read on Twitter seems > self-indulgent and not very useful-- like when David Gregory of NBC > announces what he ate for lunch... sigh... Okay fine, some tweets can also > be inspiring, like the reports coming out of young people in Iran, but > frankly, unless you are a big fan of text messaging and have lots of time > on your hands, Twitter isn't all that exciting. I am sure I'll get a lot > of folks who disagree with me... > > From aerie.ma@comcast.net Tue Jun 16 14:30:54 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:30:54 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> Well that's certainly good news. But I wonder what's going to happen to people who could receive DT on RF Channel 7 after the switch. Will their sets/converters understand why there are *two* channels 7.1 and 7.2 broadcasting? -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Larry Weil Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:45 PM To: Boston-Radio Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting From: Jim Shultis Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:21 PM To: Engineering Department Subject: FW: E-MAIL RESPONSE FYI- WE ARE NOW UP ON CH 42- PLEASE LET OUR VIEWERS KNOW We received your recent e-mail regarding our digital channel. We are now simulcasting our digital signal on Channel 7 and on Channel 42 (our pre-transition digital channel). In order to see us on Channel 42, you will need to rescan again. To rescan, press "menu" on your remote. Then choose "auto-scan" or "installation." This begins the rescan process---it may take several minutes to complete this process. Like a number of other stations in cities across the country, WHDH is experiencing signal difficulties following the transition that took place on June 12. The signal difficulties we are experiencing are a result of post-transition power allocation assigned by the FCC that is not sufficient to maintain the signal strength that we had prior to the transition. We are petitioning the FCC to adjust the technical parameters so that we will be able to improve reception. In the meantime, we will continue to simulcast on Channel 42 so that viewers will be able to receive our signal. We appreciate your patience as we resolve this matter. From kc1ih@mac.com Tue Jun 16 14:43:10 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:43:10 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> Message-ID: <002201c9eeb2$4e11ab60$c7151bac@whdh.com> AFAIK, if they do not scan again their TV's or converter boxes will never know about the RF 42 signal. And if they do rescan, yes, they probably will have two sets of ch7 presets, but so what! Really know harm done other than the slight inconvenience that might cause a few people. But then again, people will complain about anything. -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Jim Hall Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:31 PM To: 'Boston-Radio' Subject: RE: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting Well that's certainly good news. But I wonder what's going to happen to people who could receive DT on RF Channel 7 after the switch. Will their sets/converters understand why there are *two* channels 7.1 and 7.2 broadcasting? -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Larry Weil Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:45 PM To: Boston-Radio Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting From: Jim Shultis Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:21 PM To: Engineering Department Subject: FW: E-MAIL RESPONSE FYI- WE ARE NOW UP ON CH 42- PLEASE LET OUR VIEWERS KNOW We received your recent e-mail regarding our digital channel. We are now simulcasting our digital signal on Channel 7 and on Channel 42 (our pre-transition digital channel). In order to see us on Channel 42, you will need to rescan again. To rescan, press "menu" on your remote. Then choose "auto-scan" or "installation." This begins the rescan process---it may take several minutes to complete this process. Like a number of other stations in cities across the country, WHDH is experiencing signal difficulties following the transition that took place on June 12. The signal difficulties we are experiencing are a result of post-transition power allocation assigned by the FCC that is not sufficient to maintain the signal strength that we had prior to the transition. We are petitioning the FCC to adjust the technical parameters so that we will be able to improve reception. In the meantime, we will continue to simulcast on Channel 42 so that viewers will be able to receive our signal. We appreciate your patience as we resolve this matter. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 16 14:58:03 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:58:03 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? References: <001401c9eeab$42acd0d0$c7151bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <91B74DEF9BBE41769D76335B6390C138@DougDrown> >>Also shows are not always scheduled to start exactly on the hour or half-hour. When did that start? I know that Letterman, Leno and "Nightline" all begin at :35, but I always assumed that hourly or half-hourly TV shows were supposed to begin "on the dot," as it were. (How well I remember the CBS "bong" at the beginning of each of the network's hourly programs!) -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:52 PM Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > Part of the answer is satellite delay, there is a delay of about a > half-second for each satellite hop. There are also delays due to digital > encoding and decoding. Also shows are not always scheduled to start > exactly > on the hour or half-hour. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > Doug Drown > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:58 PM > To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; George Allen > Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't > know > about time.gov. > > The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' > feeds, > > at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Allen" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:16 PM > Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > >> Or: >> http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java >> George >> ____________________________________________ >> >> From: Sid Schweiger >> To: Boston Radio Interest Board >> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 >> Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >> >> >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< >> >> WWV: 303-499-7111. > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 16 15:06:52 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:06:52 -0400 Subject: Twitter..... References: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro><20090616070708.547201B4018@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <5087D69558C942A3A32EEE618F385E51@teddesktop> Message-ID: <219723AFD37A4A87A7B776380F91735A@DougDrown> Ted: You're right, but then again, I find it enjoyable to read the town columns in some of Maine's weekly newspapers: "Harley Sprague was in Bangor last Thursday and had lunch with his daughter." "Birdena Clark got home Saturday from her stay at the hospital, where she had her gallbladder removed. She appreciates all the cards and flowers she received." I'm not kidding. It's a fallen world we live in . . . voyeurism feeds on narcissism, which feeds on voyeurism. Hey, how do you think The National Enquirer survives? ;-) -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Larsen" To: "Donna Halper" Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Twitter..... > No disagreement here. Truthfully, I don't understand the thrill in > communicating generally trivial daily events...like..."I'm sitting at my > computer writing about Twitter and just came back from the Dentist. Wow! > Really? > > Ted Larsen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donna Halper" > To: "Don A" ; "BRI+" > > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:07 AM > Subject: Re: Twitter..... > > >> At 02:52 AM 6/16/2009, Don A wrote: >> >>>Although it doesn't quite seem like my thing, for what it's worth, I am >>>exploring Twitter. >>> >>>Anyone following anyone interesting in the radio world? >> >> I follow a few radio and TV folks I like, and a couple of journalists and >> media critics. Sometimes, there's very interesting info that they send >> out. But to be honest, much of what I read on Twitter seems >> self-indulgent and not very useful-- like when David Gregory of NBC >> announces what he ate for lunch... sigh... Okay fine, some tweets can >> also be inspiring, like the reports coming out of young people in Iran, >> but frankly, unless you are a big fan of text messaging and have lots of >> time on your hands, Twitter isn't all that exciting. I am sure I'll get >> a lot of folks who disagree with me... >> >> > From kc1ih@mac.com Tue Jun 16 15:24:05 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:24:05 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: <91B74DEF9BBE41769D76335B6390C138@DougDrown> References: <001401c9eeab$42acd0d0$c7151bac@whdh.com> <91B74DEF9BBE41769D76335B6390C138@DougDrown> Message-ID: <000001c9eeb8$090ab6a0$c7151bac@whdh.com> Shows are supposed to begin "on the dot"? According to who? Is there a law that I don't know about? Actually, the block of network shows (when the stations have to "hit" network) will usually begin and end on the dot, plus any satellite or digital delay as discussed previously. But the transition between shows is often not quite on the dot, we get that information with our timings from the network each night. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Drown [mailto:revdoug1@myfairpoint.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:58 PM To: Larry Weil; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >>Also shows are not always scheduled to start exactly on the hour or half-hour. When did that start? I know that Letterman, Leno and "Nightline" all begin at :35, but I always assumed that hourly or half-hourly TV shows were supposed to begin "on the dot," as it were. (How well I remember the CBS "bong" at the beginning of each of the network's hourly programs!) -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:52 PM Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > Part of the answer is satellite delay, there is a delay of about a > half-second for each satellite hop. There are also delays due to digital > encoding and decoding. Also shows are not always scheduled to start > exactly > on the hour or half-hour. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > Doug Drown > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:58 PM > To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; George Allen > Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't > know > about time.gov. > > The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' > feeds, > > at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Allen" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:16 PM > Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > >> Or: >> http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java >> George >> ____________________________________________ >> >> From: Sid Schweiger >> To: Boston Radio Interest Board >> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 >> Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >> >> >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< >> >> WWV: 303-499-7111. > > From donald_astelle@yahoo.com Tue Jun 16 15:20:33 2009 From: donald_astelle@yahoo.com (Don A) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:20:33 -0400 Subject: Twitter..... References: <44BA24EADF1C40BCBF4FFEA665141902@MainXPPro><20090616070708.547201B4018@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com><5087D69558C942A3A32EEE618F385E51@teddesktop> <219723AFD37A4A87A7B776380F91735A@DougDrown> Message-ID: <93D0E329350F4CB6BA92D302DD5B137D@MainXPPro> >> No disagreement here. Truthfully, I don't understand the thrill in >> communicating generally trivial daily events...like..."I'm sitting at my >> computer writing about Twitter and just came back from the Dentist. Wow! >> Really? lol That's why I asked if there was anyone in the radio world that twittered anything interesting. If Mel Karmazin or Norm Pattiz was twittering, I would image they might have some interesting things to say. Seems like most of the twittering I have seen is commercially aimed. Subscribe to your favorite Boston Chef, and you're likely to get contrived messages about their 2-for-one specials. Subscribe to the twitter of your favorite radio station and you're likely to recieve messges telling you they are about to start another 12-in-a-Row. I subscribed to the BostonRadio twitter feed...and I am recieving tweets about baseball. Is anyone saying anything interesting on Twitter? Any good radio minds twittering? From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 16 15:28:06 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:28:06 -0400 Subject: Henry Blodget: The TV Business Is Toast Message-ID: <9AB3C9D895AA4967B38F18C912F39C65@DougDrown> Henry Blodget writes in today's Huffington Post on why the cable and network broadcasting industry is dying and in denial. Worth pondering. Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henry-blodget/the-tv-business-is-toast_b_216243.html -Doug From Joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 16 15:59:26 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:59:26 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> References: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A37C15E.32008.55666D@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 16 Jun 2009 Doug Drown wrote: > Whenever the power goes out, I customarily reset my VCR clock (yeah, I > still have one of those) to :00 on a network or cable station. I've > discovered, however, that "on the hour" on one channel may not be "on > the hour" on another. For example, we get both WCSH in Portland and > WLBZ in Bangor, Gannett's co-owned NBC affiliates in Maine. WCSH's > :00 is a second ahead of WLBZ's. All the network programming is a > second or two off, as well. Same with the ABC affiliates here. What > gives --- and how can I find a reliable way to set my clock? (I know, > I know, go get an atomic clock . . . ) -Doug Making things more complicated, some networks deliberately start a program slightly early. I set my VCR clock slightly ahead of the correct time, in order to make sure I get the start of a program. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From rich@RichChadwick.com Tue Jun 16 16:02:35 2009 From: rich@RichChadwick.com (Rich Chadwick) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:02:35 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: <000001c9eeb8$090ab6a0$c7151bac@whdh.com> References: <001401c9eeab$42acd0d0$c7151bac@whdh.com> <91B74DEF9BBE41769D76335B6390C138@DougDrown> <000001c9eeb8$090ab6a0$c7151bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <001401c9eebd$64895040$2d9bf0c0$@com> Many times this is done from a rating standpoint. If you add a few "bonus" minutes or "super-size" an episode the thinking is that the viewer will stay with you for the next show because they have already missed the start of all other shows. Not sure how effective that is but anything that can help... Rich Chadwick President MultiMediaPros Digital Studios 877.7MM.PROS x201 -----Original Message----- From: Larry Weil [mailto:kc1ih@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:24 PM To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? Shows are supposed to begin "on the dot"? According to who? Is there a law that I don't know about? Actually, the block of network shows (when the stations have to "hit" network) will usually begin and end on the dot, plus any satellite or digital delay as discussed previously. But the transition between shows is often not quite on the dot, we get that information with our timings from the network each night. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Drown [mailto:revdoug1@myfairpoint.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:58 PM To: Larry Weil; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >>Also shows are not always scheduled to start exactly on the hour or half-hour. When did that start? I know that Letterman, Leno and "Nightline" all begin at :35, but I always assumed that hourly or half-hourly TV shows were supposed to begin "on the dot," as it were. (How well I remember the CBS "bong" at the beginning of each of the network's hourly programs!) -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Weil" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:52 PM Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > Part of the answer is satellite delay, there is a delay of about a > half-second for each satellite hop. There are also delays due to digital > encoding and decoding. Also shows are not always scheduled to start > exactly > on the hour or half-hour. > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf > Of > Doug Drown > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:58 PM > To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; George Allen > Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't > know > about time.gov. > > The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' > feeds, > > at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Allen" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:16 PM > Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > >> Or: >> http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java >> George >> ____________________________________________ >> >> From: Sid Schweiger >> To: Boston Radio Interest Board >> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 >> Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >> >> >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< >> >> WWV: 303-499-7111. > > From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Jun 16 18:06:21 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:06:21 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> Message-ID: <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Well that's certainly good news. But I wonder what's going to happen to > people who could receive DT on RF Channel 7 after the switch. Will their > sets/converters understand why there are *two* channels 7.1 and 7.2 > broadcasting? I believe what's supposed to happen is the same as when you can hear both a translator and the primary station at the same time: they both have the same "program ID" code, and the tuner is supposed to pick whichever signal is best. Not that I trust $40 coupon tuners to do the right thing. -GAWollman From dave@skywaves.net Tue Jun 16 22:16:38 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:16:38 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? References: <001401c9eeab$42acd0d0$c7151bac@whdh.com> <91B74DEF9BBE41769D76335B6390C138@DougDrown> Message-ID: <5CA85B7EFB0E46EDB6DAFF65E71211A7@skywaves.com> The 11:35 start is a "relatively" recent phenomenon. It used to be 11:30. The 11:35 start gives the affiliates an extra five minutes for the late news. I seem to recall that it began with one station someplace that was delaying the late network feed by five minutes. Maybe it was a Mountain time zone station, since they used to tape delay everything anyway. It would have been very hard to pull off a five minute delay in the days of tape, and this probably started sometime in the 1980s - well before solid state recorders were available. In the very earliest days, programs ran however long they needed to. I think it was a programmer at the BBC or NBC that started to make programs conform to regular half hour, hour, and two hour durations. -d ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Larry Weil" ; Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:58 PM Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > >>>Also shows are not always scheduled to start exactly > on the hour or half-hour. > > When did that start? I know that Letterman, Leno and "Nightline" all > begin at :35, but I always assumed that hourly or half-hourly TV shows > were supposed to begin "on the dot," as it were. (How well I remember the > CBS "bong" at the beginning of each of the network's hourly > grams!) -Doug > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry Weil" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:52 PM > Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? > > >> >> Part of the answer is satellite delay, there is a delay of about a >> half-second for each satellite hop. There are also delays due to digital >> encoding and decoding. Also shows are not always scheduled to start >> exactly >> on the hour or half-hour. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org >> [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Doug Drown >> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:58 PM >> To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org; George Allen >> Subject: Re: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >> >> Thank you all for your answers. I had forgotten about WWV, and didn't >> know >> about time.gov. >> >> The other half of my question remains, however: Why are the networks' >> feeds, >> >> at least in Maine, a second or two off from station to station? -Doug >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "George Allen" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:16 PM >> Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >> >> >>> Or: >>> http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java >>> George >>> ____________________________________________ >>> >>> From: Sid Schweiger >>> To: Boston Radio Interest Board >>> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:02:12 -0600 >>> Subject: RE: So, when exactly is "OTH"? >>> >>> >>how can I find a reliable way to set my clock?<< >>> >>> WWV: 303-499-7111. >> >> > > From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Tue Jun 16 22:49:34 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:49:34 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> Garrett Wollman wrote: >> Not that I trust $40 coupon tuners to do the right thing. News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major problems receiving Digital TV stations after 6/12. The obligatory interview with a stereotypical, older, helpless female who couldn't make her converter work, so she called her son and he couldn't make it work, either. So, (insert SFX of hand wringing here) her only remaining options are "A Bigger Antenna", a Dish or "Cable" - with cable at least $45/month. Also, a quick sound byte of a technical person talking about the "Cliff Effect." From scott@fybush.com Tue Jun 16 22:58:04 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:58:04 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <4A385BBC.4080203@fybush.com> Roger Kirk wrote: > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > >> Not that I trust $40 coupon tuners to do the right thing. > > News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major > problems receiving Digital TV stations after 6/12. When the dust settles on the initial phase of the DTV transition, it seems to me that Worcester is one of those places just screaming for a coordinated installation of DTS (distributed transmission system) transmitters by the major Boston stations. There's a dense population concentration there that has serious terrain issues with the signals from Needham/Newton, and copious available sites for DTS relays. The same might be true of central New Hampshire. I suspect that in the long run, such a system might be less expensive (and would almost certainly work better) than the brute-force approach of increasing DTV power levels that seems likely in the near future. I suspect there might be some issues with spacing, however, for several of the Boston stations - WCVB, for instance, is now short-spaced to WTXX-DT 20 in Connecticut. I'm not sure if a directional antenna would resolve that to the FCC's satisfaction or not. s From rbello@belloassoc.com Tue Jun 16 23:07:40 2009 From: rbello@belloassoc.com (Ron Bello) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:07:40 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <124520806101@mx05.gis.net> At 10:49 PM 6/16/2009, Roger Kirk wrote: >Garrett Wollman wrote: > > >> Not that I trust $40 coupon tuners to do the right thing. > >News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major >problems receiving Digital TV stations after 6/12. > >The obligatory interview with a stereotypical, older, helpless >female who couldn't make her converter work, so she called her son >and he couldn't make it work, either. So, (insert SFX of hand >wringing here) her only remaining options are "A Bigger Antenna", a >Dish or "Cable" - with cable at least $45/month. Also, a quick >sound byte of a technical person talking about the "Cliff Effect." > Anyone who knows Worcester, the city of 7 hills, knows TV reception has always been an issue. There are hills to the east of Worcester blocking the signals from Boston. Worcester was among the first (it not the first) places with cable in MA in the 60s to solve the issue. This was ignored by BZ. From tcoco@whav.net Tue Jun 16 23:17:57 2009 From: tcoco@whav.net (Tim Coco) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:17:57 -0400 Subject: WHDH-TV Reception Problems In-Reply-To: <000001c9ede6$9bc80dd0$c4141bac@whdh.com> References: <000001c9ede6$9bc80dd0$c4141bac@whdh.com> Message-ID: <20C7929065EE4149B5F53E666C29F095@CEO> For what it is worth, I was worried when people reported reception problems with Channel 7. However, up on the MA/NH border in Haverhill, reception actually improved after the switch. Using indoor rabbit ears with a built-in amplifier, WHDH and This TV look great. Tim Coco President & General Manager WHAV 189 Ward Hill Avenue Ward Hill, MA 01835-6973 Telephone: (978) 374-2111 Fax: (978) 521-4636 www.whav.net "WHAVR" and "WHAV.NET" are registered service marks. -----Original Message----- From: Larry Weil [mailto:kc1ih@mac.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 2:25 PM To: Boston-Radio Subject: WHDH-TV Reception Problems First, I apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message. I first sent this from the wrong address, then when I sent it from the right address I got a weird reject message, so I'm trying again! I've received a few e-mails from people experiencing reception problems with WHDH-DT. Please note that if you are not receiving the station, first make sure you have rescanned your TV or converter box on Saturday or later. If you scanned on Friday and not since it will definitely not work. If that does not solve the problem, the station has set up a help line for people with reception problems, it is (617) 248-5500. If you get a recording be sure to leave a message and someone from the engineering department will get back to you. In the meantime, it seems I posted some erroneous information the other day. The station is currently broadcasting at it's full licensed power, the part of the transmitter that remains to be installed is for backup purposes. Sorry for the confusion, like I said earlier sometimes even those of us at the station don't have the full info. That is why I urge you to contact the trouble number if you are having problems and not me. Larry Weil WHDH/WLVI Master Control From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Tue Jun 16 23:42:18 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:42:18 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: <69489437167600288749950774964204895114-Webmail@me.com> References: <69489437167600288749950774964204895114-Webmail@me.com> Message-ID: <4A38661A.2040403@ttlc.net> Mark Laurence wrote: > My favorite example is WBZ when you hear two top-of-the-hour tones about 10 seconds apart, and I doubt that either of them are on time when you actually hear them. I thought that the first tone (more like a beep) is the top-of-the-hour tone and the other is TOH+00:10 (more like a boinnng) from CBS. From rac@gabrielmass.com Wed Jun 17 00:12:26 2009 From: rac@gabrielmass.com (Richard Chonak) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:12:26 -0400 Subject: So, when exactly is "OTH"? In-Reply-To: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> References: <1DC9F589A2134A2FB760459B9322CFEC@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A386D2A.7010206@gabrielmass.com> Doug Drown wrote: > how can I find a reliable way to set my clock? An "NTP time server" on your local computer network can monitor the time from GPS satellites, and your PCs can use it as a reliable source. --RC From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 17 00:13:24 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:13:24 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... about WOKO References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <4A358FFC.13514.7BFC49@joe.attorneyross.com> <805A65DEF3C946BEA4DEC4700D35DC72@DougDrown> Message-ID: According to a book entitled "The Airwaves of New York" (1998), WOKO went on the air in Manhattan in 1924 under different call letters, was purchased and moved to Peekskill the following year, and in 1928 was moved to Poughkeepsie, with a new tower was erected atop nearby Mount Beacon. 1931 saw still another, and final, move to Albany. WOKO was Albany's CBS affiliate until 1946, when it was discovered that a former CBS VP, who later was an FRC commissioner, was secretly awarded a part-ownership in the station for effecting the affiliation. WOKO was shut down (for a while) and lost CBS to WTRY. Interesting tale. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Dave Doherty" Cc: Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:47 AM Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... >I have read some reference to WOKO's original tower(s) > somewhere on Railroad.Net, of all places --- several years ago. The > transmitting facility was located atop a mountain some distance down the > Hudson from Albany. I'll try to locate the reference. It may take some > doing. -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Joseph Ross" > To: "Dave Doherty" > Cc: > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:04 AM > Subject: Re: ...and speaking of anniversaries... > > >> On 13 Jun 2009 at 21:20, Dave Doherty wrote: >> >>> Many years ago, I saw some other documentation of WOKO's early >>> history. It includes at least one, and I think two, previous locations >>> - prior to Menands - well down the Hudson. One was a shared-time >>> facility, maybe down in Beacon or Newburgh, or possibly even farther >>> south. One of these may be the site Linc mentioned as "Mount Beacon" >> >> I seem to remember something about their studios being in the >> Wellington Hotel. >> >> -- >> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 >> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >> >> > From marklaurence@mac.com Wed Jun 17 00:49:49 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:49:49 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <4A385BBC.4080203@fybush.com> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> <4A385BBC.4080203@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4EDB8477-4F72-43D1-B817-7EDF819B9483@mac.com> On Jun 16, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Scott Fybush wrote: > When the dust settles on the initial phase of the DTV transition, > it seems to me that Worcester is one of those places just screaming > for a coordinated installation of DTS (distributed transmission > system) transmitters by the major Boston stations. There's a dense > population concentration there that has serious terrain issues with > the signals from Needham/Newton, and copious available sites for > DTS relays. One can only hope. And when they design this system, I hope they take into account that there's a large geographical area in parts of Worcester and many suburbs that needs more service. This is not a Back Bay-size hole that needs a small translator. Meanwhile, channel 27 really ought to consider putting English on one or more of their subchannels. They can build a decent audience with all the Worcester County people whose digital converters can only find this signal. From joe@scanworcester.com Tue Jun 16 23:21:11 2009 From: joe@scanworcester.com (Joe) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:21:11 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <124520806101@mx05.gis.net> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> <124520806101@mx05.gis.net> Message-ID: <000301c9eefa$ab5a3420$020e9c60$@com> Greetings from Worcester. This is my first post here. I decided to subscribe to the list, after researching and finding this thread about WHDH. I've been actively watching DTV since August 08, without problem. I, like many others, had issues with WHDH going VHF. The signal is very spotty and I have yet to rescan to get back onto the UHF simulcast. I will report my findings tomorrow after I get the chance to play around. I did want to write in about the comments of the hilly terrain, which is quite obvious if you know anything about Worcester. I live in a bit of a valley between Indian Hill and Green Hill, but as mentioned, have no problems receiving very good to excellent signals from Boston. I'm using an 8-bay Channel Master 4220 HD antenna with a preamp. The signal gets split amongst 4 or 5 TV's. Of course, the TV's near the end of the line drop the weakest channels, but the main players are still there. As I type this, the anchors of the WHDH 11:00p broadcast mention the simulcast and recommend a re-scan. - Joe Tortorelli, Jr KB1PXA / ScanWorcester.com -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Ron Bello Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 PM To: Roger Kirk; Garrett Wollman Cc: 'Boston-Radio' Subject: Re: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting At 10:49 PM 6/16/2009, Roger Kirk wrote: >Garrett Wollman wrote: > > >> Not that I trust $40 coupon tuners to do the right thing. > >News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major >problems receiving Digital TV stations after 6/12. > >The obligatory interview with a stereotypical, older, helpless >female who couldn't make her converter work, so she called her son >and he couldn't make it work, either. So, (insert SFX of hand >wringing here) her only remaining options are "A Bigger Antenna", a >Dish or "Cable" - with cable at least $45/month. Also, a quick >sound byte of a technical person talking about the "Cliff Effect." > Anyone who knows Worcester, the city of 7 hills, knows TV reception has always been an issue. There are hills to the east of Worcester blocking the signals from Boston. Worcester was among the first (it not the first) places with cable in MA in the 60s to solve the issue. This was ignored by BZ. From dave@skywaves.net Wed Jun 17 00:22:17 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:22:17 -0400 Subject: ...and speaking of anniversaries... about WOKO References: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE84680714823@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com>, <4A358FFC.13514.7BFC49@joe.attorneyross.com> <805A65DEF3C946BEA4DEC4700D35DC72@DougDrown> Message-ID: <9B1EA41458924EA9A58532C93676F0FA@skywaves.com> Hi Doug- I did not know about the Manhattan operation, but Peekskill and Beacon do comport with the story I got of two locations down the Hudson. I think they moved north to escape shared-time situations. Why else would a station licensed to New York City willingly move to Poughkeepsie? -d From dave@skywaves.net Wed Jun 17 00:18:47 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:18:47 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu><19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> Message-ID: <78F36C6B305047E3BFDBEEF2F45990B1@skywaves.com> > News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major > problems receiving Digital TV stations after 6/12. No big surprise there. Much of Worcester is blocked from line of sight. We don't do much better with the FM signals around here. IBOC is problematic, and we are on the hairy edge of analog reception from Pru and FM128 in many places. WBUR is unlistenable in many sections of town, and we have no local NPR affiliate. WGBH - at 100kW - is better in some places but still not very reliable. I cannot believe the city hasn't opened up cable to competition from FiOS, cable overbuilds, or whatever. Maybe this will be the trigger. Oops, there I go again, thinking logically... -d From dan.strassberg@att.net Wed Jun 17 01:48:26 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:48:26 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com><30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: Latest reception report from Arlington Heights, near Lexington. I am using unamplified indoor antennas: Apparently, WHDH never cut the Channel 42 carrier, although there was no picture or audio from Saturday at 12:01AM until sometime yesterday, Tuesday, 6/16/09. My Insignia DTV converter rescanned with no problem. It must have been smart enough to detect the lack of program content on 42 and exclude those "channel 7s" from the scan results. Not so, my year-old Panasonic LCD TV, which brought up the VHF 7-Ds when I entered 7-1 or 7-2 on the remote's keypad but brought up two 7-1s and two 7-2s (of which one of each displayed no picture or audio) when I used the remote's up- and down-arrow controls. I have not yet re-re-scanned the converter box, but now that 42 again carries modulation, the TV gets me picture and audio on both 7-1s and both 7-2s. It is fairly straightforward to determine which of the 7-1s and which of the 7-2s I am watching on the TV. All I need to do is invoke the signal-strength meter. The VHF 7s typically read 68 to 70. The UHF signal reads in the mid-to-high 90s. Any UHF DTV signal that read 68-70 would be unusable on the LCD TV--it would be just a mess of dropped audio and pixellation. The 7-D signals, though relatively weak, seem steadier in strength than the UHF signals. I attribute the good reception of the relatively weak 7-Ds to this (relatively) unvarying signal strength. BTW, the TV remote's up and down arrows (but not those on the converter box's remote) also stop at two 66-1s, but even now, only one of these carries picture and audio. So I gather that 66 still has a live, though unmodulated--except for ID info, carrier on whichever channel carried its iterim DTV signal. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Jim Hall" Cc: "'Boston-Radio'" Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:06 PM Subject: RE: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting > < said: > >> Well that's certainly good news. But I wonder what's going to >> happen to >> people who could receive DT on RF Channel 7 after the switch. Will >> their >> sets/converters understand why there are *two* channels 7.1 and 7.2 >> broadcasting? > > I believe what's supposed to happen is the same as when you can hear > both a translator and the primary station at the same time: they > both > have the same "program ID" code, and the tuner is supposed to pick > whichever signal is best. Not that I trust $40 coupon tuners to do > the right thing. > > -GAWollman > From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 17 01:47:57 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:47:57 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <4EDB8477-4F72-43D1-B817-7EDF819B9483@mac.com> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com>, <4A385BBC.4080203@fybush.com>, <4EDB8477-4F72-43D1-B817-7EDF819B9483@mac.com> Message-ID: <4A384B4D.26346.7DB1B6@joe.attorneyross.com> On 17 Jun 2009 at 0:49, Mark Laurence wrote: > One can only hope. And when they design this system, I hope they > take into account that there's a large geographical area in parts of > Worcester and many suburbs that needs more service. This is not a > Back Bay-size hole that needs a small translator. Meanwhile, channel > 27 really ought to consider putting English on one or more of their > subchannels. They can build a decent audience with all the Worcester > County people whose digital converters can only find this signal. Indeed. We supposedly have townwide wi-fi in Brookline, but I can't pick it up in my condo. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 17 01:48:01 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:48:01 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <78F36C6B305047E3BFDBEEF2F45990B1@skywaves.com> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com>, <78F36C6B305047E3BFDBEEF2F45990B1@skywaves.com> Message-ID: <4A384B51.26802.7DC102@joe.attorneyross.com> On 17 Jun 2009 at 0:18, Dave Doherty wrote: > > News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major > > problems receiving Digital TV stations after 6/12. > > No big surprise there. Much of Worcester is blocked from line of > sight. > > We don't do much better with the FM signals around here. IBOC is > problematic, and we are on the hairy edge of analog reception from Pru > and FM128 in many places. WBUR is unlistenable in many sections of > town, and we have no local NPR affiliate. WGBH - at 100kW - is better > in some places but still not very reliable. Doesn't WFCR come in well? It comes in up to about Route 128. > I cannot believe the city hasn't opened up cable to competition from > FiOS, cable overbuilds, or whatever. Maybe this will be the trigger. > Oops, there I go again, thinking logically... I don't know, but it may be that Verizon doesn't want to do FIOS in Worcester yet. I know it isn't in Brookline, and I've been told by town officials that Verizon has never applied to be in Brookline. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From aerie.ma@comcast.net Wed Jun 17 08:26:47 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:26:47 -0400 Subject: Questions about TV Message-ID: <7226B27BC1684791AACEF6790246DBB0@fs.uml.edu> I have two questions about my Sony LCD TV that I am hoping one of the experts on this list can explain to me. I apologize if this is too off-topic, but some of the people here are really knowledgeable. 1. Although the set is connected to cable, I do also have an antenna on it. Lately because of the DTV transition, I have been looking at the DTV happenings more often in antenna mode. The set has a built-in program guide when in antenna mode. This is distinct and separate from the program guide available through Comcast. The built-in guide shows channel, call letters, network, and then 2-hours of program content for each channel. At first I assumed the TV got the information it displays from data transmitted by the stations it receives. However, sometimes the guide is wrong about some things: it may display the wrong call letters for a station, the wrong network icon, etc. So that makes me think the data is not coming from the local stations but rather from some national source. I thought maybe the TV has a chip in it for some of the data, but that would not explain the program updates. I thought maybe the data is coming through the cable wire, even though I am operating in antenna mode, but it receives the same guide information with the cable unplugged. So how is Sony getting the information for the guide to my TV? Could they be contracting with one of the local stations to send all the information? Do they have their own local transmitter operating to send it? 2. The TV also receives "software updates" periodically. I will turn on the TV, and the screen will say (paraphrasing): "We need to install an important software update. Please do not turn off your TV until the update is complete". Then there is a download progress bar, and an installation progress bar. Then I am instructed to turn off the TV and turn it on again (as if it were a Windows update from Microsoft). Again, where is this information/data coming from? From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Wed Jun 17 10:52:34 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:52:34 -0400 Subject: Twitter & Iran Message-ID: With all our joking about Twitter it seems to be performing amazing things in Iran. I thought I knew a lot about the technical side of the internet, and I can't understand how that service and the internet in general can't be shut down by the government. Are they using "proxies" like spammers do? Could they have their own satellite connections? Thoughts appreciated. Thanks, Ted From kc1ih@mac.com Wed Jun 17 10:28:14 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:28:14 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <4EDB8477-4F72-43D1-B817-7EDF819B9483@mac.com> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <30B2E8B9C1764684AECCB886952D4B3D@fs.uml.edu> <19000.5981.12459.389369@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3859BE.1080106@ttlc.net> <4A385BBC.4080203@fybush.com> <4EDB8477-4F72-43D1-B817-7EDF819B9483@mac.com> Message-ID: At 12:49 AM -0400 6/17/09, Mark Laurence wrote: >Meanwhile, channel 27 really ought to consider putting English on >one or more of their subchannels. They can build a decent audience >with all the Worcester County people whose digital converters can >only find this signal. English what? If you are suggesting that they produce a channel for their subchannel audience only, I doubt that would be economically viable. The majority of people in Worcester are on cable anyway, and probably would not watch such a channel very much even if Charter picked it up. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From kc1ih@mac.com Wed Jun 17 10:34:50 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:34:50 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting In-Reply-To: <4A384B51.26802.7DC102@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <78F36C6B305047E3BFDBEEF2F45990B1@skywaves.com> <4A384B51.26802.7DC102@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: At 1:48 AM -0400 6/17/09, A. Joseph Ross wrote: >On 17 Jun 2009 at 0:18, Dave Doherty wrote: > > > > News story today on WBZ (AM) about Worcester residents having major > >> >> We don't do much better with the FM signals around here. IBOC is >> problematic, and we are on the hairy edge of analog reception from Pru >> and FM128 in many places. WBUR is unlistenable in many sections of >> town, and we have no local NPR affiliate. WGBH - at 100kW - is better >> in some places but still not very reliable. > >Doesn't WFCR come in well? It comes in up to about Route 128. > And I believe WAMC and WHUS are other public radio signals that come in well in parts, if not most, of Worcester county. Of course there's WICN and WCUW. And in northern Worcester County they should get NH Public Radio on 88.3 from Nashua. But I guess to the WBZ people non-Boston stations don't exist! -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From donald_astelle@yahoo.com Wed Jun 17 12:23:52 2009 From: donald_astelle@yahoo.com (Don A) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:23:52 -0400 Subject: Fw: Twitter & Iran Message-ID: >> With all our joking about Twitter it seems to be performing amazing things in Iran. << How does one subscribe to these feeds from Iran? You would ahve to be subscribed to individuals from Iran already, no? From marklaurence@mac.com Wed Jun 17 12:31:58 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:31:58 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting Message-ID: <20830330584573156675217212075213283831-Webmail2@me.com> On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, at 10:28AM, "Larry Weil" wrote: >At 12:49 AM -0400 6/17/09, Mark Laurence wrote: > >>Meanwhile, channel 27 really ought to consider putting English on >>one or more of their subchannels. They can build a decent audience >>with all the Worcester County people whose digital converters can >>only find this signal. > >English what? If you are suggesting that they produce a channel for >their subchannel audience only, I doubt that would be economically >viable. The majority of people in Worcester are on cable anyway, and >probably would not watch such a channel very much even if Charter >picked it up. If you surveyed the TV-marooned market in Worcester, I'm sure you'd discover there were thousands of households, some in pockets of the city but also largely in the suburbs and rural towns. You would also discover that population was overwhelmingly English speaking. At this point, there's no competition for these thousands of viewers. You can put literally anything on (well, maybe not home shopping or paid religion) and they'll watch. I'm suggesting there must be some satellite feed that costs practically nothing, like RTV or This TV, maybe showing 60's sitcom reruns and old movies, that might be watched by people who find it's the only English program their new digital converters can pick up. Maybe there is some no-cost programming like the Deutsche Welle English stuff on WHDN. I don't know if it will make money, but there's got to be some kind of potential there. There are many reasons people get marooned and it's not always because they're dirt poor or otherwise demographically un- desirable. You'd probably end up with a more desirable audience than some of the exotic digital cable channels and many of the existing local indy broadcast channels who are trying to compete in the 250 channel world. At any rate, I'm sure it would get a bigger audience and make more money than a Spanish language subchannel on 27. From dave@skywaves.net Wed Jun 17 16:05:33 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:05:33 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com> <78F36C6B305047E3BFDBEEF2F45990B1@skywaves.com> <4A384B51.26802.7DC102@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: Agreed. It would be really nice if Worcester had a local NPR affiliate. > And I believe WAMC and WHUS are other public radio signals that come > in well in parts, if not most, of Worcester county. Of course > there's WICN and WCUW. And in northern Worcester County they should > get NH Public Radio on 88.3 from Nashua. But I guess to the WBZ > people non-Boston stations don't exist! > -- > Larry Weil > Lake Wobegone, NH > From dave@skywaves.net Wed Jun 17 16:06:26 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:06:26 -0400 Subject: WHDH-DT Now Simulcasting References: <000c01c9eeaa$352b2200$c7151bac@whdh.com>, <78F36C6B305047E3BFDBEEF2F45990B1@skywaves.com> <4A384B51.26802.7DC102@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <6832B71819A647CCAA173A19184E7187@skywaves.com> > WFCR Worcester is in a hole all the way around. WFCR is spotty, too. Of WGBH, WBUR, and WFCR, WGBH probably does the best overall, but none of them covers the whole city reliably. > VZ FiOS Hadn't thought of that angle. We moved to Worcester a few years ago from NJ, they got one franchise for the whole state. That was the price they paid for not having to negotiate town by town - everybody in the state had to be lit up within a relatively short time frame, maybe three years. Here in Massachusetts, where they did not get a statewide franchise, they are free to pick and choose, and I guess they can decide never to serve places where the demographics don't add up for them. -d From audiskman@yahoo.com Wed Jun 17 21:23:38 2009 From: audiskman@yahoo.com (audiskman@yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? Message-ID: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I just noticed while driving by the area near the Rte 128 and US-1 intersection in Peabody that the small self supporting tower behind the auto repair shop is gone. I have been told that tower was built for the short lived WUPY in Lynn way back when. I suspect the tower was in bad shape since for years it just had a few two way antennas attached when one would think it would be loaded up with stacks of cell phone antennas making some money for the owner of that vertical real estate. :) From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Thu Jun 18 10:09:27 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:09:27 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> I have only a vague memory of WUPY . . . remind me of when it operated. There were quite a few daytimers that went on the air and had short lives during the waning days of AM Top 40, IIRC. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:23 PM Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > > I just noticed while driving by the area near the Rte 128 and US-1 > intersection in Peabody that the small self supporting tower behind the > auto repair shop is gone. I have been told that tower was built for the > short lived WUPY in Lynn way back when. I suspect the tower was in bad > shape since for years it just had a few two way antennas attached when one > would think it would be loaded up with stacks of cell phone antennas > making some money for the owner of that vertical real estate. :) > > > > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 18 10:58:08 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:58:08 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> Message-ID: <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> WUPY, licensed to Lynn, was on 105.3, IIRC. It was certainly not a full Class B but it may have been more than a Class A. It was on the air from maybe 1961 to 1963. In that era, I do not believe that subclasses of the FM letter classes had yet been created. Class As were limited to 3 kW @ 300' AAT; Bs were limited to 20 kW @ 500'. I think that WVCA (Simon Geller) was on 104.9 in Gloucester and was a Class A but with way less than full A facilities. WKOX-FM Framingham was on 105.7 and was a B but at way less than 500'. I think WFGM-FM (WFGL?) Fitchburg was still on 104.7 and either was close to a full B or might have been a full B. WUPY's owner was a real flake--a guy named Harvey Sheldon, who obtained a CP for and built a Class B on (IIRC) 95.5 in Miami. He moved the WUPY calls to Miami and got WUPI for the Lynn station. I believe he eventually lost both licenses as a result of some infraction of FCC rules--I can't remember what, but I could believe just about any story I heard. WUPY/WUPI sounded SO bad on the air, it made your typical 10W high-school station sound totally professional! ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: ; Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:09 AM Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? >I have only a vague memory of WUPY . . . remind me of when it >operated. There were quite a few daytimers that went on the air and >had short lives during the waning days of AM Top 40, IIRC. -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:23 PM > Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > > >> >> I just noticed while driving by the area near the Rte 128 and US-1 >> intersection in Peabody that the small self supporting tower behind >> the auto repair shop is gone. I have been told that tower was built >> for the short lived WUPY in Lynn way back when. I suspect the tower >> was in bad shape since for years it just had a few two way antennas >> attached when one would think it would be loaded up with stacks of >> cell phone antennas making some money for the owner of that >> vertical real estate. :) >> >> >> >> >> > From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Thu Jun 18 10:18:33 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:18:33 -0500 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906180718t5722b275q9e7f510d941fde2a@mail.gmail.com> >From Bostonradio.org: http://www.bostonradio.org/stations/40824 The next North Shore FM entry came on August 1, 1961, when Harvey Sheldon put WUPY (105.3 Lynn) on the air, playing jazz music. WUPY ran 1.4 kW from a transmitter site off Route 1 in Peabody and studios at 23 Central Avenue in Lynn. Its main claim to fame during its short life was as one of the first Boston-area FM stations to broadcast in multiplex stereo. After a brief silent period, Sheldon changed the station's calls to WUPI, but that, too, was short-lived, and 105.3 was silent by the time the next North Shore FM made its debut. On August 1, 1963, Puritan Broadcasting Service Inc. put WLYN-FM (101.7 Lynn) on the air. Unlike the failed WUPY/WUPI, WLYN-FM had the support of an AM sister station, WLYN (1360), whose programming it simulcast during daylight hours. WLYN-FM started out 1 kW at 175 feet (later increased to 3 kW/170 ft) from the AM 1360 tower off Route 107. Both stations' studios were at 156 Broad Street in Lynn. ******************************** -- Sincerely, Paul B. Walker, Jr. www.facebook.com/onairdj walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Doug Drown wrote: > I have only a vague memory of WUPY . . . remind me of when it operated. > There were quite a few daytimers that went on the air and had short lives > during the waning days of AM Top 40, IIRC. -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:23 PM > Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > > > > >> I just noticed while driving by the area near the Rte 128 and US-1 >> intersection in Peabody that the small self supporting tower behind the auto >> repair shop is gone. I have been told that tower was built for the short >> lived WUPY in Lynn way back when. I suspect the tower was in bad shape since >> for years it just had a few two way antennas attached when one would think >> it would be loaded up with stacks of cell phone antennas making some money >> for the owner of that vertical real estate. :) >> >> >> >> >> From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 18 11:44:17 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:44:17 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <19002.24785.713095.72631@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > WUPY, licensed to Lynn, was on 105.3, IIRC. It was certainly not a > full Class B but it may have been more than a Class A. It was on the > air from maybe 1961 to 1963. In that era, I do not believe that > subclasses of the FM letter classes had yet been created. Class As > were limited to 3 kW @ 300' AAT; Bs were limited to 20 kW @ 500'. Many "class B" stations of the pre-'64 era operated at just over 3 kW -- enough to reserve the channel (this being before the Table of Allotments) without making a huge investment in the facility in case FM turned out to be a passing fad. -GAWollman From raccoonradio@mail.com Thu Jun 18 11:55:10 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:55:10 -0500 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN Message-ID: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> http://bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1179712&pos=breaking Comcast has bought the other half of New England Cable News from Hearst; no changes planned (so they say). Charles Kravetz, formerly of Ch 5, has been ousted as president of NECN. btw is NECN available to New England region satellite customers? And I wonder if Comcast will make NECN available to non-Comcast systems that don't already carry it? From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Jun 18 12:32:41 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:32:41 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com><8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown><36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> <19002.24785.713095.72631@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <711A35B64D4143ADA3DDF2447D22C2C1@SatU205S5044> I was wrong about the Class A maximum of that day (1961-63). It was not 3 kW @ 300' AAT as I wrote; it was 1 kW @ 250'. Somebody here surely knows when the A maximum was raised to 3 kW @ 300', but I do not know. In any event, as reported by Paul Walker, 1.4 kW at an unspecified height (I believe it was more than 250' AAT, but I don't know that), was enough to lift WUPY/WUPI out of Class A. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:44 AM Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > Many "class B" stations of the pre-'64 era operated at just over 3 > kW > -- enough to reserve the channel (this being before the Table of > Allotments) without making a huge investment in the facility in case > FM turned out to be a passing fad. > > -GAWollman > From kvahey@comcast.net Thu Jun 18 12:55:22 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:55:22 -0500 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906180955m2c8cdc71m99b2300d9b76c9a2@mail.gmail.com> No changes but they fire the guy that started it from Day 1 On 6/18/09, Bob Nelson wrote: > > > http://bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1179712&pos=breaking > > Comcast has bought the other half of New England Cable News from Hearst; no > changes planned > (so they say). Charles Kravetz, formerly of Ch 5, has been ousted as > president of NECN. > > btw is NECN available to New England region satellite customers? And I > wonder if Comcast > will make NECN available to non-Comcast systems that don't already carry > it? > From joe@scanworcester.com Thu Jun 18 12:27:14 2009 From: joe@scanworcester.com (Joe) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:27:14 -0400 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <01cd01c9f031$a5237d40$ef6a77c0$@com> I wonder what this will mean for "Worcester News Tonight", which is a co-production between NECN and Charter Cable (Worcester's contracted cable provider). -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Bob Nelson Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:55 AM To: BostonRadio Mailing List Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN http://bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1179712&pos=breakin g Comcast has bought the other half of New England Cable News from Hearst; no changes planned (so they say). Charles Kravetz, formerly of Ch 5, has been ousted as president of NECN. btw is NECN available to New England region satellite customers? And I wonder if Comcast will make NECN available to non-Comcast systems that don't already carry it? From rbello@belloassoc.com Thu Jun 18 13:40:38 2009 From: rbello@belloassoc.com (Ron Bello) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:40:38 -0400 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> It is available on Verizon FIOS and RCN On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Bob Nelson wrote: > > http://bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1179712&pos=breaking > > Comcast has bought the other half of New England Cable News from Hearst; no > changes planned > (so they say). Charles Kravetz, formerly of Ch 5, has been ousted as > president of NECN. > > btw is NECN available to New England region satellite customers? And I > wonder if Comcast > will make NECN available to non-Comcast systems that don't already carry > it? > From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 18 13:59:59 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:59:59 -0400 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <19002.32927.324774.576110@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > It is available on Verizon FIOS and RCN There's a Federal law (or FCC regulation, I forget, and it amounts to the same thing) that requires proprietary cable channels to be made available to other cable companies if the service is sent across state lines using the facilities of a common carrier (such as a satellite). -GAWollman From m_carney@yahoo.com Thu Jun 18 14:14:14 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <706385.62096.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> NECN is not available on Dish or DirectTV. As for changes, many of the behind-the-scenes business operations will be combined with CSN New England. We've known about this for 6 months or so but I wasn't free to say much. Maureen From dlh@donnahalper.com Thu Jun 18 15:10:21 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:10:21 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <19002.24785.713095.72631@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> <19002.24785.713095.72631@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20090618191033.1141022DA06@relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 11:44 AM 6/18/2009, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > WUPY, licensed to Lynn, was on 105.3, IIRC. It was certainly not a > > full Class B but it may have been more than a Class A. It was on the > > air from maybe 1961 to 1963. In that era, I do not believe that > > subclasses of the FM letter classes had yet been created. Class As > > were limited to 3 kW @ 300' AAT; Bs were limited to 20 kW @ 500'. The 1962 Radio/TV Annual lists the owner as Harvey Sheldon, the frequency is indeed at 105.3, and the ERP in kilowatts is listed at 1.4... No antenna height was given. Boston itself in 1962 had 5 FMs listed (WBZ-FM, WCOP-FM, WEEI-FM, WHDH-FM, and WRKO-FM), and there was one other in Brookline (WBOS-FM)... all of which were much stronger in power than WUPY. From m_carney@yahoo.com Thu Jun 18 15:14:24 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906181158u41ba4faax5d4304dd045b39ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> <706385.62096.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906181158u41ba4faax5d4304dd045b39ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <645969.77539.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Right now, due to space limitations and existing leases each station will stay where they are. I know there's not enough room at CSN in Burlington (2 studios; one dedicated to Sports Tonight and the other used for Celtics pre and postgame, Baseball Show, New England Tailgate, etc.) to have NECN move in. Some of the old CN8 programming (which is still being seen on The Comcast Network in Philly and DC) may migrate up to NECN in time. This deal is the reason that The Comcast Network did not set up in Boston when the plug was pulled on CN8. From kvahey@comcast.net Thu Jun 18 14:58:54 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:58:54 -0500 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <706385.62096.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> <706385.62096.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906181158u41ba4faax5d4304dd045b39ca@mail.gmail.com> Will they now share studios? NECN was on satellite for a couple of years and in fact they syndicated Mike Adams to stations in Philly and Detroit Comcast won't give anything to the dish outfits unless they have to for example see CSN Philadelphia Other CSN's like here in NE had existing deals with the dish companies so Comcast kept them On 6/18/09, Maureen Carney wrote: > NECN is not available on Dish or DirectTV. As for changes, many of the > behind-the-scenes business operations will be combined with CSN New England. > We've known about this for 6 months or so but I wasn't free to say much. > > Maureen > > > > From rbello@belloassoc.com Thu Jun 18 14:17:06 2009 From: rbello@belloassoc.com (Ron Bello) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:17:06 -0400 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <19002.32927.324774.576110@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> <19002.32927.324774.576110@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <90ec04420906181117o474adb13i6a2068e4c772c42b@mail.gmail.com> NECN advertises that it is not available on satellite. Don't know whether it is the satellite TV company's decision. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > < > said: > > > It is available on Verizon FIOS and RCN > > There's a Federal law (or FCC regulation, I forget, and it amounts to > the same thing) that requires proprietary cable channels to be made > available to other cable companies if the service is sent across state > lines using the facilities of a common carrier (such as a satellite). > > -GAWollman > -- Ron Bello Bello Associates, Inc. 160 Speen Street - Suite 303 Framingham, MA 01701 508-820-1100 Fax 820-1112 From sean.smyth@yahoo.com Thu Jun 18 20:46:18 2009 From: sean.smyth@yahoo.com (Sean Smyth) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN Message-ID: <629726.30357.qm@web110510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> On Thu, 6/18/09, Bob Nelson wrote: > btw is NECN available to New England region satellite > customers? And I wonder if Comcast > will make NECN available to non-Comcast systems that don't > already carry it? NECN is all fiber. It used to be carried on the dish, but they dropped it 12-15 years ago. The old Sportsworld show used to have a map behind them showing where they got calls from. From billohno@gmail.com Thu Jun 18 22:18:58 2009 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <4A3AF592.6080309@gmail.com> Bob Nelson wrote: > btw is NECN available to New England region satellite customers? And I wonder if Comcast > will make NECN available to non-Comcast systems that don't already carry it? > Nope. We don't have cable access here. Been Dish customer since 2K and no NECN. Only pockets of VT have cable. Bill O'Neill From joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 19 01:18:48 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:18:48 -0400 Subject: Herald: Comcast buys NECN In-Reply-To: <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090618155511.526F083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com>, <90ec04420906181040t1e8cb7f5vddad930af13942f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3AE778.25436.683F8D@joe.attorneyross.com> On 18 Jun 2009 at 13:40, Ron Bello wrote: > It is available on Verizon FIOS and RCN This must be fairly new. When RCN started in Brookline, I remember hearing that RCN didn't carry NECN because Comcast was part owner. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 19 01:18:48 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:18:48 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A3AE778.28927.683E1B@joe.attorneyross.com> On 18 Jun 2009 at 10:09, Doug Drown wrote: > I have only a vague memory of WUPY . . . remind me of when it > operated. There were quite a few daytimers that went on the air and > had short lives during the waning days of AM Top 40, IIRC. -Doug This one was an FM station which featured 24-hour jazz. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 19 01:18:48 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:18:48 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A3AE778.13155.684060@joe.attorneyross.com> On 18 Jun 2009 at 10:58, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > WUPY's owner was a real flake--a guy named Harvey Sheldon, who > obtained a CP for and built a Class B on (IIRC) 95.5 in Miami. He > moved the WUPY calls to Miami and got WUPI for the Lynn station. I > believe he eventually lost both licenses as a result of some > infraction of FCC rules--I can't remember what, but I could believe > just about any story I heard. WUPY/WUPI sounded SO bad on the air, it > made your typical 10W high-school station sound totally professional! Apparently he managed to pursuade Anthony Athanas to bankroll the station at the beginning, and every hour's newscast was "brought to you by" three named Anthony's restaurants. There also was a Saturday night show hosted by Harvey Sheldon originating from one of the restaurants. I remember that he sounded incredibly amateurish, but the announcers at all other times sounded professional. I heard the station at least once after its hiatus (I seem to recall it was off for several months), and Harvey Sheldon was hosting a Saturday morning airshift and sounding much more professional. I at least give him credit for being able to learn. Later, when I got to UMass and WMUA, someone there told me that Harvey Sheldon had somehow conned Anthony into thinking he was going to own the station. He also told me that he had worked at the station when it shut down. He said that just after the final signoff and shutdown, a bolt of lightning fried the transmitter. He also told me that after the station went dark, the FCC killed the channel assignment because of interference with some other station. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Fri Jun 19 07:38:50 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:38:50 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <36FF4716C24F452898ADE0DBB7AB74E8@SatU205S5044> <4A3AE778.13155.684060@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <509750966B3948CCA362C0796D5A31EA@teddesktop> Hi Joe, Here's another "flaky story." When my partner, Dan Friel and I bought WCEA in Newburyport in 1987 it sounded WORSE than..." your typical 10W high-school station sound totally professional!" it was that bad. 'CEA was owned by Cambridge City Councillor William "Bill" Walsh and a couple of partners who let a bunch of kids operate it horribly. They apparently never visited or listened to it. Ad revenues for 1986 were $3,500 (Really). Walsh is the same guy who was convicted of Federal bank fraud in the '90's. We cleaned up the sound, changed the calls to WNCG (Newburyport, The Coast and Gloucester) "Your Coastal Home Companion" to widen our service area and regained local support. It had been considered the "town joke radio station." Win Damon bought it from us in 1989 and changed the calls back to the original WNPB. Bob Fuller owned it for awhile and then "Woody" Tanger. I understand it has recently changed hands again. Regards, Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:18 AM Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > On 18 Jun 2009 at 10:58, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > >> WUPY's owner was a real flake--a guy named Harvey Sheldon, who >> obtained a CP for and built a Class B on (IIRC) 95.5 in Miami. He >> moved the WUPY calls to Miami and got WUPI for the Lynn station. I >> believe he eventually lost both licenses as a result of some >> infraction of FCC rules--I can't remember what, but I could believe >> just about any story I heard. WUPY/WUPI sounded SO bad on the air, it >> made your typical 10W high-school station sound totally professional! > > Apparently he managed to pursuade Anthony Athanas to bankroll the > station at the beginning, and every hour's newscast was "brought to > you by" three named Anthony's restaurants. There also was a Saturday > night show hosted by Harvey Sheldon originating from one of the > restaurants. I remember that he sounded incredibly amateurish, but > the announcers at all other times sounded professional. > > I heard the station at least once after its hiatus (I seem to recall > it was off for several months), and Harvey Sheldon was hosting a > Saturday morning airshift and sounding much more professional. I at > least give him credit for being able to learn. > > Later, when I got to UMass and WMUA, someone there told me that > Harvey Sheldon had somehow conned Anthony into thinking he was going > to own the station. He also told me that he had worked at the > station when it shut down. He said that just after the final signoff > and shutdown, a bolt of lightning fried the transmitter. > > He also told me that after the station went dark, the FCC killed the > channel assignment because of interference with some other station. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Fri Jun 19 08:45:59 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:45:59 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown> <4A3AE778.28927.683E1B@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <0AE5C42D33C74912B4781EC39D131CEA@DougDrown> Interesting. I may have been thinking of another station --- an AM daytimer, as I said --- that had similar calls and was on the air later (mid-'70s). I distinctly remember the jingles ("rumpa-tumpa-tumpa-tumpa-tum, WHOOPIE!"). What I can't recall is where the station was. Portland, maybe? It didn't last long. FWIW: The first FM jazz station I ever knew of was WJZZ down in Bridgeport, which went on the air in the early '60s and was owned by Dave Brubeck, IIRC, who lives in that area. I don't know its subsequent history. It was a nationally-touted novelty back then. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Doug Drown" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:18 AM Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > On 18 Jun 2009 at 10:09, Doug Drown wrote: > >> I have only a vague memory of WUPY . . . remind me of when it >> operated. There were quite a few daytimers that went on the air and >> had short lives during the waning days of AM Top 40, IIRC. -Doug > > This one was an FM station which featured 24-hour jazz. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 19 09:38:06 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:38:06 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <8C410821B59B43999735C136BCC9B295@DougDrown><4A3AE778.28927.683E1B@joe.attorneyross.com> <0AE5C42D33C74912B4781EC39D131CEA@DougDrown> Message-ID: <2D2AC146B753476BAFAB77BF1686BC11@SatU205S5044> I absolutely don't remember the jazz format. Doesn't mean there wasn't a jazz format, but I'm a jazz enthusiast--at least of the tamer genres, though not of the All-Kenny G-all-the-time variety that some programmers have the nerve to call "smooth jazz." I would think that if WUPY played any sort of jazz that I enjoyed, I would remember it, but I sure don't; I can't remember any particular kind of music on WUPY--just truly awful, totally amateurish drivel by guys who sounded as if they thought they were running a fraternity party and were in the condition that you would expect of guys at a fraternity party. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:45 AM Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > Interesting. I may have been thinking of another station --- an AM > daytimer, as I said --- that had similar calls and was on the air > later (mid-'70s). I distinctly remember the jingles > ("rumpa-tumpa-tumpa-tumpa-tum, WHOOPIE!"). > What I can't recall is where the station was. Portland, maybe? It > didn't last long. > > FWIW: The first FM jazz station I ever knew of was WJZZ down in > Bridgeport, which went on the air in the early '60s and was owned by > Dave Brubeck, IIRC, who lives in that area. I don't know its > subsequent history. It was a nationally-touted novelty back > en. -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Joseph Ross" > To: "Doug Drown" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:18 AM > Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > > >> On 18 Jun 2009 at 10:09, Doug Drown wrote: >> >>> I have only a vague memory of WUPY . . . remind me of when it >>> operated. There were quite a few daytimers that went on the air >>> and >>> had short lives during the waning days of AM Top 40, IIRC. -Doug >> >> This one was an FM station which featured 24-hour jazz. >> >> -- >> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 >> Boston, MA 02109-2004 >> http://www.attorneyross.com >> >> > From mrschuyler@aol.com Fri Jun 19 09:43:43 2009 From: mrschuyler@aol.com (mrschuyler@aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:43:43 -0400 Subject: The Old WUPY Lynn Tower? Message-ID: <8CBBEFB1890647C-38C-21A0@WEBMAIL-MZ17.sysops.aol.com> Doug Drown wrote: "I may have been thinking of another station --- an AM daytimer, as I said --- that had similar calls and was on the air later (mid-'70s).? I distinctly remember the jingles ("rumpa-tumpa-tumpa-tumpa-tum, WHOOPIE!"). What I can't recall is where the station was.? Portland, maybe?" It's a long way from Lynn or Portland, but there was a Whoopee (WUPE) radio in Pittsfield, Mass.?in the late '70s. It had been WGRG AM&FM originally, and when a new owner took over (Al Roberts, I believe his moniker was, who owned WARE Ware and WDEW Westfield), he was apparently very enamored of WAQY Springfield ("Wacky!"), and "Whoopie" was as close as he could come for new calls.?But the AM (a daytimer on 1110), wasn't WUPE for long, if at all, and became (IIRC) WUHN, as in "that's Wuhn for the record books." ---jim schuyler former Tom Doyle stunt double From scott@fybush.com Fri Jun 19 12:57:34 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:57:34 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Analog TV Shutdown story on Chronicle WCVB tonight Message-ID: <4A3BC37E.8070202@fybush.com> This came my way from Art Donahue, the WCVB producer who did that wonderful Chronicle tribute to radio a couple of years ago. Sounds like it will be well worth watching! -------- Original Message -------- Hi Scott, It's been awhile! I've got a piece on "Boston's analog TV shutdown"airing tonight (Friday June 19) at the end of the show. I'll send a DVD to you next week, but if you want to let your Boston fans know it will run in the 4th segment on tonight's Chronicle show about kids (around 7:50 pm) I think you'll like it, it's got some analog TV-DX from the 80's in it. Art Donahue WCVB From n1wbd@peoplepc.com Fri Jun 19 13:51:09 2009 From: n1wbd@peoplepc.com (Bob Hale) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:51:09 -0400 Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? Message-ID: Hello everyone, I'm a newbie to the list here and have a question maybe someone can help out. I live here in Grafton,NH about 50mi or so from Manchester and 25 mi SE of Lebanon,NH and I'm trying to figure out what would be a good antenna for Ch 9. I used to be able to watch Ch 9 analog with a so-so picture but since they swapped to digital I lost it. I know it was a stretch but tried amplified rabbit ears hoping to at least get Ch. 11 translator which is on Ch 50 or channel 8's translator on 27 its only 10 or so miles down the street from me with no luck. I was looking at the AntennaDirect model xg-91 UHF antenna and wondering if anyone had any expereince with it. Hope I'm too far off topic. Bob N1WBD Grafton,NH From scott@fybush.com Fri Jun 19 14:48:19 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:48:19 -0400 Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A3BDD73.1080408@fybush.com> Bob Hale wrote: > Hello everyone, I'm a newbie to the list here and have a question maybe > someone can help out. I live here in Grafton,NH about 50mi or so from > Manchester and 25 mi SE of Lebanon,NH and I'm trying to figure out what > would be a good antenna for Ch 9. I used to be able to watch Ch 9 analog > with a so-so picture but since they swapped to digital I lost it. I know > it was a stretch but tried amplified rabbit ears hoping to at least get > Ch. 11 translator which is on Ch 50 or channel 8's translator on 27 its > only 10 or so miles down the street from me with no luck. > > I was looking at the AntennaDirect model xg-91 UHF antenna and wondering > if anyone had any expereince with it. > > Hope I'm too far off topic. Not at all. The XG-91, while a very good antenna, isn't going to help you with WMUR's analog signal, since it's still on VHF and the XG-91 is UHF-only. At 50 miles out from WMUR, you should be able to get a usable digital signal with a good deep-fringe VHF outdoor antenna and perhaps a low-noise mast-mounted preamp. As for the amplified rabbit ears, it's my experience that they tend to introduce more noise to the signal, outweighing the benefit of any gain they provide. You're definitely in a situation where an outdoor antenna is a must. Keep us posted! s From n1wbd@peoplepc.com Fri Jun 19 15:37:13 2009 From: n1wbd@peoplepc.com (Bob Hale) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:37:13 -0400 Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? References: <4A3BDD73.1080408@fybush.com> Message-ID: Well if I can get Ch 9 I'll be happy. I'm stuck with Dish Network and Burlington Vt locals. If I only lived 2 miles down the road in Danbury I'd be in the Boston DMA and would'nt have to worry about a outside antenna. Reports from other sources I see claim that since WMUR switched to digital they're only running transmitter power of only 750 watts (not ERP) On the XG-91 UHF antenna the beamwidth is very narrow and could be a little touchy aiming. Bob N1WBD > > Not at all. > > The XG-91, while a very good antenna, isn't going to help you with > WMUR's analog signal, since it's still on VHF and the XG-91 is UHF-only. > > At 50 miles out from WMUR, you should be able to get a usable digital > signal with a good deep-fringe VHF outdoor antenna and perhaps a > low-noise mast-mounted preamp. > > As for the amplified rabbit ears, it's my experience that they tend to > introduce more noise to the signal, outweighing the benefit of any gain > they provide. You're definitely in a situation where an outdoor antenna > is a must. > > Keep us posted! > > s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.78/2185 - Release Date: 06/18/09 05:53:00 From wollman@bimajority.org Fri Jun 19 16:13:48 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:13:48 -0400 Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? In-Reply-To: References: <4A3BDD73.1080408@fybush.com> Message-ID: <19003.61820.666791.354269@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Reports from other sources I see claim that since WMUR switched to digital > they're only > running transmitter power of only 750 watts (not ERP) According to their filing BLCDT-20090616ABF, they are running 580 watts TPO (average), with 0.35 dB of line loss, for an antenna input power of 535 watts. They are reusing their old RCA TF-12AH antenna, which has 10.83 dB of gain, for an ERP of 6.5 kW. (Note, however, that the FCC's TPO figure is measured after any necessary filters. so it's not necessarily equal to the true transmitter power. If we take your 750 W as correct, then than means the insertion loss of their filtering is about 1.1 dB.) The technical exhibit to BXPCDT-20090122AAX shows the predicted coverage of their main and backup DTV facilities. -GAWollman From kc1ih@mac.com Fri Jun 19 16:45:38 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:45:38 -0400 Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 1:51 PM -0400 6/19/09, Bob Hale wrote: >Hello everyone, I'm a newbie to the list here and have a question >maybe someone can help out. I live here in Grafton,NH about 50mi or >so from Manchester and 25 mi SE of Lebanon,NH and I'm trying to >figure out what would be a good antenna for Ch 9. I used to be able >to watch Ch 9 analog with a so-so picture but since they swapped to >digital I lost it. I know it was a stretch but tried amplified >rabbit ears hoping to at least get Ch. 11 translator which is on Ch >50 or channel 8's translator on 27 its only 10 or so miles down the >street from me with no luck. > >I was looking at the AntennaDirect model xg-91 UHF antenna and >wondering if anyone had any expereince with it. > Channel 9 digital is now back on actual Channel 9, so a UHF only antenna is not what you want. There may be some channel 7-69 antennas on the market, which could do the job and be somewhat smaller than a full VHF-UHF antennas. I'm not sure if Stark Electronics is still in business in Manchester, or if they now only have the Worcester, MA store, but that should be a good place to get what you need. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From m_carney@yahoo.com Fri Jun 19 17:10:40 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digital TV reception problem Message-ID: <691556.94539.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> This is going to sound real strange, but bear with me. I have a Teak indoor UHF digital antenna hooked up to a converter box. Until last night I got in all the major Boston and Providence stations with no problem. Since about 7 last night the only station I get in (no matter where I place the antenna) is WHDH - on VHF 7 and not UHF 42. Any ideas on what I can do? Maureen From dlh@donnahalper.com Fri Jun 19 17:11:47 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:11:47 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame Message-ID: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> As we did last year, the Hall of Fame wants to honor the memories of some deceased broadcasters who made a difference in radio and/or TV. But there are some whose living relatives we cannot locate. If you have any idea how we can find contact people for them-- I'd appreciate suggestions. Thanks. Arch McDonald Ed McDonnell (Major Mudd) Don Gillis Bill McGrath Marjorie Mills From Joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 19 17:28:55 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:28:55 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <4A3BCAD7.2527.27D6AB@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 19 Jun 2009 Donna Halper wrote: > As we did last year, the Hall of Fame wants to honor the memories of > some deceased broadcasters who made a difference in radio and/or TV. > But there are some whose living relatives we cannot locate. If you > have any idea how we can find contact people for them-- I'd appreciate > suggestions. Thanks. While on that subject (and this may be a nomination you might be interested in), I was thinking recently about Frank Luther. He did children's records (some of which I still have) and at one time had a Saturday morning radio show, circa 1949-1950, on WNAC. The Wikipedia article on him says he was a country music singer and eventually a Decca record executive in charge of children's records. But I am pretty sure that sometime in the late 50s or early 60s he worked at WNAC and had a local TV show on channel 7. I wonder what became of him and whether he's still alive. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From Joe@attorneyross.com Fri Jun 19 17:28:55 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:28:55 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <509750966B3948CCA362C0796D5A31EA@teddesktop> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <509750966B3948CCA362C0796D5A31EA@teddesktop> Message-ID: <4A3BCAD7.12508.27D592@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 19 Jun 2009 Ted Larsen wrote: > 'CEA was owned by Cambridge City Councillor William "Bill" Walsh and a > couple of partners who let a bunch of kids operate it horribly. They > apparently never visited or listened to it. Ad revenues for 1986 were > $3,500 (Really). Walsh is the same guy who was convicted of Federal > bank fraud in the '90's. I remember him. I think he was the same William Walsh who was the lawyer for most of the major landlords in Cambridge -- and occasionally some in Brookline. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From sid@wrko.com Fri Jun 19 18:21:20 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:21:20 -0600 Subject: Digital TV reception problem In-Reply-To: <691556.94539.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <691556.94539.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846815F54CF@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>This is going to sound real strange, but bear with me. I have a Teak indoor UHF digital antenna hooked up to a converter box. Until last night I got in all the major Boston and Providence stations with no problem. Since about 7 last night the only station I get in (no matter where I place the antenna) is WHDH - on VHF 7 and not UHF 42. Any ideas on what I can do?<< You might need what's referred to as a "clean" re-scan. Disconnect the antenna from the converter box or digital TV, and initiate a re-scan. That should effectively wipe the tuner's memory. Then, remove all power from the converter box or TV for a few minutes. Then connect the antenna, power up and re-scan. That *should* solve it. Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Fri Jun 19 17:54:27 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:54:27 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <509750966B3948CCA362C0796D5A31EA@teddesktop> <4A3BCAD7.12508.27D592@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: Hi Joe: Yes, that's the same guy. He was a leader in the anti-rent control movement and had an odd variety of defense witnesses at his trial including Jerry Williams. Was sentenced to 1 /12 years, but I can't find if he served it all. U.S. Atty Mark Wolfe was the prosecutor. There were two other defendants, but I can't find their sentences. I do know Wolfe had a tough time with his sentencing deliberations because on of the co-defendants was a Holocaust survivor. All in all a very strange story, even for radio. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Ted Larsen" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:28 PM Subject: Re: The old WUPY Lynn tower? > On 19 Jun 2009 Ted Larsen wrote: > >> 'CEA was owned by Cambridge City Councillor William "Bill" Walsh and a >> couple of partners who let a bunch of kids operate it horribly. They >> apparently never visited or listened to it. Ad revenues for 1986 were >> $3,500 (Really). Walsh is the same guy who was convicted of Federal >> bank fraud in the '90's. > > I remember him. I think he was the same William Walsh who was the > lawyer for most of the major landlords in Cambridge -- and > occasionally some in Brookline. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Fri Jun 19 18:29:08 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:29:08 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <4A3C1134.4070304@ttlc.net> Donna Halper wrote: > As we did last year, the Hall of Fame wants to honor the memories of > some deceased broadcasters who made a difference in radio and/or TV. > But there are some whose living relatives we cannot locate. If you > have any idea how we can find contact people for them-- I'd appreciate > suggestions. Thanks. > > Arch McDonald > Ed McDonnell (Major Mudd) > Don Gillis > Bill McGrath > Marjorie Mills Dave Rodman (Billy The Milkman) worked with Major Mudd for years. Perhaps he might be of assistance. From markwats@comcast.net Fri Jun 19 19:06:53 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:06:53 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <11F1AC7A7964414FAF991D5753467FF9@Mark> Donna Halper wrote: > As we did last year, the Hall of Fame wants to honor the memories of some > deceased broadcasters who made a difference in radio and/or TV. But there > are some whose living relatives we cannot locate. I believe Don Gillis' son Gary (former Channel 7 sports anchor/reporter) still lives in the New England area. AFAIK he's not currently working at any TV or radio station in the Boston market. Mark Watson From dlh@donnahalper.com Fri Jun 19 19:51:03 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:51:03 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame Message-ID: <20090619235119.3929322CEBE@relay14.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Roger wrote-- >Dave Rodman (Billy The Milkman) worked with Major Mudd for years. Where is Dave these days? From m_carney@yahoo.com Fri Jun 19 21:10:03 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digital TV reception problem In-Reply-To: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846815F54CF@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> References: <691556.94539.qm@web53301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846815F54CF@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> Message-ID: <685208.12102.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Thanks. I rescanned and unplugged the box for a half hour. When I scanned again I could only get WNAC (Fox Providence) which is on VHF 12. I moved the antenna, scanned again and picked up WJAR (channel 51) this time. I did the clean rescan and will leave the box unplugged overnight. I just find it odd that an antenna for UHF reception is finding 2 of the 3 VHF digital channels in the area. From dan.strassberg@att.net Fri Jun 19 21:25:32 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:25:32 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <4A3BCAD7.2527.27D6AB@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4BBA7E5B78F5456BB988EB8EA5BDB094@SatU205S5044> The kids records on which I was brought up (late 1930s) were by Frank Luther. Some of those songs were based on AA Milne's Winnie the Pooh books, which were relatively new back then. I distinctly remember, "Christopher Robin Had Sneazels Weazels." I had the impression that Luther must have been a "grown-up" when he recorded theose songs--which he did presumably no later than the mid 1930s. And if he was in his 30s when he made those records, he'd be about 110 years old now. I'd say that the likelihood that he is still living is vanishingly small. Also, was it Frank Luther who, in the mid-late 1940s, recorded a song that was played every Saturday morning on a network-radio kids program: I'm Mr Wheatley Whale/I'm polite to the end of my tail/And the end of my tail is 40 miles away-hay-hay...? I can't remember the name of the program or the name of the host, but the Wheatley Whale character was a regular on the show, and I would not be surprised to learn that the program migrated to TV at some point. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Donna Halper" Cc: Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 5:28 PM Subject: Re: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame > On 19 Jun 2009 Donna Halper wrote: > >> As we did last year, the Hall of Fame wants to honor the memories >> of >> some deceased broadcasters who made a difference in radio and/or >> TV. >> But there are some whose living relatives we cannot locate. If you >> have any idea how we can find contact people for them-- I'd >> appreciate >> suggestions. Thanks. > > While on that subject (and this may be a nomination you might be > interested in), I was thinking recently about Frank Luther. He did > children's records (some of which I still have) and at one time had > a > Saturday morning radio show, circa 1949-1950, on WNAC. The > Wikipedia > article on him says he was a country music singer and eventually a > Decca record executive in charge of children's records. But I am > pretty sure that sometime in the late 50s or early 60s he worked at > WNAC and had a local TV show on channel 7. I wonder what became of > him and whether he's still alive. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From lspin@comcast.net Fri Jun 19 22:36:29 2009 From: lspin@comcast.net (Lou) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:36:29 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <11F1AC7A7964414FAF991D5753467FF9@Mark> References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <11F1AC7A7964414FAF991D5753467FF9@Mark> Message-ID: <002a01c9f14f$eb1c7170$c1555450$@net> I saw Gary Gillis interviewed on Fox Morning News not long ago, during one of the Zip-Trips. I think they were in Needham - although, not entirely sure. Didn't catch the interview as I was late for work. -Lou -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Mark Watson I believe Don Gillis' son Gary (former Channel 7 sports anchor/reporter) still lives in the New England area. AFAIK he's not currently working at any TV or radio station in the Boston market. Mark Watson From kvahey@comcast.net Fri Jun 19 22:54:43 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:54:43 -0500 Subject: Frank Luther Message-ID: <4fc429770906191954m4aecd10dx3cc4a8553f49adda@mail.gmail.com> Luther circa 1960-1 hosted a kids show on Channel 7 that featured Huckleberry Hound abd Yogi Bear He perhaps had 5 minutes of airtime per show that ran at the dinner hour M-F When 7 was forced to go back to local news he vanished and Major Mudd appeared in the morning From theseacoast@maine.rr.com Fri Jun 19 23:47:55 2009 From: theseacoast@maine.rr.com (The Seacoast) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:47:55 -0400 Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9F7EA7093D1643CDBB518814785E70F7@vpr1> I lost it here too, here in York, Maine with a roof antenna!!! And the analog was decent. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Hale [mailto:n1wbd@peoplepc.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:51 PM To: Boston Radio TV list Subject: Proper antenna for getting WMUR up here in God's Country? Hello everyone, I'm a newbie to the list here and have a question maybe someone can help out. I live here in Grafton,NH about 50mi or so from Manchester and 25 mi SE of Lebanon,NH and I'm trying to figure out what would be a good antenna for Ch 9. I used to be able to watch Ch 9 analog with a so-so picture but since they swapped to digital I lost it. I know it was a stretch but tried amplified rabbit ears hoping to at least get Ch. 11 translator which is on Ch 50 or channel 8's translator on 27 its only 10 or so miles down the street from me with no luck. I was looking at the AntennaDirect model xg-91 UHF antenna and wondering if anyone had any expereince with it. Hope I'm too far off topic. Bob N1WBD Grafton,NH From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 20 01:05:01 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:05:01 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <4BBA7E5B78F5456BB988EB8EA5BDB094@SatU205S5044> References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com>, <4BBA7E5B78F5456BB988EB8EA5BDB094@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A3C35BD.10162.69FA9D@joe.attorneyross.com> On 19 Jun 2009 at 21:25, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > The kids records on which I was brought up (late 1930s) were by Frank > Luther. Some of those songs were based on AA Milne's Winnie the Pooh > books, which were relatively new back then. I distinctly remember, > "Christopher Robin Had Sneazels Weazels." I had the impression that > Luther must have been a "grown-up" when he recorded theose > songs--which he did presumably no later than the mid 1930s. And if he > was in his 30s when he made those records, he'd be about 110 years old > now. I'd say that the likelihood that he is still living is > vanishingly small. According to Wikipedia, he died on 16 November 1980. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 20 01:05:02 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:05:02 -0400 Subject: Frank Luther In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906191954m4aecd10dx3cc4a8553f49adda@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906191954m4aecd10dx3cc4a8553f49adda@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3C35BE.6869.69FD64@joe.attorneyross.com> On 19 Jun 2009 at 21:54, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Luther circa 1960-1 hosted a kids show on Channel 7 that featured > Huckleberry Hound abd Yogi Bear I remember him starting the show singing a song that went, "Hello, Hello, You're a happy fellow. Have a happy day with me." while accompanying himself on the piano. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sat Jun 20 01:05:02 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:05:02 -0400 Subject: The old WUPY Lynn tower? In-Reply-To: <2D2AC146B753476BAFAB77BF1686BC11@SatU205S5044> References: <706438.92298.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com>, <2D2AC146B753476BAFAB77BF1686BC11@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A3C35BE.22247.69FC55@joe.attorneyross.com> On 19 Jun 2009 at 9:38, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > I absolutely don't remember the jazz format. Doesn't mean there wasn't > a jazz format, but I'm a jazz enthusiast--at least of the tamer > genres, though not of the All-Kenny G-all-the-time variety that some > programmers have the nerve to call "smooth jazz." I would think that > if WUPY played any sort of jazz that I enjoyed, I would remember it, > but I sure don't; I can't remember any particular kind of music on > WUPY--just truly awful, totally amateurish drivel by guys who sounded > as if they thought they were running a fraternity party and were in > the condition that you would expect of guys at a fraternity party. As I recall, the all-jazz format was mentioned in the first announcement that I saw of the station's debut, I believe in Bill Buchanan's column in the Daily Record. "Jazz 24-hours a Day" or something like that was a common slogan in station IDs. I'm not a big fan of jazz, so I didn't listen very often, but I did a lot of listening in those days just to check on each station from time to time to see what it was doing. As I said, the only really unprofessional-sounding voice I heard was that of Harvey Sheldon early on, broadcasting live from one of Anthony's restaurants. That was when I was checking out the station just after it came on. I didn't listen after that very often. Also, I was in high school and may not have had the same standards of judging the professionalism of a radio personality that I have now, or that you had at the time, since you were already out of college. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From raccoonradio@mail.com Sat Jun 20 02:57:03 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:57:03 -0500 Subject: Frank Luther Message-ID: <20090620065703.5970083BE2@ws1-1a.us4.outblaze.com> The experimental/collage sound band Negativland, from the San Francisco Bay Area, did a cover of a "song" Luther did called Happy The Harmonica (they threw in sound effects, bits of the "plop plop, fizz fizz" Alka Seltzer jingle, etc.). I have never heard the Luther original but the Negativland version can be found on YouTube. David Wills of Negativland also used to play tapes of his mother, recorded at home, on KPFA in Berkeley and at one point David's mother sings a bit of a Luther song: "It's only me from over the sea, said Barnacle Bill the Sailor". Luther's original is on YouTube (a 78 on the Brunswick label). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNLcNwUznqg Also some of the original albums have popped up on Ebay. From raccoonradio@mail.com Sat Jun 20 03:03:47 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:03:47 -0500 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of performance tax Message-ID: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Greater Media stations like WTKK (and I believe WROR and WKLB) have been running ads urging people to defeat a possible performance tax. They are asking people to contact such representatives as John Tierney on the North Shore and Nikki Tsongas in the Merrimack Valley. And now WTKK Insider's Club members are getting an email message which says, in part, "The international record labels are asking Congress to make radio stations pay BIG fees to broadcast your favorite songs. So, how does paying more for music effect Boston's Talk Evolution? Like many other talk stations in Boston and America 96.9 FM, WTKK is part of a bigger company...Bigger music fees will raise our company's costs and that's taxing." Greater has even launched a site, helpsaveradio.org, dedicated to the crusade. And word has it Sirius/XM may have to consistently raise their monthly fees if this goes through... So far I don't know if other companies plan similar efforts. From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Sat Jun 20 03:37:13 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:37:13 -0400 Subject: Mass. Broadcasters Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <4BBA7E5B78F5456BB988EB8EA5BDB094@SatU205S5044> References: <20090619211201.888191B4002@relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> <4A3BCAD7.2527.27D6AB@Joe.attorneyross.com> <4BBA7E5B78F5456BB988EB8EA5BDB094@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A3C91A9.1010308@ttlc.net> Dan.Strassberg wrote: > And if he was in his 30s when he made those records, he'd be about 110 > years old now. I'd say that the likelihood that he is still living is > vanishingly small. I know that Wikipedia can have incorrect information, BUT they say Frank Luther: Was born in 1900. Recorded Children's 78 rpm albums (Mother Goose Songs & Nursery Rhymes) in 1934 Died in 1980 Thus, you were correct that he was 34 when he recorded them and would 109 years old in August. From gallen2@nescaum.org Sat Jun 20 09:07:17 2009 From: gallen2@nescaum.org (George Allen) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:07:17 -0400 Subject: Digital TV reception problem Message-ID: This answer is going to sound real strange. Is the Terk power cube plugged in? I unplugged mine once, forgot to plug it back in, and then wondered why my reception had suddenly been severely degraded... George _________________________________________________ From: Maureen Carney Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:10:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digital TV reception problem This is going to sound real strange, but bear with me. I have a Teak indoor UHF digital antenna hooked up to a converter box. Until last night I got in all the major Boston and Providence stations with no problem. Since about 7 last night the only station I get in (no matter where I place the antenna) is WHDH - on VHF 7 and not UHF 42. Any ideas on what I can do? Maureen From kvahey@comcast.net Sat Jun 20 10:36:39 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:36:39 -0500 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler Message-ID: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> Before Bozo WHDH-TV had another show for kids hosted by the late Captain Bob Cottle. But he also became a pawn in a game between NBC, Westinghouse and the Herald-Traveler. Cottle in 1958-9 hosted a Saturday morning show on NBC that was fed live to the network from Morrisey Blvd. It was The Ruff and Reddy Show hosted by Cottle and what made it unusual was that the show came from Boston and not from a NBC affilate. It was the first time NBC had ever done this and to get NABET New York to agree to let IBEW Boston cover a show was a major hurdle. My Dad told me that the H-T coveted NBC and the peacock was so fed up with Westinghouse they were exploring options. The Herald spent a fortune being one of the first built from scratch all color studios and spent millions with RCA for equipment to curry favor. WHDH-TV would clear any NBC show that channel 4 passed on most notably The Tonight Show. Of course WHDH finally became CBS a couple of years later and NBC did sniff at channel 7 as a possible O&O. But you have to wonder how things might have changed had NBC moved to 5. My Dad said it would have happened except NBC was worried about the H-T's license status and for good reason. In any event Ruff and Reddy with Captain Bob remains one of the few network shows ever to be produced in Boston (not counting WGBH) From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 20 11:47:43 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:47:43 -0400 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" In-Reply-To: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Greater Media stations like WTKK (and I believe WROR and WKLB) have > been running ads urging people to defeat a possible performance tax. Of course there is no such proposal as a "performance tax". (Did the NAB hire Karl Rove?) The proposal is for analog radio stations to pay the same royalties as digital and satellite radio stations already pay for use of recorded music. Since this eminently sensible proposition would have the effect of leveling the economic playing field between analog and digital radio, the radio industry is of course against it. The recording industry would like the additional revenue, so of course they are for it. WBZ is also running similarly dishonest spots. Another reasonable option, which would actually be better for the radio business, would be to eliminate the requirement (in the DMCA as I recall) for any stations to pay royalties to record companies. I suspect the entrenched broadcasters would be against this, too. Can't possibly have a more level playing field.... -GAWollman From rac@gabrielmass.com Sat Jun 20 12:28:57 2009 From: rac@gabrielmass.com (Richard Chonak) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:28:57 -0400 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" In-Reply-To: <19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> Garrett Wollman wrote: > The proposal is for analog radio stations to pay > the same royalties as digital and satellite radio stations already pay > for use of recorded music. Since this eminently sensible proposition > would have the effect of leveling the economic playing field between > analog and digital radio, the radio industry is of course against it. The radio industry argues that this discrepancy has only existed a few years, and was created by legislation that the recording industry promoted, and that the RIAA did so on the rationale that digital media were more conducive to the creation of high-quality copies than were broadcast media. If the legislation passes, some inventive radio programmer can experiment with shows dedicated to new royalty-free music released under "Creative Commons" licenses. --RC From kc1ih@mac.com Sat Jun 20 13:33:21 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:33:21 -0400 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" In-Reply-To: <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> Message-ID: At 12:28 PM -0400 6/20/09, Richard Chonak wrote: >If the legislation passes, some inventive radio programmer can >experiment with shows dedicated to new royalty-free music released >under "Creative Commons" licenses. "Inventive Radio Programmer" is an oxymoron these days. There is no such thing, at least in commercial radio, and I would include most non-commercial stations too. -- Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From rac@gabrielmass.com Sat Jun 20 14:06:00 2009 From: rac@gabrielmass.com (rac@gabrielmass.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:06:00 -0500 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" Message-ID: <20090620180626.65865A880048@server3.gabrielmass.com> Larry wrote: --"Inventive Radio Programmer" is an oxymoron these days. Oh, right. What was I thinking? :-) --RC From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 20 14:15:25 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:15:25 -0400 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" In-Reply-To: <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> Message-ID: <19005.10045.118167.955487@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > The radio industry argues that this discrepancy has only existed a few > years, and was created by legislation that the recording industry > promoted, and that the RIAA did so on the rationale that digital media > were more conducive to the creation of high-quality copies than were > broadcast media. Spurious argument. The royalty scheme applies to all digital broadcasting, not just Internet streaming. Sirius XM has to pay, too, even though it's particularly difficult to make a high-quality copy of their low-quality audio. -GAWollman From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Jun 20 14:27:03 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:27:03 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: My gosh, have YOU brought back an obscure memory! I remember The Ruff and Reddy Show, I remember Captain Bob being the host, and at the age of eight I couldn't figure out why NBC would be carrying a show that apparently was produced by an ABC affiliate. I also recall The Tonight Show being carried by channel 5 (did it broadcast the initial fifteen-minute segment that began at 11:15, or wait till 11:30? When Carson later switched to channel 4, the show didn't begin until 11:30). I knew that the H-T had purchased state-of-the-art RCA equipment when it built the channel 5 studios, but hadn't realized that there were other things going on behind the scenes. The whole story of NBC and its 1956-64 dealings with Westinghouse is an interesting tale --- how KYW got moved from Philly to Cleveland and then back, how at one point WBZ-TV and WNAC-TV were going to do a network switch that wound up not happening almost at one minute to midnight . . . What was NBC's original gripe against Westinghouse, anyway? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler > Before Bozo WHDH-TV had another show for kids hosted by the late > Captain Bob Cottle. > > But he also became a pawn in a game between NBC, Westinghouse and the > Herald-Traveler. > > Cottle in 1958-9 hosted a Saturday morning show on NBC that was fed > live to the network from Morrisey Blvd. It was The Ruff and Reddy Show > hosted by Cottle and what made it unusual was that the show came from > Boston and not from a NBC affilate. It was the first time NBC had ever > done this and to get NABET New York to agree to let IBEW Boston cover > a show was a major hurdle. > > My Dad told me that the H-T coveted NBC and the peacock was so fed up > with Westinghouse they were exploring options. The Herald spent a > fortune being one of the first built from scratch all color studios > and spent millions with RCA for equipment to curry favor. WHDH-TV > would clear any NBC show that channel 4 passed on most notably The > Tonight Show. > > Of course WHDH finally became CBS a couple of years later and NBC did > sniff at channel 7 as a possible O&O. > > But you have to wonder how things might have changed had NBC moved to > 5. My Dad said it would have happened except NBC was worried about the > H-T's license status and for good reason. > > In any event Ruff and Reddy with Captain Bob remains one of the few > network shows ever to be produced in Boston (not counting WGBH) > From scott@fybush.com Sat Jun 20 14:48:13 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:48:13 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3D2EED.1010900@fybush.com> Kevin Vahey wrote: > Of course WHDH finally became CBS a couple of years later and NBC did > sniff at channel 7 as a possible O&O. They did more than just sniff - I'm pretty sure an application to transfer the WNAC licenses to NBC was pending at the FCC for a few years, and that NBC would have traded WRC AM-FM-TV to RKO in exchange for the Boston licenses, but the legal wrangling over the KYW deal held it up and it was never consummated. s From m_carney@yahoo.com Sat Jun 20 15:04:17 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Digital TV reception problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <716706.45990.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The Terk was plugged in (both cube and RF to the box) - I double checked that. I bought a Phillips indoor antenna today and that seemed to solve some of the problem. I now have another strange issue - the box picks up WHDH on both 7 and 42 and shows it twice (using virtual mapping to 7.1 & 7.2 for channel 42). So if I am sequentially going through the channels it will go 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.1, 7.2, 10.1 and on. Anyone else picking up both? From m_carney@yahoo.com Sat Jun 20 15:13:40 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> NBC was angry at Westinghouse/Group W because 1) when they got KDKA from DuMont they signed them as a primary CBS affiliate; 2) WPTZ (as KYW was known before the swap) and WBZ were notorious for preempting programming (WPTZ refused to air "Today" and aired a local show with Ernie Kovacs instead; WBZ refusing to clear "Tonight" well into the Carson era being prime examples) and 3) Group W started syndicating competing programming in the early 60s (Steve Allen and Merv Griffin had shows from them that competed with "Tonight" in many markets). From kvahey@comcast.net Sat Jun 20 15:34:45 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:34:45 -0500 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler Message-ID: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> NBC was not thrilled that Westinghouse would not clear 100% of the network with at the time the biggest affilate they did not own. For example WBZ just ignored what NBC offered to kiddies on Saturday to clear Boomtown and this led to shows like the final years of Howdy Doody being on channel 5 Then when Boomtown went to Sunday as well it bumped shows like Meet The Press which again wound up on 5. Remember back then WBZ had a ton of local shows on weekends like Community Auditions and Starring The Editors. NBC wasn't thrilled but they wanted no part of General Tire and until WHDH came along they had to put up with it. The real problem with Westinghouse and NBC was over Philadelphia which started when Westinghouse outbid NBC for WPTZ Channel 3. NBC played hardball and forced Group W to swap outlets between Philly and Cleveland with NBC also playing hardball with WBZ It took awhile but Westinghouse had the last laugh when they got Philadelphia back. Irony is this is how Rex Trailer wound up in Boston as he had a contract with KYW and then had to choose between Cleveland or Boston as NBC didn't want him. Of course the saga of Westinghouse and NBC goes all the way back to Chicago where KYW was the first station in the city and in 1934 Westinghouse moved it to Philadelphia. NBC has been rumored to have played a role in that move. KYW was on 1020 in both Chicago and Philadelphia and then would be assigned 1060. Once NBC bought WMAQ in 1931 KYW's days in Chicago were numbered. From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 20 17:03:31 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:03:31 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9461C0C7A5D746D0B0770EDEAA3B4AD9@SatU205S5044> But KYW's move from 1020 to 1060 appears to be a red herring in this discussion. It happened with NARBA and AFAIK, KYW was first-adjacent to WHN both before and after NARBA, meaning that KYW had to protect New York City both pre- and post-NARBA (and WHN, which had been on 1010 and moved to 1050, had to protect Philadelphia both pre- and post-NARBA). IOW, after NARBA, 1060 became the "new" 1020; nearly all stations in that part of the dial moved up by 40 kc. (For example, WBZ moved from 990 to 1030.) ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "Scott Fybush" Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:34 PM Subject: Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler > > Of course the saga of Westinghouse and NBC goes all the way back to > Chicago where KYW was the first station in the city and in 1934 > Westinghouse moved it to Philadelphia. NBC has been rumored to have > played a role in that move. KYW was on 1020 in both Chicago and > Philadelphia and then would be assigned 1060. Once NBC bought WMAQ > in > 1931 KYW's days in Chicago were numbered. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Jun 20 17:07:13 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:07:13 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D2EED.1010900@fybush.com> Message-ID: >> Of course WHDH finally became CBS a couple of years later and NBC did >> sniff at channel 7 as a possible O&O. Oh, yes. I said that it went right down to the wire. A date for the WNAC-WRC swap had been set, and when TV Guide published its regional issue for Eastern New England that week, it listed WNAC as Boston's CBS affiliate and WBZ with NBC, but said there was a strong possibility, as of press time, that the two would switch networks in the week to come. I wish I still had a copy of that issue. I remember it very clearly. -Doug They did more than just sniff - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: "Kevin Vahey" Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: Re: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler > Kevin Vahey wrote: > >> Of course WHDH finally became CBS a couple of years later and NBC did >> sniff at channel 7 as a possible O&O. > > They did more than just sniff - I'm pretty sure an application to transfer > the WNAC licenses to NBC was pending at the FCC for a few years, and that > NBC would have traded WRC AM-FM-TV to RKO in exchange for the Boston > licenses, but the legal wrangling over the KYW deal held it up and it was > never consummated. > > s > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sat Jun 20 17:09:02 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:09:02 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Did Westinghouse's problems with NBC help precipitate the 1956 or '57 decision to drop network programming on Westinghouse's radio O&Os? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Carney" To: "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:13 PM Subject: Re: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler > NBC was angry at Westinghouse/Group W because 1) when they got KDKA from > DuMont they signed them as a primary CBS affiliate; 2) WPTZ (as KYW was > known before the swap) and WBZ were notorious for preempting programming > (WPTZ refused to air "Today" and aired a local show with Ernie Kovacs > instead; WBZ refusing to clear "Tonight" well into the Carson era being > prime examples) and 3) Group W started syndicating competing programming > in the early 60s (Steve Allen and Merv Griffin had shows from them that > competed with "Tonight" in many markets). > > > > > From rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com Sat Jun 20 17:46:17 2009 From: rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com (Rick Levy) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:46:17 -0400 Subject: Digital TV reception problem Message-ID: <5D0246CBAC07495BB7B4A403E63A8B1D@Titan> Quoth Maureen Carney, >> I now have another strange issue - the box picks up WHDH on both 7 and 42 and shows it twice (using virtual mapping to 7.1 & 7.2 for channel 42). So if I am sequentially going through the channels it will go 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.1, 7.2, 10.1 and on. Anyone else picking up both?<< It's not your equipment. WHDH-DT is currently simulcasting on channels 7 and 42. After filing an urgent application last Monday to revert temporarily to 42 (in addition to operating on 7), they received permission on Tuesday to do so, and switched 42 back on again. You are evidently not among the viewers unable to receive 7 despite rescanning. The station reportedly had *lots* of calls over the weekend, prompting the FCC application. Rick Levy Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP Cambridge, Mass. www.broadcastsignallab.com www.rfsigns.com From radiojunkie3@yahoo.com Sat Jun 20 18:53:36 2009 From: radiojunkie3@yahoo.com (Peter Q. George) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: IMHO: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV reception problem) Message-ID: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Personally, I think WHDH-TV would be better off on UHF Channel 42 than on VHF Channel 7. For DTV signals (in this area), UHF propagates better than both VHF-lo and VHF-hi. I was also told, by another engineer, that during the analog days of color TV, UHF provided a much robust signal for color transmission than VHF could ever do. He compared the color of the old WGBH-TV (Channel 2) and WGBX-TV (Channel 44). He found he prefered the color on 44 better than 2. So, I'm wondering if the reason for UHF's better quality color analog pictures is the same reason why UHF is a better fit for DTV than VHF could ever be. I would not be surprised if WHDH-TV just might turn off Channel 7's DTV signal and stay with 42. It will still "map" to 7-1 and 7-2. It's a no brainer. Peter Q. George (K1XRB) Whitman, Massachusetts "Scanning the bands since 1967" radiojunkie3@yahoo.com *********************************************************** --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Rick Levy wrote: > From: Rick Levy > Subject: Digital TV reception problem > To: "Boston-Radio List" > Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 5:46 PM > Quoth Maureen Carney, > >> > I now have another strange issue - the box picks up WHDH on > both 7 and 42 > and shows it twice (using virtual mapping to 7.1 & 7.2 > for channel 42). So > if I am sequentially going through the channels it will go > 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, > 7.1, 7.2, 10.1 and on. Anyone else picking up > both?<< > > It's not your equipment.? WHDH-DT is currently > simulcasting on channels 7 > and 42.? After filing an urgent application last > Monday to revert > temporarily to 42 (in addition to operating on 7), they > received permission > on Tuesday to do so, and switched 42 back on again.? > You are evidently not > among the viewers unable to receive 7 despite > rescanning.? The station > reportedly had *lots* of calls over the weekend, prompting > the FCC > application. > > Rick Levy > Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP > Cambridge, Mass. > www.broadcastsignallab.com > www.rfsigns.com > > From kc1ih@mac.com Sat Jun 20 19:32:31 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:32:31 -0400 Subject: IMHO: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) In-Reply-To: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0KLK000M39B62C50@asmtp016.mac.com> At 06:53 PM 6/20/2009, Peter Q. George wrote: > I would not be surprised if WHDH-TV just might turn off Channel > 7's DTV signal and stay with 42. It will still "map" to 7-1 and > 7-2. It's a no brainer. > A station cannot just turn off a signal and keep another one on. This would need to be approved by the FCC if it is to happen, meaning the lawyers would need to get involved, and you know how things go when lawyers get involved! There are other factors involved in making what is now a temporary license permanent, such as the concerns of other stations on the same or adjacent channels. Also keep in mind that the UHF transmitter uses a lot more electricity than the VHF one, and also that the UHF rig has been in operation for a few years and would need to be replaced sooner. And of course there's the question of what to do with the brand-new digital channel 7 transmitter and the part that has yet to be installed. Note that while I am an employee of WHDH/WLVI, nothing that I have written here represents anything official from the station, this is just my own somewhat informed opinion. And please do not repost this or anything I have written in any other forum or forward it to other parties. Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From scott@fybush.com Sat Jun 20 20:20:10 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:20:10 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3D7CBA.3040602@fybush.com> Kevin Vahey wrote: > Of course the saga of Westinghouse and NBC goes all the way back to > Chicago where KYW was the first station in the city and in 1934 > Westinghouse moved it to Philadelphia. NBC has been rumored to have > played a role in that move. KYW was on 1020 in both Chicago and > Philadelphia and then would be assigned 1060. Once NBC bought WMAQ in > 1931 KYW's days in Chicago were numbered. Ah, but back in 1931 NBC and Westinghouse were far from mortal enemies - in fact, they had a close working relationship. Consider: NBC operated several Westinghouse radio stations, including WBZ and KDKA, under what we would now recognize as an LMA that began around 1930 and continued for a decade or so, until the FCC started investigating "chain broadcasting" and began breaking up such arrangements. (NBC had similar operating arrangements with GE, at WGY/KOA/KGO, as well; I think there may have been one or two others, too.) Consider: When KYW fled Chicago for Philadelphia, in order to retain its clear-channel assignment by moving it to a "radio zone" that wasn't already over its quota for such assignments, it sold its transmitter site in Chicago to...NBC's WMAQ, for a dollar. I believe, though it is not reflected in the paperwork from that 1934 sale, that one of the quid-pro-quos was that KYW would become an NBC affiliate in Philadelphia. Come to think of it, I don't know who *was* the NBC affiliate in Philly before KYW came to town... s From kvahey@comcast.net Sat Jun 20 21:15:24 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:15:24 -0500 Subject: IMHO: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV reception problem) In-Reply-To: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906201815w6bf7799ao3af993ca2ef2f9f5@mail.gmail.com> No Brainer and FCC can not be used in same sentence WLS-DT and WBBM-DT are also not showing up on rescans of both converters and in-set tuners. From kvahey@comcast.net Sat Jun 20 20:49:50 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:49:50 -0500 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3D7CBA.3040602@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D7CBA.3040602@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906201749y3526f3bj5135a2d2bf5d5bf3@mail.gmail.com> KYW had replaced WFI-WLIT as the NBC primary for Philadelphia when it moved in from Chicago and when WFI and WLIT merged they became NBC Blue as WFIL and stayed with ABC. WCAU was with CBS from the get go and WIP became Mutual in the 40's On 6/20/09, Scott Fybush wrote: > Kevin Vahey wrote: > >> Of course the saga of Westinghouse and NBC goes all the way back to >> Chicago where KYW was the first station in the city and in 1934 >> Westinghouse moved it to Philadelphia. NBC has been rumored to have >> played a role in that move. KYW was on 1020 in both Chicago and >> Philadelphia and then would be assigned 1060. Once NBC bought WMAQ in >> 1931 KYW's days in Chicago were numbered. > > Ah, but back in 1931 NBC and Westinghouse were far from mortal enemies - > in fact, they had a close working relationship. > > Consider: NBC operated several Westinghouse radio stations, including > WBZ and KDKA, under what we would now recognize as an LMA that began > around 1930 and continued for a decade or so, until the FCC started > investigating "chain broadcasting" and began breaking up such > arrangements. (NBC had similar operating arrangements with GE, at > WGY/KOA/KGO, as well; I think there may have been one or two others, too.) > > Consider: When KYW fled Chicago for Philadelphia, in order to retain its > clear-channel assignment by moving it to a "radio zone" that wasn't > already over its quota for such assignments, it sold its transmitter > site in Chicago to...NBC's WMAQ, for a dollar. > > I believe, though it is not reflected in the paperwork from that 1934 > sale, that one of the quid-pro-quos was that KYW would become an NBC > affiliate in Philadelphia. Come to think of it, I don't know who *was* > the NBC affiliate in Philly before KYW came to town... > > s > > From rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com Sat Jun 20 21:53:32 2009 From: rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com (Rick Levy) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:53:32 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV reception problem) References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7EA37C40D5CB45F7903BCB448DF3F0EA@Titan> Quoth Peter Q. George, >> For DTV signals (in this area), UHF propagates better than both VHF-lo and VHF-hi.... So, I'm wondering if the reason for UHF's better quality color analog pictures is the same reason why UHF is a better fit for DTV than VHF could ever be.<< You don't think it might have anything to do with the considerably higher power levels permitted on UHF than on VHF for theoretically comparable coverage, do you? Rick Levy Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP Cambridge, Mass. www.broadcastsignallab.com www.rfsigns.com From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 20 22:07:09 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:07:09 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AE0648FAE454CEA9B5222C080CED54C@SatU205S5044> My experience is that, even though the "signal-strength meters" indicate that the Channel 7 DTV dignals are substantially weaker than the Channel 42 signals (displayed strength of ~68 for Channel 7 vs ~94 for Channel 42), the VHF signals are less variable in intensity and hence less subject to pixellation and audio dropouts. For users of indoor antennas (like me) the downside is that the large VHF rabbit ears are more intrusive than the UHF loops. I read that WHDH has applied to double its ERP on Channel 7 (presumably by diplexing its main and about-to-be-installed auxiliary VHF DTV transmitters). Assuming that change is granted, it may be the best approach. I had said to a friend that the diplexed transmitters, the transmission line, and the VHF antenna should easily be up to the task, since WHDH analog transmitted at about 300 kW ERP whereas if WHDH digital doubles its power on Channel 7, its ERP will be about 60 kW. My friend's reply: "Then you haven't heard that analog power was peak and digital is average, so it doesn't necessarily follow at all that 60 kW digital is less than 300 kW analog." Does anybody have a conversion formula? ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Q. George" To: "Boston-Radio List" ; "Rick Levy" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 6:53 PM Subject: IMHO: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) Personally, I think WHDH-TV would be better off on UHF Channel 42 than on VHF Channel 7. For DTV signals (in this area), UHF propagates better than both VHF-lo and VHF-hi. I was also told, by another engineer, that during the analog days of color TV, UHF provided a much robust signal for color transmission than VHF could ever do. He compared the color of the old WGBH-TV (Channel 2) and WGBX-TV (Channel 44). He found he prefered the color on 44 better than 2. So, I'm wondering if the reason for UHF's better quality color analog pictures is the same reason why UHF is a better fit for DTV than VHF could ever be. I would not be surprised if WHDH-TV just might turn off Channel 7's DTV signal and stay with 42. It will still "map" to 7-1 and 7-2. It's a no brainer. Peter Q. George (K1XRB) Whitman, Massachusetts "Scanning the bands since 1967" radiojunkie3@yahoo.com *********************************************************** --- On Sat, 6/20/09, Rick Levy wrote: > From: Rick Levy > Subject: Digital TV reception problem > To: "Boston-Radio List" > > Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 5:46 PM > Quoth Maureen Carney, > >> > I now have another strange issue - the box picks up WHDH on > both 7 and 42 > and shows it twice (using virtual mapping to 7.1 & 7.2 > for channel 42). So > if I am sequentially going through the channels it will go > 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, > 7.1, 7.2, 10.1 and on. Anyone else picking up > both?<< > > It's not your equipment. WHDH-DT is currently > simulcasting on channels 7 > and 42. After filing an urgent application last > Monday to revert > temporarily to 42 (in addition to operating on 7), they > received permission > on Tuesday to do so, and switched 42 back on again. > You are evidently not > among the viewers unable to receive 7 despite > rescanning. The station > reportedly had *lots* of calls over the weekend, prompting > the FCC > application. > > Rick Levy > Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP > Cambridge, Mass. > www.broadcastsignallab.com > www.rfsigns.com > > From dan.strassberg@att.net Sat Jun 20 22:07:47 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:07:47 -0400 Subject: Digital TV reception problem References: <716706.45990.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <290C7B74A123455A972600C7BE674A9C@SatU205S5044> Absolutely! On my Panasonic DTV receiver using the up/down arrow controls but NOT when I enter 7-1 or 7-2 on the remote's keypad (the keypad brings up only the 7 VHF signals). So far, however, not on the Insignia converter box for my analog TV. On the DTV receiver, I can tell which 7-1 or 7-2 I'm tuned to by checking the signal strength "meter." The 42 signals read mid 90s; the 7 signals read ~68. Maybe if I were to rescan the converter box, it too would bring up two sets of "7s," but I doubt it because the DTV receiver had the dual 7-1 and 7-2 selections even for the couple of days when there were no programs on 42. On the converter box, I concluded that during the original rescan, it rejected the duplicate "7s" (that is, the ones on 42) because it could not detect any program material on those. But I may be giving it credit for more smarts than it actually has. Maybe it simply settled on the first channels it encountered with a given primary channel number. I did discover that, using the arrows, the DTV receiver gives me two options for channels 7-1 and 7-2: By editing the channel list, I can either have the arrow controls give me two of each or none of each; there seems to be no way to get just one pair. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Carney" To: "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:04 PM Subject: Re: Digital TV reception problem > The Terk was plugged in (both cube and RF to the box) - I double > checked that. I bought a Phillips indoor antenna today and that > seemed to solve some of the problem. I now have another strange > issue - the box picks up WHDH on both 7 and 42 and shows it twice > (using virtual mapping to 7.1 & 7.2 for channel 42). So if I am > sequentially going through the channels it will go 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, > 7.1, 7.2, 10.1 and on. Anyone else picking up both? > > > From rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com Sat Jun 20 22:51:39 2009 From: rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com (Rick Levy) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:51:39 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) Message-ID: <51E513B4034A4C22A2441122FF869689@Titan> Per Dan.Strassberg, >> ...it doesn't necessarily follow at all that 60 kW digital is less than 300 kW analog." Does anybody have a conversion formula?<< The standard ratio of peak to average power (with standard black picture) is 1.68:1. Thus the 316 kW peak power previously licensed to WHDH was equivalent to about 188 kW of average power. I believe the doubling of DTV power was (in round figures) from 15 to 30 kW ERP, not 30 to 60, and that the 30 has already been achieved. Rick Levy Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP Cambridge, Mass. www.broadcastsignallab.com www.rfsigns.com From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 20 22:54:21 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:54:21 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) In-Reply-To: <4AE0648FAE454CEA9B5222C080CED54C@SatU205S5044> References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4AE0648FAE454CEA9B5222C080CED54C@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <19005.41181.242237.275317@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I read that WHDH has applied to double its ERP on Channel 7 > (presumably by diplexing its main and about-to-be-installed > auxiliary VHF DTV transmitters). They might be thinking about doing so, but they have not applied to do so yet. The channel 7 transmitter they have now can do at least 4 kW TPO (I can't find the actual specs on the Harris Web site), so I'd expect them to try increasing that first. The existing antenna does about 9.6 dB. > haven't heard that analog power was peak and digital is average, so > it doesn't necessarily follow at all that 60 kW digital is less than > 300 kW analog." Does anybody have a conversion formula? Multiply by 5 is the rule of thumb; I'm not sure how accurate it is, or why the FCC didn't apply it in setting the power limits for VHF. I can't seem to find where in the rules the power limits are actually defined. I know I've read them in some official source (maybe one of the DTV Reports). -GAWollman From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 20 22:56:23 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:56:23 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) In-Reply-To: <51E513B4034A4C22A2441122FF869689@Titan> References: <51E513B4034A4C22A2441122FF869689@Titan> Message-ID: <19005.41303.485434.768567@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I believe the doubling of DTV power was (in round figures) from 15 to 30 kW > ERP, not 30 to 60, and that the 30 has already been achieved. There was no doubling. WHDH had a construction permit for 15 kW, *circularly polarized*, which was predicated on installing a new antenna. They decided not to buy the new antenna, and received a modification of that CP to specify 29.7 kW using the existing, *horizontally polarized* antenna. The actual output power is the same in both cases. -GAWollman From rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com Sat Jun 20 23:18:16 2009 From: rlevy@broadcastsignallab.com (Rick Levy) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:18:16 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) Message-ID: >> There was no doubling.... The actual output power is the same in both cases.<< In terms of transmitter power output (TPO), yes. But ERP doubles, since all the power goes into a single (H) polarization, rather than dividing between H and V (circular pol.). Rick Levy Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP Cambridge, Mass. www.broadcastsignallab.com www.rfsigns.com From wollman@bimajority.org Sat Jun 20 23:31:27 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:31:27 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19005.43407.210987.389236@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > In terms of transmitter power output (TPO), yes. But ERP doubles, since all > the power goes into a single (H) polarization, rather than dividing between > H and V (circular pol.). Only insofar as the FCC has chosen to count them separately. The same number of photons at the same energy come out of the antenna heading in the same direction. The normal physics meaning of ERP would consider them the same (particularly since "circular" polarization can actually be achieved by emitting all the energy on a diagonal). -GAWollman From dlh@donnahalper.com Sat Jun 20 23:45:50 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:45:50 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906201749y3526f3bj5135a2d2bf5d5bf3@mail.gmail.com > References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D7CBA.3040602@fybush.com> <4fc429770906201749y3526f3bj5135a2d2bf5d5bf3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090621034609.02CC01B4007@relay18.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 08:49 PM 6/20/2009, Kevin Vahey wrote: >KYW had replaced WFI-WLIT as the NBC primary for Philadelphia when it >moved in from Chicago and when WFI and WLIT merged they became NBC >Blue as WFIL and stayed with ABC. And according to the Chicago Tribune, 6 September 1934, the NBC affiliate was WLS, but it was about to cease being an NBC affiliate in the next several months; the radio critic for the Tribune (Larry Wolters, generally very reliable) speculated that all this was in preparation for the arrival of KYW. From dlh@donnahalper.com Sat Jun 20 23:48:15 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:48:15 -0400 Subject: OOOPS (KYW thread) Message-ID: <20090621034833.B62F91B4007@relay18.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> What I meant to write was: And according to the Chicago Tribune, 6 September 1934, the NBC affiliate was WLS, but it was about to cease being an NBC affiliate in the next several months; the radio critic for the Tribune (Larry Wolters, generally very reliable) speculated that all this was in preparation for the DEPARTURE of KYW. In other words, there was not only gonna be a shake-up in Philly but two Chicago stations (WLS and WENR) were also gonna be affected. Sorry for not being able to type tonight... sigh... From dlh@donnahalper.com Sat Jun 20 23:52:07 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:52:07 -0400 Subject: And a PS on KYW Leaves Chicago Message-ID: <20090621035225.9911A1B4007@relay18.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Evidently a number of stations in Chicago had been using some of NBC Red and Blue programming... it also mentions, of course, WMAQ. According to Larry Wolters, the last date of KYW offering programming in Chicago was 2 December 1934. From dlh@donnahalper.com Sun Jun 21 00:18:19 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:18:19 -0400 Subject: And a PS on KYW Leaves Chicago Message-ID: <20090621041837.9156F1B4004@relay24.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> And the Washington Post noted that when KYW officially went on the air from Philly, it operated in the same building as WCAU (the CBS affiliate), and for good reason-- both KYW (NBC) and WCAU (CBS) were managed by the same guy-- Dr. Leon Levy. How bizarre is that? From kvahey@comcast.net Sun Jun 21 00:37:39 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:37:39 -0500 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler In-Reply-To: <20090621034609.02CC01B4007@relay18.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D7CBA.3040602@fybush.com> <4fc429770906201749y3526f3bj5135a2d2bf5d5bf3@mail.gmail.com> <20090621034609.02CC01B4007@relay18.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906202137l77d89374sf4e1d3d98a745281@mail.gmail.com> Interesting how it could have played out. Had RKO and NBC swapped with DC and Boston WNAC-TV would have had improved local news for starters. Of course who knows what would have happened on the radio side as most likely WRKO never happens as a Top 40 outlet and WRC-AM would most likely have gone the Boss Radio route. One has to assume that the bosses at the Herald-Traveler were convinced they would get NBC by spending millions on all color in 1957 instead of playing it safe with B&W. Had the license been awarded with no strings attached I am certain NBC would have jumped and then Westinghouse would have grabbed CBS. NBC by taking Captain Bob from WHDH was sending a strong message to Westinghouse. Of course you have to wonder how much Westinghouse worked behind the scene with the FCC to keep Channel 5 in limbo. I do know that Westinghouse almost moved Mike Douglas to Boston from Cleveland which is what Douglas wanted as he remembered the huge crowds the show attracted when the Hynes Auditorium opened in 1965. However Westinghouse decided it would be easier to train or limo guests from NYC to Philly than flying them to Boston. Another sidebar to all this was the equipment wars. WBZ-TV was in no rush to buy RCA color gear for Boston as they were waiting for the Phillips-Norelco gear that was promised for 1965 and was much better than what RCA was making. But William Paley of all people forced Westinghouse to buy RCA gear when he converted WCAU to color using RCA equipment to blow the new KYW away. CBS then waited for Norelco to convert Television City and made a mistake of converting Studio 50 in NY to Marconi. The Hells Kitchen studios also waited for Norelco. WNAC went with GE cameras as did ABC and also WSBK. WKBG went RCA as well. When WHDH refused to sell Morrisey Blvd to WCVB they did that hoping that building a studio and transmitter on spec would cause BBI to go broke and that almost happened. Channel 4 actually saved BBI a ton by renting space on their tower and the old channel 5 tower would become FM-128. WCVB went the Norelco route. I have always wondered where the WHDH gear wound up when Morrisey Blvd was dismantled. From donald_astelle@yahoo.com Sun Jun 21 00:39:51 2009 From: donald_astelle@yahoo.com (Don A) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:39:51 -0400 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com><19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> Message-ID: <360562B2F5254EEA873984FA92ECB467@MainXPPro> > The radio industry argues that this discrepancy has only existed a few > years, and was created by legislation that the recording industry > promoted, and that the RIAA did so on the rationale that digital media > were more conducive to the creation of high-quality copies than were > broadcast media. I remember the labels floating this concept around years ago...well before the digital age. However, it was never well organized, and never actually got to Capital Hill....and was nothing more than just talk. I recall thinking that the first label to try to do this would immediately get ALL of their music pulled from the air....and would immediately cave. This seems like such a well coordinated effort, so that one or two labels don't take the brunt of the backlash. >> WBZ is also running similarly dishonest spots. The truth is that both industries need each other...and have had a pretty respectful uderstanding of that over the years. If the record industry plays this card, I dont think the stations will sit tight for this without planning some kind of return attack seeking relief. The industry needs stations like Kiss 108 to break new artists and promote them on the air. What do you think the trump card that stations like Kiss 108, Z100 and others would play if this became a reality? Or do you think they would simply roll over and take it. From kvahey@comcast.net Sun Jun 21 00:51:26 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:51:26 -0500 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of "performance tax" In-Reply-To: <360562B2F5254EEA873984FA92ECB467@MainXPPro> References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> <19005.1183.941103.407107@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3D0E49.7030802@gabrielmass.com> <360562B2F5254EEA873984FA92ECB467@MainXPPro> Message-ID: <4fc429770906202151q7ae38cbdx8ee20cafe399d501@mail.gmail.com> There was some flack in Chicago this week when CBS sent listeners an email from the WXRT morning man urging support for this but only one problem...nobody told the morning man about the email and he went screaming to the papers http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2009/06/wxrtfms-lin-brehmer-distances-himself-from-lin-brehmer-royalty-email.html From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:36 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:36 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV reception problem) In-Reply-To: <7EA37C40D5CB45F7903BCB448DF3F0EA@Titan> References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <7EA37C40D5CB45F7903BCB448DF3F0EA@Titan> Message-ID: <4A3D8F58.22829.7E81AB@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 21:53, Rick Levy wrote: > You don't think it might have anything to do with the considerably > higher power levels permitted on UHF than on VHF for theoretically > comparable coverage, do you? I believe I read sometime back in the 1960s (or maybe late 1950s) that UHF was better for color because it was less prone to ghosts. A picture with Ghosts is a lot easier to tolerate in B&W. I do know that, when I've tried to watch TV without cable around here, I've generally found it much easier to get a watchable picture on the UHF stations. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:37 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:37 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) In-Reply-To: <4AE0648FAE454CEA9B5222C080CED54C@SatU205S5044> References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <4AE0648FAE454CEA9B5222C080CED54C@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A3D8F59.4317.7E86F3@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 22:07, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > My experience is that, even though the "signal-strength meters" > indicate that the Channel 7 DTV dignals are substantially weaker than > the Channel 42 signals (displayed strength of ~68 for Channel 7 vs ~94 > for Channel 42), the VHF signals are less variable in intensity and > hence less subject to pixellation and audio dropouts. For users of > indoor antennas (like me) the downside is that the large VHF rabbit > ears are more intrusive than the UHF loops. FWIW, I've found that here in Brookline, a UHF antenna is perfectly fine for picking up channel 7 on RF 7, and a VHF antenna is perfectly fine for picking up most of the UHF digital stations. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:37 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:37 -0400 Subject: Digital TV reception problem In-Reply-To: <290C7B74A123455A972600C7BE674A9C@SatU205S5044> References: , <290C7B74A123455A972600C7BE674A9C@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4A3D8F59.32726.7E8897@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 22:07, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > Absolutely! On my Panasonic DTV receiver using the up/down arrow > controls but NOT when I enter 7-1 or 7-2 on the remote's keypad (the > keypad brings up only the 7 VHF signals). So far, however, not on the > Insignia converter box for my analog TV. I just rescanned my girlfriend's Zinwell converter boxes today, after which it got both channel 7s. I couldn't tell which was which, but one said WHDH-DT and the other said WHDH-HD. I assumed that the first one was RF 7, and I thought the picture quality seemed slightly better. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:38 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:38 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com>, , <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 12:13, Maureen Carney wrote: > NBC was angry at Westinghouse/Group W because 1) when they got KDKA > from DuMont they signed them as a primary CBS affiliate; 2) WPTZ (as > KYW was known before the swap) and WBZ were notorious for preempting > programming (WPTZ refused to air "Today" and aired a local show with > Ernie Kovacs instead; WBZ refusing to clear "Tonight" well into the > Carson era being prime examples) and 3) Group W started syndicating > competing programming in the early 60s (Steve Allen and Merv Griffin > had shows from them that competed with "Tonight" in many markets). So did this have anything to do with the network swap between channels 4 and 7 back in the 1990? As I recall, that was BEFORE Westinghouse's purchase of CBS. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:36 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:36 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3D8F58.14114.7E840E@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 14:34, Kevin Vahey wrote: > NBC was not thrilled that Westinghouse would not clear 100% of the > network with at the time the biggest affilate they did not own. > > For example WBZ just ignored what NBC offered to kiddies on Saturday > to clear Boomtown and this led to shows like the final years of Howdy > Doody being on channel 5 No, Howdy Doody was not on channel 5. Boomtown ran for three hours on Saturday morning, and ended at 10:00, which was when Howdy Doody came on. Howdy Doody finished on channel 4, and it was replaced by Shari Lewis, which was also on channel 4. > Then when Boomtown went to Sunday as well it bumped shows like Meet > The Press which again wound up on 5. Remember back then WBZ had a ton > of local shows on weekends like Community Auditions and Starring The > Editors. Meet the Press was being bumped on channel 4 long before. For awhile it was carried on channel 2, without commercials. It went to channel 5 as soon as channel 5 came on. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:36 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:36 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3D8F58.25848.7E8273@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 9:36, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Cottle in 1958-9 hosted a Saturday morning show on NBC that was fed > live to the network from Morrisey Blvd. It was The Ruff and Reddy Show > hosted by Cottle and what made it unusual was that the show came from > Boston and not from a NBC affilate. It was the first time NBC had ever > done this and to get NABET New York to agree to let IBEW Boston cover > a show was a major hurdle. I remember Captain Bob, but was Bob Cottle that desirable that NBC was willing to go to all that trouble? > My Dad told me that the H-T coveted NBC and the peacock was so fed up > with Westinghouse they were exploring options. The Herald spent a > fortune being one of the first built from scratch all color studios > and spent millions with RCA for equipment to curry favor. Was anyone else making color equipment at that time? > WHDH-TV would clear any NBC show that channel 4 passed on most > notably The Tonight Show. And also Meet the Press, which previously had aired on Channel 2, without commercials. And the Huntley-Brinkley news, which also had previously been carried on channel 2, since channel 4 didn't carry it. And a couple of noontime game shows that channel 4 blanked in favor of noon news and Big Brother Bob Emery. With the large number of NBC shows channel 4 was blanking, it's understandable why NBC was upset with them. Channel 5 also carried any CBS shows that channel 7 passed up, including Douglas Edwards' evening news show. With Huntley-Brinkley and Douglas Edwards, they never carried the ABC news with John Daly. But for some reason ABC's Mickey Mouse Club remained on channel 7 after channel 5 came on the air, until the following fall, even though all other ABC shows moved to channel 5. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Jun 21 01:39:37 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:39:37 -0400 Subject: Greater Media pushing for defeat of performance tax In-Reply-To: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090620070347.9CC4A83985@ws1-2a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <4A3D8F59.17824.7E85D0@joe.attorneyross.com> On 20 Jun 2009 at 2:03, Bob Nelson wrote: > Greater Media stations like WTKK (and I believe WROR and WKLB) have > been running ads urging people to defeat a possible performance tax. > They are asking people to contact such representatives as John Tierney > on the North Shore and Nikki Tsongas in the Merrimack Valley. And now > WTKK Insider's Club members are getting an email message which says, > in part, "The international record labels are asking Congress to make > radio stations pay BIG fees to broadcast your favorite songs. So, how > does paying more for music effect Boston's Talk Evolution? Like many > other talk stations in Boston and America 96.9 FM, WTKK is part of a > bigger company...Bigger music fees will raise our company's costs and > that's taxing." > > Greater has even launched a site, helpsaveradio.org, dedicated to the > crusade. I've heard Bob Bittner talking about some such lately. Is this the same thing that he's urging people to oppose? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 21 01:50:58 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:50:58 -0400 Subject: UHF is more robust than VHF (was Re: Digital TV receptionproblem) In-Reply-To: <4A3D8F59.4317.7E86F3@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <74076.58135.qm@web50802.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <4AE0648FAE454CEA9B5222C080CED54C@SatU205S5044> <4A3D8F59.4317.7E86F3@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4A3DCA42.3090307@fybush.com> A. Joseph Ross wrote: > FWIW, I've found that here in Brookline, a UHF antenna is perfectly > fine for picking up channel 7 on RF 7, and a VHF antenna is perfectly > fine for picking up most of the UHF digital stations. I suspect the signal levels on both 7 and the UHFs are high enough where you are - as they are here at Casa Fybush, 4300 feet from Pinnacle Hill in Rochester - that any random small piece of metal will more than suffice to deliver enough signal to the tuner. I'm using an old UHF loop behind my Sony in the living room and having no trouble with VHF 10 and 13 here...but my experience (and yours) differs greatly from most of the rest of America! s From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 21 01:58:03 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:58:03 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com>, , <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> A. Joseph Ross wrote: > So did this have anything to do with the network swap between > channels 4 and 7 back in the 1990? As I recall, that was BEFORE > Westinghouse's purchase of CBS. Short answer, no. WBZ went to CBS as part of a CBS/Westinghouse alliance that was announced in the spring of 1994. By the time of the affiliation swap on 1/2/95, that alliance had evolved into the all-out purchase of CBS by Westinghouse. Long answer, sort of: Westinghouse was still pre-empting some NBC shows ("Later," for instance) right up to the end, and if a stronger affiliate had been available, NBC would no doubt have looked to jump, but channel 7 was still a weak player back then, and it was far from a given that 7 and NBC would join forces after WHDH lost the CBS affiliation to WBZ; I recall talk of NBC looking to buy channel 56 at the time. (It didn't help that WHDH and Ed Ansin had their own history of network issues; Ansin had fought with the network over its plans to disaffiliate from his WSVN in Miami, which left NBC owning a CBS affiliate in Miami for a few months, and he had no qualms about ditching CBS programming on WHDH if he could, so CBS's morning show was airing on WMFP for a while in 1994 while "7 News" ran through 9 AM on WHDH.) s From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 21 02:05:27 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:05:27 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3D8F58.25848.7E8273@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D8F58.25848.7E8273@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4A3DCDA7.6040603@fybush.com> A. Joseph Ross wrote: > And also Meet the Press, which previously had aired on Channel 2, > without commercials. And the Huntley-Brinkley news, which also had > previously been carried on channel 2, since channel 4 didn't carry > it. And a couple of noontime game shows that channel 4 blanked in > favor of noon news and Big Brother Bob Emery. With the large number > of NBC shows channel 4 was blanking, it's understandable why NBC was > upset with them. Just to add a bit of historical context before I call it a night...one of the reasons Westinghouse got away with all this was that the FCC in that era took a very suspicious view of the networks. The "Report on Chain Broadcasting" of 1939-1940 had led not only to the breakup of NBC's two-network radio system (spinning off what became ABC), but also to a series of rule changes that gave local stations the much stronger hand in the affiliate-network relationship. Westinghouse milked this for all it was worth, and it's worth noting that in the late 50s, before the launch of the "Group W" identity and around the time that the radio stations went independent, the Westinghouse stations were often identified in corporate advertising and in the trades as "WBC - Westinghouse Broadcasting Company." Don McGannon believed his stations were powerful enough, and originated enough joint programming through their DC and foreign news bureaus, to fully compete on their own merits with what the networks were sending out...and he was probably right. So there was little harm to Westinghouse in ticking off NBC, especially in light of the Philadelphia affair that was playing out, especially with an equally strong CBS as the backup option for TV and the sense that a network affiliation was no longer needed on radio. That mentality was still in place when I came to what was left of Group W in the early '90s; I don't think there was an NBC peacock to be seen anywhere on the TV side, and our network affiliations on radio (ABC, CNN, AP) certainly took a back seat to our local branding. s From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Jun 21 02:57:26 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:57:26 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> Message-ID: <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Short answer, no. WBZ went to CBS as part of a CBS/Westinghouse alliance > that was announced in the spring of 1994. By the time of the affiliation > swap on 1/2/95, that alliance had evolved into the all-out purchase of > CBS by Westinghouse. And, of course, that was all triggered by Fox's affiliation deal with (and later purchase of) New World Communications, which sent Detroit's WJBK, Phoenix's KSAZ, and Tampa's WTVT from CBS to Fox, which left the other three networks bargaining with Scripps for affiliations in those markets. The result was a deal that kept ABC on WXYZ, moved WCPO in Cincinnati from CBS to ABC, put ABC on Scripps's former indie KNXV in Phoenix and former Fox WFTS in Tampa, and (most important for this discussion) took ABC away from Group W's WJZ-TV in Baltimore in favor of Scripps's WMAR (formerly NBC). Westinghouse was then left with two CBS affiliates (KDKA-TV and KPIX-TV) and two NBC affiliates (WBZ-TV and KYW-TV). They decided that they wanted a chainwide deal, too, and ended up affiliating all five stations with CBS. (IIRC, there was some conflict with another deal that NBC was doing -- maybe with Hearst? -- that ultimately put them out of the running.) This then left CBS with a problem: they had to find a buyer for WCAU-TV so they could affiliate with KYW-TV. Eventually they did a deal -- which I think was reported at the time as the first direct sale of a TV station between two of the Big Three networks -- to sell WCAU and Miami's WCIX to NBC in exchange for cash, KCNC in Denver, KUTV in Salt Lake City, and WTVJ in Miami. Denver's old CBS affiliate, KMGH, took the ABC affiliation (previously on KUSA) as a result of another chainwide deal between ABC and McGraw-Hill, with NBC ending up on Gannett's KUSA. The McGraw-Hill deal also moved KERO in Bakersfield from CBS to ABC, moving CBS to Fisher's KBAK, the former ABC affiliate. The original Fox-New World deal resulted in changes in other markets, including Atlanta (which sent CBS from New World's WAGA to Tribune's WGNX, now WGCL and owned by Meredith), St. Louis (ABC from New World's KTVI to Sinclair's KDNL, the former Fox affiliate), Milwaukee (CBS from New World's WITI to Weigel's WDJT, with Sinclair's former Fox WCGV going to UPN), the Piedmont Triad (ABC from New World's WGHP to WNRW, now WXLV and owned by Sinclair), and Kansas City (NBC from New World's WDAF to Scripps's KSHB). I hope that makes it all clear. -GAWollman From kvahey@comcast.net Sun Jun 21 03:52:55 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:52:55 -0500 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3D8F58.14114.7E840E@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4fc429770906201234w58bda4a4ibdd965765cabc35c@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D8F58.14114.7E840E@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906210052l759ae0ddp507228b2112ffd5f@mail.gmail.com> Here is a perfect example of why you can not trust Wikipedia One website said that Capt Bob took over Ruff and Reddy in Septermber of 1962. Incorrect that is when NBC brought the show back in reruns. WHDH took over production of the show in June of 1959 and the reason I am positive about this is the following February (February 13, 1960) my Dad took me down to Morrisey Blvd for the show and then took me to my first Bruins game. I remember meeting Bob and his sidekick Andy Bator. Nine years later Andy Bator was my boss at WXPO-TV and later at WSMW when we both fled from channel 50. Ironically Bob Cottle thanks to Andy had brought his set that he had used at channel 5 to tape a pilot show and the set got destroyed when water pipes burst at the WXPO Lowell studio. Bator finally walked away from TV and like Gary Francis opened a very succesful ice cream shop on Beacon Hill. TV Party would lead you to believe Cottle took over in 1962 (but they can't even spell his name right) and Wikipedia uses them as a source. Yes the show came back via tape in 62 and this time it didn't run in Boston because of Boomtown and 5 by then was CBS Harold Clancy who ran WHDH was a little nuts but do you think for one second after getting CBS he would enrage William Paley by pre-empting Captain Kangaroo for Ruff and Reddy on NBC??? The H-T may have wanted NBC but CBS was fine. Sure 5 cleared The Tonight Show but CBS was feeding a WCBS test pattern at 11:30 until Merv Griffin later in the 60's. My memory isn't perfect after nearly 50 years as Att Ross corrected me on Howdy Doody but Feb 13, 1960 I am certain of. http://www.tvparty.com/lostboston2.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ruff_&_Reddy_Show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cottle http://www.toontracker.com/ruffredd/ruffredd.htm From radiojunkie3@yahoo.com Sun Jun 21 02:58:12 2009 From: radiojunkie3@yahoo.com (Peter Q. George) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) Message-ID: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Good question. I do know that a few of the old WHDH-TV cameras wound up at Grahm Junior College once WCVB-TV took charge of Channel 5 in Boston in March, 1972. The many hours of the sports tapes recorded by WHDH-TV during their years as the Red Sox flagship first went over to WBZ-TV (Channel 4) when 'BZ obtained the broadcast rights for the BoSox for a couple of years. Eventually when WSBK-TV (Channel 38) got the Sox rights in '75 or '76, I believe 38 got the archives from 'BZ. I'm sure NESN now holds the archives of most of the pro teams in Boston. As for the transmitter and associated equipment that operated at the old WHDH-TV, I am not sure. I do know that Harold J. Clancy, CEO of WHDH and publisher of The Herald-Traveler was so convinced that WHDH-TV would prevail, he started purchasing new equipment as late as November, 1971. When WCVB accidentally fired up on prime time for 20 minutes of prime time in November, 1971 during WHDH's showing of "The Plot To Kill Hitler" ('CVB was already doing nightly equipment tests from 2:00 AM until 5:00 AM), this accidental collision of the two Channel 5 transmitters might have given Clancy some "false hope" that eventually WHDH-TV would not meet the executioner's sword (aka The FCC). Nothing doing, as in late December, 1971 the FCC gave it's final verdict, WHDH-TV must cease operations as of 3:00 AM, Sunday, March 19th, 1972. Since most of WHDH's staff moved over to WCVB on 3/19/72, though most are long since retired or may have passed away, the fate of the old 'HDH equipment remains a mystery. Any takers on this question? Peter Q. George (K1XRB) Whitman, Massachusetts "Scanning the bands since 1967" radiojunkie3@yahoo.com *********************************************************** --- On Sun, 6/21/09, Kevin Vahey wrote: > From: Kevin Vahey > Subject: Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler > To: "Donna Halper" > Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" > Date: Sunday, June 21, 2009, 12:37 AM > Interesting how it could have played > out. > > Had RKO and NBC swapped with DC and Boston WNAC-TV would > have had > improved local news for starters. Of course who knows what > would have > happened on the radio side as most likely WRKO never > happens as a Top > 40 outlet and WRC-AM would most likely have gone the Boss > Radio route. > > One has to assume that the bosses at the Herald-Traveler > were > convinced they would get NBC by spending millions on all > color in 1957 > instead of playing it safe with B&W. Had the license > been awarded with > no strings attached I am certain NBC would have jumped and > then > Westinghouse would have grabbed CBS. > > NBC by taking Captain Bob from WHDH was sending a strong > message to > Westinghouse. Of course you have to wonder how much > Westinghouse > worked behind the scene with the FCC to keep Channel 5 in > limbo. > > I do know that Westinghouse almost moved Mike Douglas to > Boston from > Cleveland which is what Douglas wanted as he remembered the > huge > crowds the show attracted when the Hynes Auditorium opened > in 1965. > However Westinghouse decided it would be easier to train or > limo > guests from NYC to Philly than flying them to Boston. > > Another sidebar to all this was the equipment wars. WBZ-TV > was in no > rush to buy RCA color gear for Boston as they were waiting > for the > Phillips-Norelco gear that was promised for 1965 and was > much better > than what RCA was making. But William Paley of all people > forced > Westinghouse to buy RCA gear when he converted WCAU to > color using RCA > equipment to blow the new KYW away. CBS then waited for > Norelco to > convert Television City and made a mistake of converting > Studio 50 in > NY to Marconi. The Hells Kitchen studios also waited for > Norelco. WNAC > went with GE cameras as did ABC and also WSBK. WKBG went > RCA as well. > > When WHDH refused to sell Morrisey Blvd to WCVB they did > that hoping > that building a studio and transmitter on spec would cause > BBI to go > broke and that almost happened. Channel 4 actually saved > BBI a ton by > renting space on their tower and the old channel 5 tower > would become > FM-128. WCVB went the Norelco route. > > I have always wondered where the WHDH gear wound up when > Morrisey Blvd > was dismantled. > From kvahey@comcast.net Sun Jun 21 04:20:02 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:20:02 -0500 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> Clancy ordered new TK-44 cameras to replace the TK-41's in the news studio and also to replace the cameras in the remote unit used for baseball and bowling Clancy did sell the remote unit to WCVB and they used it on the bowling show. WBZ simply took over the KYW remote truck and used that at Fenway with TK-44's WSBK not only got the Sox footage but bought the entire WHDH sports film archive and WSBK later gave everything to the Sports Museum. WNAC got the WHDH newsfilm archive simply because 7 didn't have much of one. BBI by March of 1972 was out of money and WHDH finally got some dirt on them and it went to the Supreme Court one more time the day before the switch. Had another stay been issued BBI would have been toast. Of course the promise of local ownership would turn out to be a nice scam as BBI had a silent partner in Metromedia who would later buy out BBI. Bob Bennett who ran WCVB had been #2 at Metromedia and WCVB had a nice cozy relationship with MM. Then MM hit the jackpot with Rupert Murdoch and when the dust cleared Hearst who had sold the Herald to Rupert winds up buying WCVB which made the rest of the MM sale to FOX a steal. To be fair BBI when under local ownership really came through. They were perhaps the only major station that really took the local access mandate to the letter. Westinghouse did have Evening Magazine as well but in the end it all became syndicated junk (Chronicle being a major exception) From kvahey@comcast.net Sun Jun 21 05:27:31 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:27:31 -0500 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906210227g7299ec63y25451119eaef0f8c@mail.gmail.com> As these pics show WHDH had a very nice studio complex located not by accident across the street from the Globe http://www.ggninfo.com/November07.htm http://www.ggninfo.com/May04.htm http://www.oldradio.com/archives/hardware/TV/tk41-whdh(rr2).jpg http://www.oldradio.com/archives/hardware/TV/tr22-whdh.jpg From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Jun 21 07:13:36 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:13:36 -0400 Subject: OOOPS (KYW thread) References: <20090621034833.B62F91B4007@relay18.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> Message-ID: <51DE72558A734D6E9C35BED2E3620939@SatU205S5044> Post NARBA, WENR and WLS shared time on 890 (one of two pairs of Class IA share-timers--the other pair were WFAA and WBAP on 820). Pre-NARBA WENR/WLS would have been on 870 and WFAA/WBAP would have been on 800. There were also several time shares involving stations that became Class IBs. One involved WBBM (later a IA) and a station in Nebraska (which may or may not have been today's KFAB). WTIC and WBAL were also involved in a time-share, as were, I believe, KEX and KOB (KOB was a special case--it never became a Class I of either sub-class). Note that these seem to involve station pairs that were relatively distant from each other. I think this had something to do with synchronous operation, which ended for these high-power stations with the advent of directional antennas and the creation of the IB class, which may have coincided with NARBA. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Halper" To: "Kevin Vahey" ; "Scott Fybush" Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:48 PM Subject: OOOPS (KYW thread) > What I meant to write was: And according to the Chicago Tribune, 6 > September 1934, the NBC affiliate was WLS, but it was about to cease > being an NBC affiliate in the next several months; the radio critic > for the Tribune (Larry Wolters, generally very reliable) speculated > that all this was in preparation for the DEPARTURE of KYW. > > In other words, there was not only gonna be a shake-up in Philly but > two Chicago stations (WLS and WENR) were also gonna be affected. > Sorry for not being able to type tonight... sigh... From mward@iname.com Sun Jun 21 11:52:50 2009 From: mward@iname.com (Mike Ward) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:52:50 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> Garrett Wollman wrote: > I hope that makes it all clear. Just to make this complete, since you didn't mention it...Cleveland's WJW was also mixed up in the New World/Fox deal. It was an old Storer station, like WJBK in Detroit. CBS ended up on what was Malrite-owned Fox affiliate WOIO/19 (now Raycom). We had Scripps in the mix here, too, but their station (WEWS/5) kept ABC and, I believe, wasn't even "in play" with the talks between ABC and Scripps. From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Jun 21 16:24:46 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:24:46 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> Message-ID: <19006.38670.848112.453467@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Just to make this complete, since you didn't mention it...Cleveland's > WJW was also mixed up in the New World/Fox deal. It was an old Storer > station, like WJBK in Detroit. CBS ended up on what was Malrite-owned > Fox affiliate WOIO/19 (now Raycom). Yes, New World had ended up with nearly all of the old Storer stations, with WSBK being the most notable exception, when they bought SCI/Gillett. They also ended up with a big group of ex-Taft stations, including WDAF-TV in KC and WGHP in the Triad. Meanwhile, Scripps had gotten many of those pre-existing ABC affiliates (including WXYZ) as spin-offs from Capital Cities when CCCC bought ABC. I reworked my previous posting into a new page in the "Articles and Essays" section of the Archives: . -GAWollman From TVNETDUDE@aol.com Sun Jun 21 19:20:06 2009 From: TVNETDUDE@aol.com (TVNETDUDE@aol.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:20:06 EDT Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment Message-ID: In a message dated 6/21/2009 12:03:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, boston-radio-interest-request@tsornin.BostonRadio.org writes: >>"Good question. I do know that a few of the old WHDH-TV cameras wound up at Grahm Junior College once WCVB-TV took charge of Channel 5 in Boston in March, 1972.<< " Well one of the complete camera chains went to Grahm for a year. It was in the Lab for the Broadcast Engineering students but was never used. I thought it was sort of cool I was going to get to play with one of the cameras that I was actually on when I was on Bozo in the third grade. They expanded the program the following year and the camera and rack equipment disappeared and the space was turned into another classroom. I have no idea what happened to that camera after that. Mike Hemeon **************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips. (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004) From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 21 19:58:34 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:58:34 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A3EC92A.8080508@fybush.com> Garrett Wollman wrote: (snip) > This then left CBS with a problem: they had to find a buyer for > WCAU-TV so they could affiliate with KYW-TV. Eventually they did a > deal -- which I think was reported at the time as the first direct > sale of a TV station between two of the Big Three networks -- to sell > WCAU and Miami's WCIX to NBC in exchange for cash, KCNC in Denver, > KUTV in Salt Lake City, and WTVJ in Miami. Denver's old CBS > affiliate, KMGH, took the ABC affiliation (previously on KUSA) as a > result of another chainwide deal between ABC and McGraw-Hill, with NBC > ending up on Gannett's KUSA. The McGraw-Hill deal also moved KERO in > Bakersfield from CBS to ABC, moving CBS to Fisher's KBAK, the former > ABC affiliate. (snippity snip) > I hope that makes it all clear. Almost. The one piece missing here - and it's an important one - is what the plan was for Denver, Salt Lake and Miami. When the Westinghouse/CBS deal was announced, the stated intention was to create a new joint venture between the two companies that would hold the licenses for KCNC, KUTV and the Miami station [1] and potentially make some new acquisitions down the road. As it turned out, that joint venture never came into play, since by the time the deals with NBC were consummated, Westinghouse had bought CBS outright. It was a most interesting time to be working for one of the companies involved. I vividly remember the all-staff meeting in the conference room upstairs when the deal was announced to us. A lot of heads were spinning by the time it was over. s [1] - The Miami situation was even more convoluted. NBC had purchased WTVJ channel 4 from Wometco a couple of years earlier, and had eventually flipped it from CBS to NBC after waiting out the contract that the incumbent NBC affiliate, Ed Ansin's WSVN, wouldn't allow to be bought out. So CBS, needing a Miami affiliate and unable to reach terms with Ansin for WSVN, bought former indie WCIX channel 6, which suffered from a lousy signal in much of the market because of short-spacing to Orlando's channel 6 that forced the WCIX transmitter to be located far south of Miami. When CBS was ready to sell WCAU to NBC, it saw a chance to rectify its signal issue: it traded licenses with NBC, but each company kept its intellectual property. In effect, WTVJ/NBC moved from channel 4 to channel 6, while CBS's WCIX channel 6 became WFOR-TV channel 4. (The FCC license records reflect a different legal situation: the facility that was CBS's WCIX 6 became NBC's WTVJ 6, while the facility that was NBC's WTVJ 4 became CBS's WFOR-TV 4.) The signal disparity between channels 6 and 4 has finally been rectified with the move to DTV, since WTVJ-DT operates from the same tower farm north of Miami as the market's other stations. From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sun Jun 21 20:02:07 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:02:07 -0400 Subject: Whatever happened to . . . Message-ID: <703726F1F56F475894FA31C2D2BB80AD@DougDrown> I've been away from Massachusetts for 32 years, so I'm out of the loop in regards to some things . . . is Paul Benzaquin still with us? If so, what's he doing? -Doug From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Sun Jun 21 21:02:30 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:02:30 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com><285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com><4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com><19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> <19006.38670.848112.453467@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <5F669685301746A9BBCC762EC1326A78@DougDrown> >>Meanwhile, Scripps had gotten many of those pre-existing ABC affiliates (including WXYZ) as spin-offs from Capital Cities when CCCC bought ABC. I've long been curious as to why, when CapCities bought ABC, it divested WXYZ-TV and WKBW AM and TV ---- all large and (I would think) strategic stations. WJR and WXYZ-TV would have made a formidable combination in Detroit. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "Mike Ward" Cc: Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: Re: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler > < said: > >> Just to make this complete, since you didn't mention it...Cleveland's >> WJW was also mixed up in the New World/Fox deal. It was an old Storer >> station, like WJBK in Detroit. CBS ended up on what was Malrite-owned >> Fox affiliate WOIO/19 (now Raycom). > > Yes, New World had ended up with nearly all of the old Storer > stations, with WSBK being the most notable exception, when they bought > SCI/Gillett. They also ended up with a big group of ex-Taft stations, > including WDAF-TV in KC and WGHP in the Triad. Meanwhile, Scripps had > gotten many of those pre-existing ABC affiliates (including WXYZ) as > spin-offs from Capital Cities when CCCC bought ABC. > > I reworked my previous posting into a new page in the "Articles and > Essays" section of the Archives: > . > > -GAWollman > From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Jun 21 21:33:16 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:33:16 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <5F669685301746A9BBCC762EC1326A78@DougDrown> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> <19006.38670.848112.453467@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5F669685301746A9BBCC762EC1326A78@DougDrown> Message-ID: <19006.57180.411543.511160@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I've long been curious as to why, when CapCities bought ABC, it divested > WXYZ-TV and WKBW AM and TV ---- all large and (I would think) strategic > stations. WJR and WXYZ-TV would have made a formidable combination in > Detroit. Because the ownership limit at the time was still 7/7/7. ABC owned in New York (WABC), Chicago (WLS), San Franciso (KGO), Los Angeles (KABC), and Detroit (WXYZ). Cap Cities owned in New Haven (WTNH), Philly (WPVI), Houston (KTRK), Durham (WTVD), Tampa (WFTS), and Fresno (KFSN). CC/ABC chose, rather sensibly, to keep the strongest markets. Why Fresno instead of Detroit? No clue, but it could have had to do with theorized synergies with the other two California stations. -GAWollman From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 21 21:48:52 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:48:52 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <19006.57180.411543.511160@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> <19006.38670.848112.453467@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5F669685301746A9BBCC762EC1326A78@DougDrown> <19006.57180.411543.511160@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4A3EE304.8040006@fybush.com> Garrett Wollman wrote: > Why Fresno instead of Detroit? No clue, but it could have had to do > with theorized synergies with the other two California stations. Or the national TV audience-reach cap, which I'm pretty sure was already in effect at that point and couldn't have been any higher than 25% then. I think the FCC was also leery back then about creating new radio-TV combos where they weren't already grandfathered. Let's not forget that it was just 15 years earlier that the FCC was seriously contemplating imposing a "one to a market" rule that would have broken up TV/radio and even AM/FM combos. 1986 was much closer, regulatorily speaking, to 1971 than to 1996. s (who really should be writing NERW...) From atolz@comcast.net Sun Jun 21 21:59:48 2009 From: atolz@comcast.net (Alan Tolz) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:59:48 -0400 Subject: Whatever happened to . . . References: <703726F1F56F475894FA31C2D2BB80AD@DougDrown> Message-ID: <22A139172A194FB999522056471F0410@mediacenter> Paul and his lovely wife, Grace live in Duxbury, MA. When we were promoting our Jerry Williams biography, Paul graciously joined us at the local library and spoke most eloquently about the functions of a talk show host vs. a news commentator and how both he and Jerry Williams had different approaches to their respective radio programs. Alan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Boston Radio Interest Board" Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:02 PM Subject: Whatever happened to . . . I've been away from Massachusetts for 32 years, so I'm out of the loop in regards to some things . . . is Paul Benzaquin still with us? If so, what's he doing? -Doug From scott@fybush.com Sun Jun 21 22:07:16 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:07:16 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3EE304.8040006@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <19005.55766.870272.39395@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> <19006.38670.848112.453467@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5F669685301746A9BBCC762EC1326A78@DougDrown> <19006.57180.411543.511160@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4A3EE304.8040006@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4A3EE754.5020103@fybush.com> Scott Fybush wrote: > I think the FCC was also leery back then about creating new radio-TV > combos where they weren't already grandfathered. And to forestall the inevitable "so why didn't they keep the grandfathered WXYZ/WXYZ-TV/WRIF combo and jettison WJR/WHYT" question: remember that it was Clear Channel doing the acquiring, and WJR was the pride of the group at the time. s From kc1ih@mac.com Sun Jun 21 22:05:07 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:05:07 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <19006.57180.411543.511160@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <"DE 4C393916FD443084C59DF94A561F1E"@DougDrown> <285995.40439.qm@web53304.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <4A3E5752.30301@iname.com> <19006.38670.848112.453467@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <5F669685301746A9BBCC762EC1326A78@DougDrown> <19006.57180.411543.511160@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <0KLM009LDB1J3L70@asmtp018.mac.com> At 09:33 PM 6/21/2009, Garrett Wollman wrote: >Because the ownership limit at the time was still 7/7/7. ABC owned in >New York (WABC), Chicago (WLS), San Franciso (KGO), Los Angeles >(KABC), and Detroit (WXYZ). Cap Cities owned in New Haven (WTNH), >Philly (WPVI), Houston (KTRK), Durham (WTVD), Tampa (WFTS), and Fresno >(KFSN). CC/ABC chose, rather sensibly, to keep the strongest markets. >Why Fresno instead of Detroit? No clue, but it could have had to do >with theorized synergies with the other two California stations. Didn't Cap Cities also own WPAT in Patterson, NJ? Or had they sold it by that time? Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 22 00:19:21 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:19:21 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> On 21 Jun 2009 at 3:20, Kevin Vahey wrote: > BBI by March of 1972 was out of money and WHDH finally got some dirt > on them and it went to the Supreme Court one more time the day before > the switch. Had another stay been issued BBI would have been toast. What dirt? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 22 00:19:22 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:19:22 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com>, <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com>, <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4A3ECE0A.23745.A8B251@joe.attorneyross.com> On 21 Jun 2009 at 1:58, Scott Fybush wrote: > Long answer, sort of: Westinghouse was still pre-empting some NBC > shows ("Later," for instance) right up to the end, and if a stronger > affiliate had been available, NBC would no doubt have looked to jump, > but channel 7 was still a weak player back then, and it was far from a > given that 7 and NBC would join forces after WHDH lost the CBS > affiliation to WBZ; I recall talk of NBC looking to buy channel 56 at > the time. I seem to remember some talk of NBC possibly going to channel 25, leaving 7 with Fox. > (It didn't help that WHDH and Ed Ansin had their own history of > network issues; Ansin had fought with the network over its plans to > disaffiliate from his WSVN in Miami, which left NBC owning a CBS > affiliate in Miami for a few months, and he had no qualms about > ditching CBS programming on WHDH if he could, so CBS's morning show > was airing on WMFP for a while in 1994 while "7 News" ran through 9 AM > on WHDH.) I do remember that the Today Show was a sticking point with NBC and 7, and the affiliation announcement included the statement that channel 7 would carry all of the Today Show. And then there was the flap more recently about whether channel 7 would carry Jay Leno's new show at 10:00. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Jun 22 00:19:22 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:19:22 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com>, <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com>, <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4A3ECE0A.23745.A8B251@joe.attorneyross.com> On 21 Jun 2009 at 1:58, Scott Fybush wrote: > Long answer, sort of: Westinghouse was still pre-empting some NBC > shows ("Later," for instance) right up to the end, and if a stronger > affiliate had been available, NBC would no doubt have looked to jump, > but channel 7 was still a weak player back then, and it was far from a > given that 7 and NBC would join forces after WHDH lost the CBS > affiliation to WBZ; I recall talk of NBC looking to buy channel 56 at > the time. I seem to remember some talk of NBC possibly going to channel 25, leaving 7 with Fox. > (It didn't help that WHDH and Ed Ansin had their own history of > network issues; Ansin had fought with the network over its plans to > disaffiliate from his WSVN in Miami, which left NBC owning a CBS > affiliate in Miami for a few months, and he had no qualms about > ditching CBS programming on WHDH if he could, so CBS's morning show > was airing on WMFP for a while in 1994 while "7 News" ran through 9 AM > on WHDH.) I do remember that the Today Show was a sticking point with NBC and 7, and the affiliation announcement included the statement that channel 7 would carry all of the Today Show. And then there was the flap more recently about whether channel 7 would carry Jay Leno's new show at 10:00. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From heritageradio@msn.com Mon Jun 22 04:12:28 2009 From: heritageradio@msn.com (thomas heathwood) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:12:28 -0400 Subject: WHDH Equipment Message-ID: I purchased a number of items from WHDH-TV when they finished at Morrisey Blvd. Two RCA 6B6 consoles, and Frank Avrush's (Bozo's) RCA 77DX mike with the red band around it. Gerorge Watson was the engineer who did a lot of the sales, and later Paul Hurd, who became VP of Engineering for the radio side. Tom Heathwood From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 22 05:59:28 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:59:28 -0500 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906220259g65385a6clfe4f545c1ecce60@mail.gmail.com> One of the BBI major investors became the target of the Herald-Traveler and then the SEC I would highly recommend going to the library and getting a copy of The Hundred?Million?Dollar?Lunch?by Sterling "Red"?Quinlan which documents the entire Channel 5 license story. This was a saga not so much about broadcasting as it was politics and the survival of either the Herald or the Globe. Joe Kennedy was a major factor in this given his hatred of the Herald because of lukewarm coverage of his son. The reality was the H-T did a fine job in their 15 years of operating channel 5 and local news was not slanted as it was in the paper and Jack Hynes and John Henning were a major factor in that. I think most on this list would agree that RKO General Tire deserved everything that happened to them especially in Boston but what happened to the Herald-Traveler was a disgrace. On 6/21/09, A. Joseph Ross wrote: > On 21 Jun 2009 at 3:20, Kevin Vahey wrote: > >> BBI by March of 1972 was out of money and WHDH finally got some dirt >> on them and it went to the Supreme Court one more time the day before >> the switch. Had another stay been issued BBI would have been toast. > > What dirt? > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > > From m_carney@yahoo.com Mon Jun 22 09:49:26 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:49:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906220259g65385a6clfe4f545c1ecce60@mail.gmail.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> <4fc429770906220259g65385a6clfe4f545c1ecce60@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <176111.47760.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> What I never understood is if the H-T had issues why did they get the license in the 1st place? The initial contact the H-T people had with the FCC was mild compared to other applicants, and there was no proof of a payoff. The structure of how ad time was sold (an advertiser had to buy space in the Herald and Traveler, as well as time on 850, 94.5 and channel 5) would seem to be more trobulesome but did not come up initially. There were other applicants for channel 5, including Springfield Television (owners of WWLP), DuMont and a local group with limited broacasting experience (IIRC Dom DiMaggio was one of the investors in that group). Each one of those applicants had pros and cons (especially DuMont). Was the FCC really hung up about applicants who already owned a local AM and/or FM station being "better" because of a track record? From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 22 09:31:40 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:31:40 -0500 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4A3ECE0A.23745.A8B251@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com> <4A3D8F5A.24648.7E8A64@joe.attorneyross.com> <4A3DCBEB.4090102@fybush.com> <4A3ECE0A.23745.A8B251@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906220631r2af2f293i4a3078be95399bb6@mail.gmail.com> Amazing that I could remember the name Nathan David after all these years. He was the one that assembled everyone involved with BBI. At the bitter end even the FCC wanted to reopen the case but the Supreme Court was most likely fed up that the case had dragged for 15 years and at the time was the longest matter in Federal civil court history which now belongs to the Exxon Alaska oil spill. I remember the last day well as I was in Winter Haven, FL as WHDH-TV did one final Sox game and it was bittersweet. I had chosen to go to WBZ-TV to keep shooting baseball which I soon came to regret but I was a mere lad of 22. It was the last time Ned Martin and Ken Coleman would ever work together. Our director Roger Shea wound up going to Atlanta where he was involved with the Braves on local channel 17 which soon would explode. One can 'what if' to death how things would have played out had WHDH-TV survived. Most likely the Record-American would have been the newspaper that died instead of the H-T. One could surmise that Hearst may have ended up with Channel 5 anyways and perhaps the paper as well if a waiver could be granted. It never should have happened. >From the Globe July 1991 Nathan H. David, a communications lawyer who assembled the investors who won the license to WCVB-TV (Ch. 5) and sold the station 10 years later for $220 million, died of a pulmonary ailment May 22 at his vacation home in Santa Barbara, Calif. He was 77 and lived in Incline, Nev. Mr. David was a lawyer with the Boston firm of Brown & Rudnick in 1962 when he spied a brief item in the newspapers on the Federal Communications Commission's invitation for bids on the temporary Ch. 5 license then held by the Herald Traveler Corp., publisher of the Boston Herald Traveler. From sid@wrko.com Mon Jun 22 07:18:56 2009 From: sid@wrko.com (Sid Schweiger) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:18:56 -0600 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <09109FACA2581A42BBA0C485CE660EE846815F558F@ENTCORMB1.etmcorad.com> >>What dirt?<< One of BBI's principals had felony charges filed against him for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, which would prohibit his serving as an officer of the licensee. He was quickly separated from BBI. See footnote 1 at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/457/457.F2d.559.72-1031.html . Sid Schweiger IT Manager, Entercom New England 20 Guest St / 3d Floor Brighton MA 02135-2040 From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 22 12:27:37 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:27:37 -0500 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906220927v134ec355j100fcab0bb146983@mail.gmail.com> Something else happened in 1969 to make the Kennedy Family even angrier at the Herald-Traveler and it involved an auto accident on Chappaquiddick Island. That accident happened on a Friday night/Saturday morning but both the Globe and Herald did not print anything until Monday but the Herald went big with the story on Sunday with a banner headline. Now did the family try to squash the story which by then a public record? Possibly but in any event the Herald ran with it and everybody played catch up the next day. Now in fairness there was another news event that weekend that was perhaps one of the Top Five news stories of the 20th Century...The First Moon Landing. A little irony the following Friday as the Kennedy Family had Ted issue a live statement from Hyannisport and paid WHDH-TV for the mobile unit and AT&T long lines set up back to Boston. It was supposed to be an address to Massachusetts voters only but wound up be carried live worldwide. I myself saw it at a department store in Toronto on CBC. What crime did the Herald do as all they did was report the story as they should have. Why did Tom Winship sit on it for 2 days is a better question. But it also showed the Kennedy Family could not control the Herald and that did not help their case in DC. Did the Herald use influence to get the license? Most certainly...but it pales by comparison on what the Chicago Tribune was able to pull off. The Tribune managed to get a VHF allocation in NYC on Channel 11 which ultimately forced WJAR to move to Channel 10 but also in co hoots with the Milwaukee Journal (WTMJ) to have the only VHF indy in Chicago as Channel 4's allocation was moved to Milwaukee and CBS who had bought Channel 4 in Chicago was moved to Channel 2 and Zenith lost everything. The FCC has always treated the Tribune with kid gloves which makes the Herald case that much sadder. http://www.chicagotelevision.com/WBKB.htm From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Mon Jun 22 14:35:16 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:35:16 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com><4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> <4fc429770906220927v134ec355j100fcab0bb146983@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7B9426C76B4C4AA196FE82FEED4CBBA3@DougDrown> As I had said in a post some weeks ago regarding Boston newspapers, I recall that when I was a boy growing up in the '60s, my Republican elders usually purchased the Boston Herald and Traveler and Democrats favored the Globe. But I don't really know to what extent the H-T editors toed the Republican party line. Were the Herald and Traveler really Republican newspapers, or were they independent? What did they do that initially alienated the Kennedys? -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Vahey" To: "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:27 PM Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) > Something else happened in 1969 to make the Kennedy Family even > angrier at the Herald-Traveler and it involved an auto accident on > Chappaquiddick Island. > > That accident happened on a Friday night/Saturday morning but both the > Globe and Herald did not print anything until Monday but the Herald > went big with the story on Sunday with a banner headline. > > Now did the family try to squash the story which by then a public > record? Possibly but in any event the Herald ran with it and everybody > played catch up the next day. > > Now in fairness there was another news event that weekend that was > perhaps one of the Top Five news stories of the 20th Century...The > First Moon Landing. > > A little irony the following Friday as the Kennedy Family had Ted > issue a live statement from Hyannisport and paid WHDH-TV for the > mobile unit and AT&T long lines set up back to Boston. It was supposed > to be an address to Massachusetts voters only but wound up be carried > live worldwide. I myself saw it at a department store in Toronto on > CBC. > > What crime did the Herald do as all they did was report the story as > they should have. Why did Tom Winship sit on it for 2 days is a better > question. But it also showed the Kennedy Family could not control the > Herald and that did not help their case in DC. > > Did the Herald use influence to get the license? Most certainly...but > it pales by comparison on what the Chicago Tribune was able to pull > off. The Tribune managed to get a VHF allocation in NYC on Channel 11 > which ultimately forced WJAR to move to Channel 10 but also in co > hoots with the Milwaukee Journal (WTMJ) to have the only VHF indy in > Chicago as Channel 4's allocation was moved to Milwaukee and CBS who > had bought Channel 4 in Chicago was moved to Channel 2 and Zenith lost > everything. > > The FCC has always treated the Tribune with kid gloves which makes the > Herald case that much sadder. > > http://www.chicagotelevision.com/WBKB.htm > From dan.strassberg@att.net Mon Jun 22 14:41:08 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:41:08 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship ofNBCby the Herald-Traveler) References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com><4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com><4fc429770906220927v134ec355j100fcab0bb146983@mail.gmail.com> <7B9426C76B4C4AA196FE82FEED4CBBA3@DougDrown> Message-ID: The Herald-Traveler was at least as Republican as the Globe was Democratic. Don't know about then but currently, the Globe has at least one Republican columnist. Does the Herald have any Democratic columnists? ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Kevin Vahey" ; "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship ofNBCby the Herald-Traveler) > As I had said in a post some weeks ago regarding Boston newspapers, > I recall that when I was a boy growing up in the '60s, my Republican > elders usually purchased the Boston Herald and Traveler and > Democrats favored the Globe. But I don't really know to what extent > the H-T editors toed the Republican party line. Were the Herald and > Traveler really Republican newspapers, or were they independent? > What did they do that initially alienated the Kennedys? -Doug > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Vahey" > To: "A. Joseph Ross" > Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" > > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The > courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) > > >> Something else happened in 1969 to make the Kennedy Family even >> angrier at the Herald-Traveler and it involved an auto accident on >> Chappaquiddick Island. >> >> That accident happened on a Friday night/Saturday morning but both >> the >> Globe and Herald did not print anything until Monday but the Herald >> went big with the story on Sunday with a banner headline. >> >> Now did the family try to squash the story which by then a public >> record? Possibly but in any event the Herald ran with it and >> everybody >> played catch up the next day. >> >> Now in fairness there was another news event that weekend that was >> perhaps one of the Top Five news stories of the 20th Century...The >> First Moon Landing. >> >> A little irony the following Friday as the Kennedy Family had Ted >> issue a live statement from Hyannisport and paid WHDH-TV for the >> mobile unit and AT&T long lines set up back to Boston. It was >> supposed >> to be an address to Massachusetts voters only but wound up be >> carried >> live worldwide. I myself saw it at a department store in Toronto on >> CBC. >> >> What crime did the Herald do as all they did was report the story >> as >> they should have. Why did Tom Winship sit on it for 2 days is a >> better >> question. But it also showed the Kennedy Family could not control >> the >> Herald and that did not help their case in DC. >> >> Did the Herald use influence to get the license? Most >> certainly...but >> it pales by comparison on what the Chicago Tribune was able to pull >> off. The Tribune managed to get a VHF allocation in NYC on Channel >> 11 >> which ultimately forced WJAR to move to Channel 10 but also in co >> hoots with the Milwaukee Journal (WTMJ) to have the only VHF indy >> in >> Chicago as Channel 4's allocation was moved to Milwaukee and CBS >> who >> had bought Channel 4 in Chicago was moved to Channel 2 and Zenith >> lost >> everything. >> >> The FCC has always treated the Tribune with kid gloves which makes >> the >> Herald case that much sadder. >> >> http://www.chicagotelevision.com/WBKB.htm >> > From dan.strassberg@att.net Mon Jun 22 14:45:15 2009 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:45:15 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com><4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com><4fc429770906220259g65385a6clfe4f545c1ecce60@mail.gmail.com> <176111.47760.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: CBS applied and was the first to propose a tower site in the Newton-Needham area. I suspect that CBS might have withdrwn its application by the time the field had been whittled down to the applicants you listed, however. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Carney" To: "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 9:49 AM Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) > What I never understood is if the H-T had issues why did they get > the license in the 1st place? The initial contact the H-T people had > with the FCC was mild compared to other applicants, and there was no > proof of a payoff. The structure of how ad time was sold (an > advertiser had to buy space in the Herald and Traveler, as well as > time on 850, 94.5 and channel 5) would seem to be more trobulesome > but did not come up initially. There were other applicants for > channel 5, including Springfield Television (owners of WWLP), DuMont > and a local group with limited broacasting experience (IIRC Dom > DiMaggio was one of the investors in that group). Each one of those > applicants had pros and cons (especially DuMont). Was the FCC really > hung up about applicants who already owned a local AM and/or FM > station being "better" because of a track record? > > > From m_carney@yahoo.com Mon Jun 22 15:14:48 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com><4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com><4fc429770906220259g65385a6clfe4f545c1ecce60@mail.gmail.com> <176111.47760.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <164283.29618.qm@web53306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm guessing CBS gave up because already operating stations in Chicago and Los Angeles became available to them. That was the difference between NBC and CBS - NBC wanted control so bad they built everything from the ground up (making sure there was programming to sell the RCA sets)?and CBS was content to buy what it needed as it became available (color broadcasting being the exception). From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 22 15:22:52 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:22:52 -0500 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906210120n502d7d3ev9f60786e2316f4@mail.gmail.com> <4A3ECE09.13666.A8AEFE@joe.attorneyross.com> <4fc429770906220259g65385a6clfe4f545c1ecce60@mail.gmail.com> <176111.47760.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906221222o2a17171ehee3615f35d6dcf68@mail.gmail.com> You have to understand that it was Joe Kennedy who got the Herald-Traveler the license in the first place in return for the H-T getting the Pulitzer for JFK But then even as a GOP paper the Herald got involved in a nasty fight when Ted first ran for the Senate in 1962 and backed Eddie McCormick who was the nephew of John McCormick who would become Speaker of the House. Joe Kennedy. The Kennedy brothers were convinced that the Herald going after baby faced Teddy helped cause the stroke that Joe had in late 1961. Ted would not announce his plans until 1962 but the Herald didn't want to anger the elder McCormick figuring JFK was President their debt to Joe was paid in full. Then about 10 years ago came a book that Tip O'Neill worked as hard as he could to strip the license http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/documents/00469256.htm I spent a lot of time at the BPL microfilm center at Copley looking at papers from that era and the Herald started pounding Teddy around Thanksgiving of 1961. A month later Joe had the stroke. In the end Beanie Choate had betrayed both sides....as they brought disgrace to Eisenhower and the GOP to help get the license and then enraged the Kennedy family and Tip. The Herald obviously made peace with Bill Paley to get the CBS affiliation that would have gone to a proposed WEEI-TV but who knows who else wanted to nail the H-T From marklaurence@mac.com Mon Jun 22 15:23:57 2009 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:23:57 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship ofNBCby the Herald-Traveler) Message-ID: <0KLN00HPGN7F6M80@asmtp021.mac.com> I'd say Wayne Woodlief usually takes the more liberal viewpoint. He's retired from the Herald as a full-timer but still writes a weekly column. I think he actually began his Herald career at the Herald Traveler. Peter Gelzinis is more of a man-on-the-street writer than a political columnist, but when politics enters his writing, he comes across as a Democrat. -----Original Message----- From: Dan.Strassberg Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 2:41 PM To: Doug Drown ; Kevin Vahey ; A. Joseph Ross Cc: nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship ofNBCby the Herald-Traveler) The Herald-Traveler was at least as Republican as the Globe was Democratic. Don't know about then but currently, the Globe has at least one Republican columnist. Does the Herald have any Democratic columnists? ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "Kevin Vahey" ; "A. Joseph Ross" Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship ofNBCby the Herald-Traveler) > As I had said in a post some weeks ago regarding Boston newspapers, > I recall that when I was a boy growing up in the '60s, my Republican > elders usually purchased the Boston Herald and Traveler and > Democrats favored the Globe. But I don't really know to what extent > the H-T editors toed the Republican party line. Were the Herald and > Traveler really Republican newspapers, or were they independent? > What did they do that initially alienated the Kennedys? -Doug > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Vahey" > To: "A. Joseph Ross" > Cc: "nnewsgroup Boston-Radio-Interest" > > Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The > courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) > > >> Something else happened in 1969 to make the Kennedy Family even >> angrier at the Herald-Traveler and it involved an auto accident on >> Chappaquiddick Island. >> >> That accident happened on a Friday night/Saturday morning but both >> the >> Globe and Herald did not print anything until Monday but the Herald >> went big with the story on Sunday with a banner headline. >> >> Now did the family try to squash the story which by then a public >> record? Possibly but in any event the Herald ran with it and >> everybody >> played catch up the next day. >> >> Now in fairness there was another news event that weekend that was >> perhaps one of the Top Five news stories of the 20th Century...The >> First Moon Landing. >> >> A little irony the following Friday as the Kennedy Family had Ted >> issue a live statement from Hyannisport and paid WHDH-TV for the >> mobile unit and AT&T long lines set up back to Boston. It was >> supposed >> to be an address to Massachusetts voters only but wound up be >> carried >> live worldwide. I myself saw it at a department store in Toronto on >> CBC. >> >> What crime did the Herald do as all they did was report the story >> as >> they should have. Why did Tom Winship sit on it for 2 days is a >> better >> question. But it also showed the Kennedy Family could not control >> the >> Herald and that did not help their case in DC. >> >> Did the Herald use influence to get the license? Most >> certainly...but >> it pales by comparison on what the Chicago Tribune was able to pull >> off. The Tribune managed to get a VHF allocation in NYC on Channel >> 11 >> which ultimately forced WJAR to move to Channel 10 but also in co >> hoots with the Milwaukee Journal (WTMJ) to have the only VHF indy >> in >> Chicago as Channel 4's allocation was moved to Milwaukee and CBS >> who >> had bought Channel 4 in Chicago was moved to Channel 2 and Zenith >> lost >> everything. >> >> The FCC has always treated the Tribune with kid gloves which makes >> the >> Herald case that much sadder. >> >> http://www.chicagotelevision.com/WBKB.htm >> > From kvahey@comcast.net Mon Jun 22 17:40:50 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:40:50 -0500 Subject: Sporting News Radio takes a big hit Message-ID: <4fc429770906221440k1b6a3768y60615871d83e2b08@mail.gmail.com> WSCR Chicago just announced today they are dropping SNR overnight from 1-5 AM CT and going local.... This could be a major nail in their coffin From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 23 01:29:21 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:29:21 -0400 Subject: The courtship of NBC by the Hearld-Traveler In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906220631r2af2f293i4a3078be95399bb6@mail.gmail.com> References: <4fc429770906200736u72162babi286924662b9ec95b@mail.gmail.com>, <4A3ECE0A.23745.A8B251@joe.attorneyross.com>, <4fc429770906220631r2af2f293i4a3078be95399bb6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A402FF1.17940.9185B9@joe.attorneyross.com> On 22 Jun 2009 at 8:31, Kevin Vahey wrote: > At the bitter end even the FCC wanted to reopen the case but the > Supreme Court was most likely fed up that the case had dragged for 15 > years and at the time was the longest matter in Federal civil court > history which now belongs to the Exxon Alaska oil spill. Since this was largely a partisan battle between the Republican- oriented Herald Traveler and the Democratic-oriented Globe, I'm not surprised the FCC wanted to reopen the case. Nixon was in office at that time, and the Commission had a Republican majority. > One can 'what if' to death how things would have played out had > WHDH-TV survived. Most likely the Record-American would have been the > newspaper that died instead of the H-T. One could surmise that Hearst > may have ended up with Channel 5 anyways and perhaps the paper as well > if a waiver could be granted. Maybe, or maybe not. The Record-American was showing a profit or at least breaking even. The H-T was already a dying paper being kept alive by the television profits. > It never should have happened. I'll agree with that. The doctrine of greater diversity which was in vogue at the time was not served by killing off the Herald Traveler. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 23 01:29:22 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:29:22 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906221222o2a17171ehee3615f35d6dcf68@mail.gmail.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, , <4fc429770906221222o2a17171ehee3615f35d6dcf68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A402FF2.11354.918876@joe.attorneyross.com> On 22 Jun 2009 at 14:22, Kevin Vahey wrote: > But then even as a GOP paper the Herald got involved in a nasty fight > when Ted first ran for the Senate in 1962 and backed Eddie McCormick > who was the nephew of John McCormick who would become Speaker of the > House. John McCormack was already House Speaker. He was elected Speaker in January 1962, following the death of Sam Rayburn. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 23 01:29:22 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:29:22 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906221222o2a17171ehee3615f35d6dcf68@mail.gmail.com> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, , <4fc429770906221222o2a17171ehee3615f35d6dcf68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A402FF2.24100.918BA1@joe.attorneyross.com> On 22 Jun 2009 at 14:22, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Then about 10 years ago came a book that Tip O'Neill worked as hard as > he could to strip the license > > http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/docume > nts/00469256.htm I've often thought that the fall of the old Herald-Traveler had a lot to do with the decline of the old moderate-liberal Massachusetts Republican Party, as well as the Northeast moderate-liberal wing of the national party. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 23 01:29:21 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:29:21 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBCby the Herald-Traveler) In-Reply-To: <7B9426C76B4C4AA196FE82FEED4CBBA3@DougDrown> References: <50877.73087.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <7B9426C76B4C4AA196FE82FEED4CBBA3@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4A402FF1.1341.91873F@joe.attorneyross.com> On 22 Jun 2009 at 14:35, Doug Drown wrote: > As I had said in a post some weeks ago regarding Boston newspapers, I > recall that when I was a boy growing up in the '60s, my Republican > elders usually purchased the Boston Herald and Traveler and Democrats > favored the Globe. But I don't really know to what extent the H-T > editors toed the Republican party line. Were the Herald and Traveler > really Republican newspapers, or were they independent? What did they > do that initially alienated the Kennedys? -Doug I believe the Globe at the time refused to endorse political candidates. Some thought it was wishy-washy, but it advertised that the news pages were written by reporters who don't have an axe to grind, that they only took a stand on the editorial pages. But it was generally considered a Democratic paper and close to the Kennedys. The Herald generally favored Republican candidates, especially those of the Northeast liberal-moderate variety. I seem to recall that they were a bit lukewarm towards Goldwater, but they did tend to support Republicans like Volpe, Richardson, Brooke, Saltenstall, etc. I remember one time when they admitted as much. In 1966, Elliot Richardson, the sitting lieutenant governor, was running for attorney general against Frank Bellotti, who had been lieutenant governor in the previous Democratic administration. The polls showed them running neck-and-neck. At some point, fairly close to the election, Richardson made some ethics charges against Bellotti. I'm not sure what the substance was, and I didn't really understand them at the time. Richardson asked then-attorney-general Ed Brooke to investigate. The Herald, in a front-page editorial, repudiated Richardson, saying, "We usually support Repubican candidates, but ..." Well, Richardson won narrowly, perhaps because of the charges. The AG's investigation eventually exonerated Bellotti of any wrongdoing. Which caused some embarrassment to Richardson, since the investigation wasn't done by the time he took office. he announced a firewall of sorts to isolate him from the investigation, so that he wouldn't be seen to be investigating his own charges. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From attychase@comcast.net Tue Jun 23 08:38:49 2009 From: attychase@comcast.net (Robert S Chase) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:38:49 -0400 Subject: The Old WHDH-TV Channel 5 equipment (was Re: The courtship of NBC by the Herald-Traveler) References: Message-ID: <59FE5A6346A74EB8BF0E8C6AD6C212B4@HomeOffice> As I understand it originally newspapers in this country were started by, supported by, and took the positions of political parties. It was only with the rise of mass media in the first quarter of the 1900s where after the sensationalism to attract the reader there was a need not to offend the masses did professional journalism come as solution to maintain the business model. Although I don't necessarily agree with all the points in this excerpt http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2427/ nor with its conclusion necessarily, I do think it does a fairly good job of laying out the history of American journalism. Here's my point, this business of ethical (read professional) journalism is a recent phenomenon which is fast being eroded by new business models. For the press, i.e., the paper papers, the internet is the major competition. Their business model of mass circulation is under attack. Query whether it can survive. Radio and television never actually replaces the written story because even if the sound bite is interesting, it never can give a complete story like a news piece in a text based news source for those who want to think and discern. P.S. You know you are getting old when you refer to the period when you were growing up as the middle of the last century! From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 23 09:47:27 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:47:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: WFXT is moving 5p news Message-ID: <236593.27777.qm@web53302.mail.re2.yahoo.com> http://bostonherald.com/business/media/view/2009_06_23_5_p_m__Fox_newscast_raises_anchor__moves_up_an_hour/ WFXT is moving their 5pm news to 6p next fall to make room for the new "Dr. Oz" talk show. Given that this show is a spin-off from Oprah it's probably the only spot they can play it. It can't run against Dr. Phil (3p on WBZ) or Oprah (4p on WCVB) and probably wouldn't do well in the morning. It will be interesting to see if the Oprah crowd leaves the set on 5 after her show?or if they migrate over to 25. I'm guessing it will be the former as TV habits die hard. From dave@skywaves.net Tue Jun 23 13:32:47 2009 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:32:47 -0400 Subject: Vail Mills Tower info References: <899666.38973.qm@web55802.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <037E93F09880443CB1F577168A35EF59@skywaves.com> Hi, Matt- > Dave, I am originally from Broadalbin, and have always wondered exactly > where the old WCDB tower was located (nobody I ever talked to there even > knew what I was talking about when I would ask them about it). Would you > be able to tell me where exactly that was? I know I answered this before and gave you some directions. I had a few minutes and decided to dig a little farther into it in case you want go on a scouting mission some day with a GPS. I blew up the old 1:1,000,000 (1x2 degree) topo map of the area using the GeoPDF tool, and the coordinates appear to have been N 43 03 28 W 74 12 35. I would say this is accurate to within 4 seconds or so. That was in the NAD-27 coordinate system. In the more modern NAD-83 / WGS-84 system used by default in portable GPS units, that translates to N 43 03 28.3 W 74 12 33.5. Today, this is a wooded area, and I see nothing in the aerial and sat photos from Google Earth or the Terra Server - not even in the Terra Server's IR imagery - that looks like a building, foundation, or anything else man-made in the immediate vicinity. The tower was removed by 1968, probably several years earlier, and 40+ years is a lot of time for nature to cover the remains. If you can locate a 1950's-60's topo map of the area, you should be able to locate the tower more accurately. You might find this in a surveyor's office, the town records department, or almost certainly in the State Library in Albany. Keep in mind that you will have to convert the coordinates or set your GPS to NAD-27. Of couse, the town records department should have a site plan, and that would be best of all. -d From markwats@comcast.net Tue Jun 23 17:32:40 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:32:40 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away Message-ID: Ed McMahon, who spent 30 years as Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" sidekick, as well as hosting "Star Search" for several years, has passed away at the age of 86. McMahon's broadcasting career began at WLLH back in the 1930's, while attending Lowell High School. In 1996, McMahon appeared on WLLH once again during a special live remote broadcast hosted by the late Paul Sullivan as the City of Lowell honored him with a park bench named for him on the downtown Lowell campus of Middlesex Community College, the bench placed in the spot where the Rex Center, the home of WLLH's Lowell studio once stood. A link to the Lowell Sun website with a file photo of McMahon sitting on his bench in 1996: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_12670863 Mark Watson From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 23 19:33:49 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:33:49 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away References: Message-ID: McMahon did the TOH station IDs for WLLH back in the '80s, IIRC --- a nice historical touch. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Watson" To: "Boston Radio" Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:32 PM Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away > Ed McMahon, who spent 30 years as Johnny Carson's "Tonight Show" > sidekick, as well as hosting "Star Search" for several years, has passed > away at the age of 86. McMahon's broadcasting career began at WLLH back in > the 1930's, while attending Lowell High School. In 1996, McMahon appeared > on WLLH once again during a special live remote broadcast hosted by the > late Paul Sullivan as the City of Lowell honored him with a park bench > named for him on the downtown Lowell campus of Middlesex Community > College, the bench placed in the spot where the Rex Center, the home of > WLLH's Lowell studio once stood. > > A link to the Lowell Sun website with a file photo of McMahon sitting on > his bench in 1996: > > http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_12670863 > > Mark Watson > From markwats@comcast.net Tue Jun 23 20:13:41 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:13:41 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away References: Message-ID: <7579139C28B04DA0A6A9FDFAF346F880@Mark> > McMahon did the TOH station IDs for WLLH back in the '80s, IIRC --- a nice > historical touch. I forgot about that. Wish I had airchecked one. Mark Watson From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 23 21:01:17 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:01:17 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away References: <7579139C28B04DA0A6A9FDFAF346F880@Mark> Message-ID: The first time I heard Ed McMahon's WLLH ID I was very pleasantly surprised. It was an appropriate tribute both ways --- from the station to him and from him to the station at which he began his career. I wonder if there are other famous personalities who have done something similar. I don't know of any. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Watson" To: "Doug Drown" ; "Boston Radio" Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:13 PM Subject: Re: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away > > >> McMahon did the TOH station IDs for WLLH back in the '80s, IIRC --- a >> nice historical touch. > > I forgot about that. Wish I had airchecked one. > > Mark Watson > From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Jun 23 21:11:54 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:11:54 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: References: <7579139C28B04DA0A6A9FDFAF346F880@Mark> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906231811p74c50623u3a161172af70cc58@mail.gmail.com> Another very famous celebrity did something similar... (sung jingle...WNMB) "I'm Vanna White from North Myrtle Beach .. it's the radio station where all our listeners are big wheels".. (sung jingle.. 900 WNMB North Myrtle Beach) I have a copy on mp3 if anyone wants it. Paul Walker www.facebook.com/onairdj www.onairdj.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Doug Drown wrote: > The first time I heard Ed McMahon's WLLH ID I was very pleasantly > surprised. It was an appropriate tribute both ways --- from the station to > him and from him to the station at which he began his career. > > I wonder if there are other famous personalities who have done something > similar. I don't know of any. -Doug > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Watson" > To: "Doug Drown" ; "Boston Radio" < > boston-radio-interest@rolinin.bostonradio.org> > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:13 PM > Subject: Re: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away > > > > >> >> McMahon did the TOH station IDs for WLLH back in the '80s, IIRC --- a >>> nice historical touch. >>> >> >> I forgot about that. Wish I had airchecked one. >> >> Mark Watson >> >> > - From dillane@sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 23 22:25:29 2009 From: dillane@sbcglobal.net (Bill Dillane) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:25:29 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away Message-ID: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> The Mass Communications Center at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, CT is named after Ed McMahon. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x3854.xml From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 23 23:07:46 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:07:46 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> Message-ID: <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> I wonder what the connection was with Quinnipiac? Ed was a Catholic U. grad, and while I haven't seen the obituary I think he was at least raised in Lowell, if not born there. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Dillane" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:25 PM Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away > The Mass Communications Center at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, CT is > named after Ed McMahon. > > http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x3854.xml > From kvahey@comcast.net Tue Jun 23 23:14:41 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:14:41 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4fc429770906232014y727bde2epf3a2fc4165a91af1@mail.gmail.com> I met Ed McMahon a few times and he was a nice guy. First when I was 11 he posed for a picture outside the Little Theater where he was working with Johnny on a daytime game show for ABC Then later in the 60's I would try and get standby tickets for the Carson show and found out if you grabbed him at the Walgreens lunch counter at 30 Rock he would get you in for the taping as in those days it wasn't a hard ticket. Most memorable was somehow the infamous WXPO-TV was able to get him to co host the Lowell Holiday Festival Parade with a another Lowell radio personality who I think was Tom Clayton. We didn't have a mobile truck so poor Ed was perched on a fire escape on the side of the Dutton St building overlooking the diner and Merit Station while I am trying to shoot the parade. Years later I saw him in Burbank and he remembered that fiasco well and told me he still had the check from WXPO because it bounced. But he also gave me the thrill of a lifetime as he brought me backstage to meet Johnny and Carson laughed hysterically at the whole parade story. From kvahey@comcast.net Tue Jun 23 23:48:02 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:48:02 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> His obit in the NY Times said he moved to Lowell for his senior year in high school and lived with his grandma. He also took speech lessons at Emerson. He was born in Detroit but his family was always moving as he attended some 15 high schools before going to Lowell I didn't know he was a combat pilot in Korea From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Tue Jun 23 23:54:23 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:54:23 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> FIFTEEN High schools BEFORE Lowell? That means it was 15 high schools in 3 years. WOW! Paul Walker www.facebook.com/onairdj www.onairdj.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > His obit in the NY Times said he moved to Lowell for his senior year > in high school and lived with his grandma. He also took speech lessons > at Emerson. He was born in Detroit but his family was always moving as > he attended some 15 high schools before going to Lowell > > I didn't know he was a combat pilot in Korea > From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 24 00:03:01 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:03:01 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906232103x2ea6b0e5m1090d90fd1da2f61@mail.gmail.com> he had quite the life in reading this http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=379941&single=1&f=31 I remember he used to warn the audience in NY that if you were wanted by the FBI you better leave as we will show you From irw@well.com Wed Jun 24 00:12:23 2009 From: irw@well.com (Blaine Thompson) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > FIFTEEN High schools BEFORE Lowell? That means it was 15 high schools in > 3 years. WOW! Indeed. The best two headlines I saw today: "He was number one at being number two" "Ed and Johnny, Together Again" After watching ABC's World News Tonight, I learned that he launched "little Britney Spears." The angle on WLLH is most interesting, too. Best, - Blaine From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Wed Jun 24 00:23:26 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:23:26 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906232123v7e98f70as29c51e8cbdcfa039@mail.gmail.com> And people (ahem) make jokes about ME moving around alot for jbos and such.. hmmm... Paul Walker www.facbeook.com/onairdj www.onairdj.com On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Blaine Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > > FIFTEEN High schools BEFORE Lowell? That means it was 15 high schools in 3 >> years. WOW! >> > > Indeed. The best two headlines I saw today: > > "He was number one at being number two" > > "Ed and Johnny, Together Again" > > After watching ABC's World News Tonight, I learned that he launched "little > Britney Spears." > > The angle on WLLH is most interesting, too. > > Best, > - Blaine > > From dillane@sbcglobal.net Wed Jun 24 00:28:01 2009 From: dillane@sbcglobal.net (Bill Dillane) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:28:01 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away Message-ID: <000301c9f484$30c1fdd0$9245f970$@net> >I wonder what the connection was with Quinnipiac? >> http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x3854.xml Ed McMahon's daughter had attended Quinnipiac, and Mr. McMahon later made a sizable donation toward the construction of a new mass communications center that opened in 1993. (Source - Hartford Courant, 11/5/95.) From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Wed Jun 24 01:23:38 2009 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:23:38 -0500 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <8bce0fe80906232123v7e98f70as29c51e8cbdcfa039@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net> <7F67670E9DDD4BDBBD4371D1B5F49BA2@DougDrown> <4fc429770906232048h460d4f39g2ed78c99adf625ff@mail.gmail.com> <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com> <8bce0fe80906232123v7e98f70as29c51e8cbdcfa039@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8bce0fe80906232223x734a3e14le754b85657ff4726@mail.gmail.com> Woops, *jobs*! Paul On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. < walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com> wrote: > And people (ahem) make jokes about ME moving around alot for jbos and > such.. hmmm... > > Paul Walker > www.facbeook.com/onairdj > www.onairdj.com > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Blaine Thompson wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: >> >> FIFTEEN High schools BEFORE Lowell? That means it was 15 high schools in >>> 3 years. WOW! >>> >> >> Indeed. The best two headlines I saw today: >> >> "He was number one at being number two" >> >> "Ed and Johnny, Together Again" >> >> After watching ABC's World News Tonight, I learned that he launched >> "little Britney Spears." >> >> The angle on WLLH is most interesting, too. >> >> Best, >> - Blaine >> >> > -- Sincerely, Paul B. Walker, Jr. www.onairdj.com walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com From joe@attorneyross.com Wed Jun 24 01:29:37 2009 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:29:37 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906232103x2ea6b0e5m1090d90fd1da2f61@mail.gmail.com> References: <00c301c9f473$161dfc10$4259f430$@net>, <8bce0fe80906232054r2eb61bcaw927806935f5b5db@mail.gmail.com>, <4fc429770906232103x2ea6b0e5m1090d90fd1da2f61@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A418181.31605.83022F@joe.attorneyross.com> On 23 Jun 2009 at 23:03, Kevin Vahey wrote: > he had quite the life in reading this > > > http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=379941&single=1&f=31 This says that in Philadelphia one of his roles was as a clown. I've read elsewhere that he was a clown on a show called the "Sealtest Big Top," which was seen live at noon Saturday in the east, originated from WCAU-TV in Philadelphia. I believe he was the clown who, in addition to being part of the "Clown Corner" act, also appeared at the show opening with a flashing nose which said "CBS Presents." Then he put his head down, and on his head were the words "Sealtest Big Top." -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From bill.smith@comcast.net Wed Jun 24 11:44:07 2009 From: bill.smith@comcast.net (Bill Smith) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:44:07 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away Message-ID: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> Wow. Haaving something named after you in Lowell. Ed must have been overwhelmed. I was thinking about that very point just the other day as I drove over the John E. Cox Bridge by the Jack Kerouac Commemorative into Kearney Square and turned right, away from the F. Bradford Morse Federal Building and the Bradford Morse Walkway at the Memorial Auditorium onto French Street past the Clement Gregory McDonough Magnet School and the Patrick J.Mogan Cultural Center, heading onto Fr. Spike Morrisette Boulevard past Lowell High School and its Cyrus W. Irish Auditiorium and the Daniel P. Kane Courtyard Restaurant, taking a right at the Ray Riddick Field House, away from the John F. Kennedy Civic Centert toward the John F. Cox Traffic Circle in front of the Paul E. Tsongas Arena on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard so that I could make my way to the George Ayotte parking garage. Alas, with pockets heavy with quarters it was too far to walk to the Dave Faneuf Laundry Facility. From lsochrin@rcn.com Mon Jun 22 08:49:49 2009 From: lsochrin@rcn.com (Larry Sochrin) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:49:49 -0400 Subject: What ever happened to . . . Message-ID: I've occasionally wondered whatever happened to Steve Fredericks? He used to do an overnight talk show, I think, on WMEX, I'd guess around 1969-1972, when I first moved to the area. I remember he would close with "Please, work for peace," since it was Vietnam War days. I believe that he went back to Philadelphia from where he'd come, to do a sports show, but seemed to disappear after that. Larry From songbook24@gmail.com Tue Jun 23 22:50:25 2009 From: songbook24@gmail.com (Russ Butler) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:50:25 -0700 Subject: George Carlin on WEZE? Message-ID: <4A419471.4070301@gmail.com> Noticed this on the OTR Digest: 05-12-1937 - George Carlin - NYC - d. 6-22-2008 comedian : Was an announcer for WEZE Boston, Massachusetts When and what shift was he on the air at 1260AM WEZE (maybe after WVDA had 1260AM?) and was he a deejay with the "Beautiful Music" format? (Who can forget "wonderful WINO!!") George was a part of the comedy team with Jack Burns on KXOL in Ft. Worth TX in 1959, and then did their "Wright Brothers" morning comedy show at KDAY in LA in 1960. After that, it was TV appearances and nightclubs. When was he on WEZE? Thanks for the reply. =Russ From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 24 12:23:58 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:23:58 -0500 Subject: What ever happened to . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4fc429770906240923g68ad5f58q614181b96c5cc507@mail.gmail.com> Steve was simply homesick for his native Phiadelphia. After he was fired by WCAU as the Sixers play by play man (he did the Philly version of "Havlicek Stole the Ball!") he came to Boston and WMEX to do news but was being groomed by Philly native Mac Richmond to take over for Jerry Williams who Mac knew was leaving for Chicago. He stayed at WMEX until 1971 and then moved to do sports at WEEI. When they went all news he went back to Philly and then returned to WMEX in 75 where he hosted the afternoon show doing sports and would be replaced later by Cliff and Claff. He went back to WCAU and had a well documented run in with police concerning drugs but CBS supported him. He then went to WFAN in 1990 when WCAU was killed in the middle of the day and became a simulcast of FM oldies. Finally he was offered a job at WEEI when they went all sports but elected to go to WIP where he remained until he retired a few years ago. On 6/22/09, Larry Sochrin wrote: > I've occasionally wondered whatever happened to Steve Fredericks? He > used to do an overnight talk show, I think, on WMEX, I'd guess around > 1969-1972, when I first moved to the area. I remember he would close > with "Please, work for peace," since it was Vietnam War days. I > believe that he went back to Philadelphia from where he'd come, to do > a sports show, but seemed to disappear after that. > > Larry > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 24 13:23:30 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:23:30 -0400 Subject: George Carlin on WEZE? References: <4A419471.4070301@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9AB7F0B74A004A22B484DBDCBC431E01@DougDrown> Check out Wikipedia. It mentions Carlin being discharged from the USAF in 1957 and joining KXOL in 1959, so if he worked at WEZE, it had to have been during that two-year time frame. I thought he worked for KHJ for a while, but there's no mention of it. I must be wrong(?). -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Butler" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:50 PM Subject: George Carlin on WEZE? > Noticed this on the OTR Digest: 05-12-1937 - George Carlin - NYC - d. > 6-22-2008 > comedian : Was an announcer for WEZE Boston, Massachusetts > > When and what shift was he on the air at 1260AM WEZE (maybe after WVDA had > 1260AM?) and was he a deejay with the "Beautiful Music" format? (Who can > forget "wonderful WINO!!") > > George was a part of the comedy team with Jack Burns on KXOL in Ft. Worth > TX in 1959, and then did their "Wright Brothers" morning comedy show at > KDAY in LA in 1960. After that, it was TV appearances and nightclubs. > When was he on WEZE? > > Thanks for the reply. =Russ > From kvahey@comcast.net Wed Jun 24 13:42:46 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:42:46 -0500 Subject: George Carlin on WEZE? In-Reply-To: <9AB7F0B74A004A22B484DBDCBC431E01@DougDrown> References: <4A419471.4070301@gmail.com> <9AB7F0B74A004A22B484DBDCBC431E01@DougDrown> Message-ID: <4fc429770906241042o63b27984w15d99d41d918c0d2@mail.gmail.com> It appears he was at WEZE for about 3 months in 1959 and was fired when he 'borrowed' the news van http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2008/08/the-early-georg.html From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Wed Jun 24 14:11:21 2009 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:11:21 -0400 Subject: What ever happened to . . . References: Message-ID: <436A52B9EBF148E18C24C8FBA1F6E14D@teddesktop> Hi Larry: here's the story from the archives. http://lists.bostonradio.org/pipermail/boston-radio-interest/2004-April/002542.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Sochrin" To: Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:49 AM Subject: What ever happened to . . . > I've occasionally wondered whatever happened to Steve Fredericks? He > used to do an overnight talk show, I think, on WMEX, I'd guess around > 1969-1972, when I first moved to the area. I remember he would close > with "Please, work for peace," since it was Vietnam War days. I believe > that he went back to Philadelphia from where he'd come, to do a sports > show, but seemed to disappear after that. > > Larry > > From paulranderson@charter.net Wed Jun 24 13:24:11 2009 From: paulranderson@charter.net (Paul Anderson) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:24:11 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 Message-ID: <7tQB1c00W1xk9L405tQBfr@charter.net> I'm confused about the order of things in the late '50s when WHYN-TV Springfield changed network affiliation and channel number. They used to be a CBS affiliate and they used to be on channel 55. Wikipedia says they switched from CBS to ABC in 1958 when WTIC-TV Hartford switched from independent to CBS, and then switched channels from 55 to 40 in 1959. How, then, to explain the TV Guide ad showing channel 40 (and 12 Providence and 18 Hartford) carrying a CBS show (Top Dollar) in 1958? It seems the Wikipedia article is wrong. Can anyone provide accurate information? And I've never seen information about the programming on WTIC-TV while they were an independent. Any information there would be appreciated, too. Paul From abruzzese@biochem.bumc.bu.edu Wed Jun 24 14:24:08 2009 From: abruzzese@biochem.bumc.bu.edu (Anthony Abruzzese) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:24:08 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A426F48.2050105@biochem.bumc.bu.edu> Bill Smith wrote: > Wow. Haaving something named after you in Lowell. Ed must have been > overwhelmed. > IIRC, Ed was in town for the WLLC thing and ended up in an interview with Carole Cowan, President of Middlesex Community College. There was some comment about the city of Lowell doing, or not doing to honor Ed. The discussion got around to what would be a fitting monument and Ed made an off-the-cuff comment about having a park bench named in his honor. At this point, Dr. Cowan piped up that if that was what he wanted, she could get it done. I don't know whether or not the old studio location is a coincidence or not, but the bench is where it is because of MCC and Dr. Cowan. Note that some of us at the college were of the opinion that the whole thing was a silly piece of grandstanding by the president, but being politically connected in Lowell, she usually got what she wanted. Tony -- ===================================================================== Tony Abruzzese abruzzes@bu.edu Dept of Biochemistry 617-638-5092 Dept of Anatomy & Neurobiology Division of Graduate Medical Sciences Boston University School of Medicine ==================================================================== From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Wed Jun 24 14:59:20 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:59:20 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 References: <7tQB1c00W1xk9L405tQBfr@charter.net> Message-ID: <379FC139C15442FFB4D9B641A4D037E7@DougDrown> Vane Jones's North American Radio & TV Station Listings for 1958 gives WHYN-TV as being on 40. It was on 55 in 1956; I used to have a collection of TV Guides from that year (don't I wish I had 'em now!) -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Anderson" To: "Boston Radio Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:24 PM Subject: Springfield channel 40 > I'm confused about the order of things in the late '50s when WHYN-TV > Springfield changed network affiliation and channel number. > > They used to be a CBS affiliate and they used to be on channel 55. > > Wikipedia says they switched from CBS to ABC in 1958 when WTIC-TV > Hartford switched from independent to CBS, and then switched channels > from 55 to 40 in 1959. > > > > How, then, to explain the TV Guide ad showing channel 40 (and 12 > Providence and 18 Hartford) carrying a CBS show (Top Dollar) in 1958? > > > > It seems the Wikipedia article is wrong. Can anyone provide accurate > information? > > And I've never seen information about the programming on WTIC-TV while > they were an independent. Any information there would be appreciated, > too. > > Paul > From dlh@donnahalper.com Wed Jun 24 16:15:25 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:15:25 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <379FC139C15442FFB4D9B641A4D037E7@DougDrown> References: <7tQB1c00W1xk9L405tQBfr@charter.net> <379FC139C15442FFB4D9B641A4D037E7@DougDrown> Message-ID: <20090624201533.9DAE21E5992@relay10.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 02:59 PM 6/24/2009, Doug Drown wrote: >Vane Jones's North American Radio & TV Station Listings for 1958 >gives WHYN-TV as being on 40. It was on 55 in 1956; I used to have >a collection of TV Guides from that year (don't I wish I had 'em now!) First, I never trust Wikipedia. That said, my 1956 and 1957 Radio/TV Annuals do list WHYN-TV as channel 55, a CBS affiliate. From markwats@comcast.net Wed Jun 24 18:18:19 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:19 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away References: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <518DBB61C2614F69BB7E62AA44441960@Mark> Bill Smith wrote: > Wow. Haaving something named after you in Lowell. Ed must have been > overwhelmed. At the bank where I work by day, earlier this year they named the meeting room where the board of directors meet 10 times a year after Arnold Lerner, former owner of WLLH, WSSH, and a few other stations over the years. Mr. Lerner has been on the bank's BOD since day one. And I just saw him last week on his way to one of those meetings. Mark Watson From martinjwaters@yahoo.com Wed Jun 24 18:29:16 2009 From: martinjwaters@yahoo.com (Martin Waters) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Springfield channel 40 Message-ID: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Donna Halper wrote: > > First, I never trust Wikipedia. > But I saw a rumor on the internet that half of what's on Wikipedia might be true . . . :) Of course, then you have to apply the great unified gewneral theory that 20 percent of everything that's on the internet might be true . . . From billohno@gmail.com Wed Jun 24 20:25:04 2009 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:25:04 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A42C3E0.8030809@gmail.com> Excuse me while I pick myself up off of the floor, the fall onto which was secondary to uncontrollable laughter after reading Mr. Smith's trip around the neighborhood. Bill O' Bill Smith wrote: > Wow. Haaving something named after you in Lowell. Ed must have been > overwhelmed. > I was thinking about that very point just the other day as I drove over the > John E. Cox Bridge by the Jack Kerouac Commemorative into Kearney Square and > turned right, away from the F. Bradford Morse Federal Building and the > Bradford Morse Walkway at the Memorial Auditorium onto French Street past > the Clement Gregory McDonough Magnet School and the Patrick J.Mogan Cultural > Center, heading onto Fr. Spike Morrisette Boulevard past Lowell High School > and its Cyrus W. Irish Auditiorium and the Daniel P. Kane Courtyard > Restaurant, taking a right at the Ray Riddick Field House, away from the > John F. Kennedy Civic Centert toward the John F. Cox Traffic Circle in front > of the Paul E. Tsongas Arena on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard so that I > could make my way to the George Ayotte parking garage. > Alas, with pockets heavy with quarters it was too far to walk to the Dave > Faneuf Laundry Facility. > > From rogerkirk@ttlc.net Thu Jun 25 01:00:38 2009 From: rogerkirk@ttlc.net (Roger Kirk) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:00:38 -0400 Subject: Ex-WLLH Personality Ed McMahon Has Passed Away In-Reply-To: <4A42C3E0.8030809@gmail.com> References: <3ffa0ce20906240844u5638c2ffpa277b1a6d8cf18a5@mail.gmail.com> <4A42C3E0.8030809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A430476.8070300@ttlc.net> Pity you didn't have time to drive by Staff Sgt. Costas A. Ivos Square next to the Joan Fabrics building (old WLLH) on Broadway. Bill O'Neill wrote: > Excuse me while I pick myself up off of the floor, the fall onto which > was secondary to uncontrollable laughter after reading Mr. Smith's > trip around the neighborhood. > Bill O' > > Bill Smith wrote: >> Wow. Haaving something named after you in Lowell. Ed must have been >> overwhelmed. >> I was thinking about that very point just the other day as I drove >> over the >> John E. Cox Bridge by the Jack Kerouac Commemorative into Kearney >> Square and >> turned right, away from the F. Bradford Morse Federal Building and the >> Bradford Morse Walkway at the Memorial Auditorium onto French Street >> past >> the Clement Gregory McDonough Magnet School and the Patrick J.Mogan >> Cultural >> Center, heading onto Fr. Spike Morrisette Boulevard past Lowell High >> School >> and its Cyrus W. Irish Auditiorium and the Daniel P. Kane Courtyard >> Restaurant, taking a right at the Ray Riddick Field House, away from the >> John F. Kennedy Civic Centert toward the John F. Cox Traffic Circle >> in front >> of the Paul E. Tsongas Arena on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard so >> that I >> could make my way to the George Ayotte parking garage. >> Alas, with pockets heavy with quarters it was too far to walk to the >> Dave >> Faneuf Laundry Facility. >> >> > > > > From raccoonradio@mail.com Thu Jun 25 03:06:29 2009 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:06:29 -0500 Subject: Carr doing fill in for Dennis Miller Message-ID: <20090625070629.353BE905C3E@ws1-5a.us4.outblaze.com> Howie Carr said a couple times on his show yesterday that today (6/25) he will fill in for Dennis Miller's radio show on 200 stations nationwide. In Boston, his affiliate is WRKO--but only a best of on weekends, and usually pre-empted by Red Sox. The boys of summer also pre-empt or delay Dennis Miller on WCRN in Worcester too (they slot him tape delayed at night) but somewhere, sometime tomorrow some New England stations will carry Carr on Dennis' show. And the show is streamed on Miller's web site. That's Dennis, not Stephanie, Miller folks (fear not, AM 1510 will not subject you to the Fried Clam Man!) Howie has tried national syndication of his show before but it didn't quite work out (too provincial for outside New England?) At one time or another he had affiliates in such places as Newark OH; Seattle; Florida, Wisconsin, and Utah. Now Howie will be heard--today at least--on a couple hundred stations, as a fill-in. (Howie also did some fill-in shows "on the side" for KFI in L.A. a few years back.) From kvahey@comcast.net Thu Jun 25 07:47:12 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:47:12 -0500 Subject: Carr doing fill in for Dennis Miller In-Reply-To: <20090625070629.353BE905C3E@ws1-5a.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20090625070629.353BE905C3E@ws1-5a.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906250447x190043e6mb3e80056c660ad26@mail.gmail.com> Mitt Romney and Ann Coulter will be his featured guests In Chicago I can listen to him on WIND live which is a great set of call letters for him From map@mapinternet.com Thu Jun 25 09:55:56 2009 From: map@mapinternet.com (Mark Casey) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:55:56 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 References: <7tQB1c00W1xk9L405tQBfr@charter.net> Message-ID: <0260AC8F72D64CE3B63D08061C5F5EC9@yourm3vezyx8af> Seems to me that the WHYN-TV channel change from 55 to 40 occured well before 1959. WTIC-3 was independent for only a very short time. Their Wikipedia article says from sign-on in Sept 1957 to early 1958. That sounds about right. Mark Casey, K1MAP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Anderson" To: "Boston Radio Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:24 PM Subject: Springfield channel 40 I'm confused about the order of things in the late '50s when WHYN-TV Springfield changed network affiliation and channel number. They used to be a CBS affiliate and they used to be on channel 55. Wikipedia says they switched from CBS to ABC in 1958 when WTIC-TV Hartford switched from independent to CBS, and then switched channels from 55 to 40 in 1959. How, then, to explain the TV Guide ad showing channel 40 (and 12 Providence and 18 Hartford) carrying a CBS show (Top Dollar) in 1958? It seems the Wikipedia article is wrong. Can anyone provide accurate information? And I've never seen information about the programming on WTIC-TV while they were an independent. Any information there would be appreciated, too. Paul From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Thu Jun 25 11:48:43 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:48:43 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 References: <7tQB1c00W1xk9L405tQBfr@charter.net> <0260AC8F72D64CE3B63D08061C5F5EC9@yourm3vezyx8af> Message-ID: <1CB07D4FAABE4BF7A63C9EACD27167B7@DougDrown> While we're on this subject, does anyone know why the channel change from 55 to 40 took place? I'm also curious about one other thing. WTIC Radio was a long-time NBC affiliate (up until the Westwood One takeover, when it moved to CBS). Granted, NBC already had TV affiliates in the Hartford-Springfield area with WWLP and WNBC (then an NBC O & O), but given WTIC's already-existing connection with NBC, one would have thought the network would have competed with CBS for what must have been a coveted channel 3 affiliation. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Casey" To: "Paul Anderson" ; "Boston Radio Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:55 AM Subject: Re: Springfield channel 40 > Seems to me that the WHYN-TV channel change from 55 to 40 occured well > before 1959. > > WTIC-3 was independent for only a very short time. Their Wikipedia article > says from sign-on in Sept 1957 to early 1958. That sounds about right. > > Mark Casey, K1MAP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Anderson" > To: "Boston Radio Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:24 PM > Subject: Springfield channel 40 > > > I'm confused about the order of things in the late '50s when WHYN-TV > Springfield changed network affiliation and channel number. > > They used to be a CBS affiliate and they used to be on channel 55. > > Wikipedia says they switched from CBS to ABC in 1958 when WTIC-TV > Hartford switched from independent to CBS, and then switched channels > from 55 to 40 in 1959. > > > > How, then, to explain the TV Guide ad showing channel 40 (and 12 > Providence and 18 Hartford) carrying a CBS show (Top Dollar) in 1958? > > > > It seems the Wikipedia article is wrong. Can anyone provide accurate > information? > > And I've never seen information about the programming on WTIC-TV while > they were an independent. Any information there would be appreciated, > too. > > Paul > > From wollman@bimajority.org Thu Jun 25 12:44:22 2009 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:44:22 -0400 Subject: WGBH nightlight Message-ID: <19011.43366.501416.852163@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> I just found out that WGBH is now planning on doing the full 30 days of nightlight, rather than 14 as they had originally filed. That keeps them on until Sunday, July 12, joining channels 4 and 5. -GAWollman From kvahey@comcast.net Thu Jun 25 14:06:31 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:06:31 -0500 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4fc429770906251106n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6@mail.gmail.com> Have to remember Channel 30 signed on in 1953 and was later bought by NBC and even had the calls WNBC in the late 50's From m_carney@yahoo.com Thu Jun 25 15:08:46 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906251106n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906251106n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <863927.71537.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Also, many UHF stations changed to lower channels to reduce the cost of running a transmitter, which was quite expensive in the 1950s. From Joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 25 15:28:24 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:28:24 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <863927.71537.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, <4fc429770906251106n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6@mail.gmail.com>, <863927.71537.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A439798.18592.2E9FDA@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 25 Jun 2009 Maureen Carney wrote: > Also, many UHF stations changed to lower channels to reduce the cost > of running a transmitter, which was quite expensive in the 1950s. Also to increase their range, I would think. I'm thinking of WMGT (now WCDC) on Mt. Greylock, which was channel 74 and then moved to 19. On channel 19, they have been able to cover most of Western Massachusetts. The move also made them a player in the Albany area. I wouldn't think there would be that much of a technical difference between channel 55 and channel 40, but perhaps the engineers on this forum will tell us otherwise. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From scott@fybush.com Thu Jun 25 16:00:37 2009 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:00:37 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <4fc429770906251106n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4fc429770906251106n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A43D765.7040904@fybush.com> Kevin Vahey wrote: > Have to remember Channel 30 signed on in 1953 and was later bought by > NBC and even had the calls WNBC in the late 50's > Not that that stopped NBC from moving down to a VHF outlet when one became available in Buffalo. NBC owned WBUF-TV, channel 17 in Buffalo, from 1955 until 1958, competing with CBS affiliate WBEN-TV 4 (the first station in town, since 1948) and ABC affiliate WGR-TV 2, new to the air in 1954. When a third VHF station was ready to sign on - WKBW-TV 7, in 1958 - NBC threw in the towel, donating the channel 17 facilities to public TV (it returned as WNED in 1959), affiliating with WGR-TV and letting ABC go to WKBW-TV. There was no more commercial UHF in Buffalo until 1970, when indie WUTV 29 came on... s From aerie.ma@comcast.net Thu Jun 25 16:19:19 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:19:19 -0400 Subject: WKOX Message-ID: Clear Channel must be thrilled that WKOX has doubled its rating since the upgrade.from 0.4 to 0.8! From kc1ih@mac.com Thu Jun 25 15:54:32 2009 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:54:32 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <4A439798.18592.2E9FDA@Joe.attorneyross.com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <"4fc429770906251106 n7672f546ib028d21203e21e6"@mail.gmail.com> <863927.71537.qm@web53308.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4A439798.18592.2E9FDA@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <000001c9f5ce$c7680180$56380480$@com> > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of A. Joseph Ross > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 3:28 PM > To: Maureen Carney > Cc: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org > Subject: Re: Springfield channel 40 > > > Also to increase their range, I would think. I'm thinking of WMGT > (now WCDC) on Mt. Greylock, which was channel 74 and then moved to > 19. On channel 19, they have been able to cover most of Western > Massachusetts. The move also made them a player in the Albany area. > I thought Channel 19 (or wherever their digital signal is now) is already duplicating one of the Albany stations? From Joe@attorneyross.com Thu Jun 25 18:26:09 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:26:09 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <000001c9f5ce$c7680180$56380480$@com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, <4A439798.18592.2E9FDA@Joe.attorneyross.com>, <000001c9f5ce$c7680180$56380480$@com> Message-ID: <4A43C141.12067.D15F3E@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 25 Jun 2009 Larry Weil wrote: > I thought Channel 19 (or wherever their digital signal is now) is > already duplicating one of the Albany stations? It has been since it became WCDC in 1956. But for awhile, it was WMGT, a separate station, with a DuMont affiliation. When it moved to channel 19, it could serve the Albany area, although it was listed in the Times-Union when it was on channel 74. Then a storm blew down their tower, the DuMont network died, and when they returned to the air, they were WCDC, duplicating WCDA 41 in Albany and WCDB 29 in Hagaman. WCDA-WCDB eventually became WTEN, channel 10, and WCDC continued to duplicate them on Mt. Greylock. In my senior year at UMass Amherst, I moved to one of the high-rise dorms and discovered that the dorm TV could pick up channel 19, relaying WTEN. I remember watching the 1966 New York gubernatorial debate. Sometime in the 1970s, I took an old Zenith portable B&W TV to a friend in Brimfield for him to install a new filter capacitor. He was surprised to get a snowy, but quite watchable signal in Brimfield from channel 19, using only the set's UHF ring antenna. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Thu Jun 25 21:16:38 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:16:38 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, <4A439798.18592.2E9FDA@Joe.attorneyross.com>, <000001c9f5ce$c7680180$56380480$@com> <4A43C141.12067.D15F3E@Joe.attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <95E7CC1906F4424D8F045EB2F673DC80@DougDrown> When I lived in Royalston I had a VHF-UHF antenna in the (enormous) attic of my house, and could get channel 19 almost as clearly as any of the stations in Boston. I often watched the Albany news. It came in far better than Springfield. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" To: "Larry Weil" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:26 PM Subject: RE: Springfield channel 40 > On 25 Jun 2009 Larry Weil wrote: > >> I thought Channel 19 (or wherever their digital signal is now) is >> already duplicating one of the Albany stations? > > It has been since it became WCDC in 1956. But for awhile, it was > WMGT, a separate station, with a DuMont affiliation. When it moved > to channel 19, it could serve the Albany area, although it was listed > in the Times-Union when it was on channel 74. Then a storm blew down > their tower, the DuMont network died, and when they returned to the > air, they were WCDC, duplicating WCDA 41 in Albany and WCDB 29 in > Hagaman. WCDA-WCDB eventually became WTEN, channel 10, and WCDC > continued to duplicate them on Mt. Greylock. > > In my senior year at UMass Amherst, I moved to one of the high-rise > dorms and discovered that the dorm TV could pick up channel 19, > relaying WTEN. I remember watching the 1966 New York gubernatorial > debate. > > Sometime in the 1970s, I took an old Zenith portable B&W TV to a > friend in Brimfield for him to install a new filter capacitor. He > was surprised to get a snowy, but quite watchable signal in Brimfield > from channel 19, using only the set's UHF ring antenna. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 > 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 > Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Fri Jun 26 14:02:45 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:02:45 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, <4A439798.18592.2E9FDA@Joe.attorneyross.com>, <000001c9f5ce$c7680180$56380480$@com><4A43C141.12067.D15F3E@Joe.attorneyross.com> <95E7CC1906F4424D8F045EB2F673DC80@DougDrown> Message-ID: <41E2E05DA8D74F31B4005A223322E3F7@DougDrown> WCDA 41 was on the air for quite a few years after channel 10 was established. It may have been as late as the '70s that it became defunct. I presume it filled some topological gap in 10 and 19's signals. -Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Drown" To: "A. Joseph Ross" ; "Larry Weil" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:16 PM Subject: Re: Springfield channel 40 > When I lived in Royalston I had a VHF-UHF antenna in the (enormous) attic > of my house, and could get channel 19 almost as clearly as any of the > stations in Boston. I often watched the Albany news. It came in far > better than Springfield. -Doug > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "A. Joseph Ross" > To: "Larry Weil" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:26 PM > Subject: RE: Springfield channel 40 > > >> On 25 Jun 2009 Larry Weil wrote: >> >>> I thought Channel 19 (or wherever their digital signal is now) is >>> already duplicating one of the Albany stations? >> >> It has been since it became WCDC in 1956. But for awhile, it was >> WMGT, a separate station, with a DuMont affiliation. When it moved >> to channel 19, it could serve the Albany area, although it was listed >> in the Times-Union when it was on channel 74. Then a storm blew down >> their tower, the DuMont network died, and when they returned to the >> air, they were WCDC, duplicating WCDA 41 in Albany and WCDB 29 in >> Hagaman. WCDA-WCDB eventually became WTEN, channel 10, and WCDC >> continued to duplicate them on Mt. Greylock. >> >> In my senior year at UMass Amherst, I moved to one of the high-rise >> dorms and discovered that the dorm TV could pick up channel 19, >> relaying WTEN. I remember watching the 1966 New York gubernatorial >> debate. >> >> Sometime in the 1970s, I took an old Zenith portable B&W TV to a >> friend in Brimfield for him to install a new filter capacitor. He >> was surprised to get a snowy, but quite watchable signal in Brimfield >> from channel 19, using only the set's UHF ring antenna. >> >> -- >> A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 >> 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 >> Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com >> >> > From lglavin@mail.com Fri Jun 26 13:07:31 2009 From: lglavin@mail.com (Laurence Glavin) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:07:31 -0500 Subject: WKOX Message-ID: <20090626170731.A6D75326701@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jim Hall" >To: boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org >Subject: WKOX >Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:19:19 -0400 >Clear Channel must be thrilled that WKOX has doubled its rating since the >upgrade.from 0.4 to 0.8! I wonder if they're encoding both WKOX-AM and WXKS-AM to register as "WKOX" or "Radio Rumba". Thus they're actually running 55,000 watts! Not unprecented; when WBZ-AM was simulcasting WBZ, Westinghouse promoted WBZ as 51,000 watts. -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com From tk41c@aol.com Fri Jun 26 13:42:13 2009 From: tk41c@aol.com (tk41c@aol.com) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:42:13 -0400 Subject: WHDH Equipment Message-ID: <8CBC49C92B69B04-F4C-286A@webmail-mh24.sysops.aol.com> The last posting brought back memories of scouring the?dark studio building on Morrisey Blvd.? I recall George St Andre telling me that ABC got most of the prime items-TK41s, VR-2000 VTRs, etc.? ABC at the time had four mobile units with TK-41s that lasted into the mid to late 70s.? I did see a TK-43 at the the Univ. of Md. in College Park that allegedly came from WHDH. One of the TR-22s survives at a post house in Boston. I bought TM-21s, a sync system, colorplexer, and other terminal gear, as did Tom Sprague. My gear survives. Even though the gear was old, WHDH maintained its equipment very well and produced quality signals for both radio and television.? It is hard to believe that it was 37 years ago.? Mr St. Andre was one of the best engineering managers-technically competent and a gentleman.? I believe he is still with us , living in Mass.? No idea about Messrs. Watson and Hurd. J Ballard?? From markwats@comcast.net Fri Jun 26 19:02:25 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:02:25 -0400 Subject: Michael Jackson Music On The Radio Message-ID: <82BD610E601242038902CEEDAEAF9EBF@Mark> This morning, on the way to work, a quick scan of the radio found that Jam'n 94.5, Mix 98.5, Oldies 103.3, WROR and Kiss 108 were playing all Michael Jackson/Jackson 5 music in tribute to Jackson who passed away yesterday. On the way home (3:30ish) Oldies & Kiss still all Michael Jackson. Side note: this morning WCVB had a reporter at the Mix 98.5 studios for live reports about radio station's reactions to Michael Jackson's passing. Mark Watson From markwats@comcast.net Sat Jun 27 08:39:35 2009 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:39:35 -0400 Subject: Boston Globe Article On Hub Radio's Reaction To Michael Jackson's Passing Message-ID: Today's Boston Globe has an article about how various Boston radio stations reacted and responded to the passing of Michael Jackson. The article mentions how many stations voicetrack or have no live announcers for all or part of the day, thus making it harder to react to major breaking news events, and our own Scott Fybush is quoted twice in the article. Link to the article: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/06/27/jackson_rules_boston_airwaves/ Also, I learned from this article that ex-Kiss 108 personality Dierdre Dagata is now at Mix 98.5 for some part time air shifts. Her midday spot on Kiss was taken by the syndicated "Ryan Seacrest Show" and was relegated to weekend/fill ins before being cut loose from the Kiss air staff. Mark Watson From aerie.ma@comcast.net Mon Jun 29 18:07:04 2009 From: aerie.ma@comcast.net (Jim Hall) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:07:04 -0400 Subject: What happened to the Glamazons? Message-ID: <315CB634FF87488B9DF07D4B4F5ADA7C@aeriema> Is it me, or has Channel 7 toned down considerably the make-up/clothing on their female news anchors? A couple of months ago they were heavily made up like Vegas showgirls and dressed in very chic, glamorous clothing. Now they are barely made up (no lipstick in some cases) and dressed in much plainer, simpler clothing. It's a great improvement IMHO. Maybe 7 decided to go for more substance on the news programs. From billohno@gmail.com Mon Jun 29 18:11:06 2009 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:11:06 -0400 Subject: What happened to the Glamazons? In-Reply-To: <315CB634FF87488B9DF07D4B4F5ADA7C@aeriema> References: <315CB634FF87488B9DF07D4B4F5ADA7C@aeriema> Message-ID: <4A493BFA.80905@gmail.com> Jim Hall wrote: > Is it me, or has Channel 7 toned down considerably the make-up/clothing on > their female news anchors? Maybe 7 decided to go for > more substance on the news programs. > I'd go with the fact that high def is unforgiving even to make up so why bother? Or, budget cuts... ;-) And, if radio folks didn't have a face for TV then, then when it comes to HDTV, fuggedaboudit..... Bill O'Neill From rac@gabrielmass.com Mon Jun 29 21:24:47 2009 From: rac@gabrielmass.com (Richard Chonak) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:24:47 -0400 Subject: Springfield channel 40 In-Reply-To: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <951577.62799.qm@web39105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A49695F.2090405@gabrielmass.com> Martin Waters wrote: > --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Donna Halper wrote: >> First, I never trust Wikipedia. >> > > But I saw a rumor on the internet that half of what's on Wikipedia might be true . . . :) > > Of course, then you have to apply the great unified gewneral theory that 20 percent of everything that's on the internet might be true . . . > > > Applying Tony Kornheiser's rule, you start out with 50-50 odds on just about anything. :-) So far, the studies comparing Wikipedia articles with articles on the same topic from conventional encyclopedias have produced pretty good, though not sterling, results for WP. A 2005 study in "Nature" came up with a 3% error rate for assertions in the Britannica articles it had experts review, vs. 4% for the Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, Britannica challenged the study's methodology. A study of several historical articles (just 9 were sampled) came off worse for WP, with 80% accuracy (whatever that means) vs. 95% for other sources. OTOH, the WP articles on Star Trek trivia are probably maintained with obsessively scrupulous accuracy. -_RC From donald_astelle@yahoo.com Tue Jun 30 12:37:23 2009 From: donald_astelle@yahoo.com (Don A) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:37:23 -0400 Subject: ....and on with the countdown. Message-ID: <9A75CBBBBA5047C8B0C39E37041924B4@MainXPPro> Does anyone know any station that is still running Casey Kasem's "American Top 10" and/or "American Top 20"? (Ryan Seacrest had already taken over the top 40 show.) The final show is supposed to be this weekend...and would like to hear it for old time sake. He started the show in 1970.....and we used to strain to pick it up Sunday Mornings on WMEX in the 70's. From bob.bosra@demattia.net Tue Jun 30 12:54:10 2009 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:54:10 -0400 Subject: ....and on with the countdown. In-Reply-To: References: <9A75CBBBBA5047C8B0C39E37041924B4@MainXPPro> Message-ID: See here... http://radiotime.com/options/p_39718/American_Top_20.aspx Not sure if this is a complete list. Some of the stations also have online feeds. -Bob On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Don A wrote: > Does anyone know any station that is still running Casey Kasem's "American > Top 10" and/or "American Top 20"? (Ryan Seacrest had already taken over > the > top 40 show.) > > The final show is supposed to be this weekend...and would like to hear it > for old time sake. He started the show in 1970.....and we used to strain > to pick > it up Sunday Mornings on WMEX in the 70's. > > > > > From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 30 14:27:08 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:27:08 -0400 Subject: 50's TV question Message-ID: I know this has nothing directly to do with Board concerns, but I don' t know where else to go with the question: Does anyone remember the '50s time slots for "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners"? -Doug From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Jun 30 15:11:58 2009 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:11:58 -0400 Subject: 50's TV question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090630191148.E07621CC8F5@relay13.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com> At 02:27 PM 6/30/2009, Doug Drown wrote: >I know this has nothing directly to do with Board concerns, but I >don' t know where else to go with the question: Does anyone >remember the '50s time slots for "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners"? My TV encyclopedia says "I Love Lucy" was usually on Monday nights, 9-9.30 from Oct. 1951 through June 1957. But it also ran at other times in re-runs, and in 1955 and 1956, there were Saturday night and Sunday night episodes. It ended up on Wendesday nights at 7.30 pm in Sept 1957, and then it was moved around a lot till it was finally cancelled. As for the "Honeymooners," it got started as a segment on Dumont's Cavelcade of Stars in 1951. It became an independent series in October 1955, at 8.30 pm on Saturday nights, moved to 8pm in February 1956. From m_carney@yahoo.com Tue Jun 30 15:30:27 2009 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 50's TV question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <268302.21476.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> "I Love Lucy" was on Monday @ 9p - where there would be the most viewers and where CBS (in the days of 1 or 2 stations in many cities) could get the most clearances. ________________________________ From: Doug Drown To: Boston Radio Interest Board Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:27:08 PM Subject: 50's TV question I know this has nothing directly to do with Board concerns, but I don' t know where else to go with the question:? Does anyone remember the '50s time slots for "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners"?? -Doug From kvahey@comcast.net Tue Jun 30 14:42:28 2009 From: kvahey@comcast.net (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:42:28 -0500 Subject: 50's TV question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4fc429770906301142h16d80a70x74cddace0797f0a6@mail.gmail.com> I Love Lucy was always Monday at 9 The Honeymooners in the classic 39 aired at 8:30 on Sat and later moved to 8 in 55-56 On 6/30/09, Doug Drown wrote: > I know this has nothing directly to do with Board concerns, but I don' t > know where else to go with the question: Does anyone remember the '50s time > slots for "I Love Lucy" and "The Honeymooners"? -Doug > From radiojunkie3@yahoo.com Tue Jun 30 15:57:12 2009 From: radiojunkie3@yahoo.com (Peter Q. George) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 50's TV question Message-ID: <823325.62161.qm@web50804.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Good question. Well, here's the scoop....... The Honeymooners were on CBS for one season (1955-1956). These are affectionately known as the "Classic 39", (39 first run episodes, all on film). The Honeymooners ran at the following times.... 10/1/55 - Saturdays at 8:30 PM In February of '56, the show moved to 8:00 PM. I Love Lucy was on CBS from 1951-1957 (first run). It varied in time slots over the years. According to the MBC webpage, it aired at the following times..... CBS October 1951-June 1957 (first run) Monday 9:00-9:30 April 1955-October 1955 Sunday 6:00-6:30 October 1955-April 1956 Sunday 6:30-7:00 September 1957-May 1958 Wednesday 7:30-8:00 July 1958-September 1958 Monday 9:00-9:30 October 1958-May 1959 Thursday 7:30-8:00 July 1959-September 1959 Friday 8:30-9:00 September 1961 AND, it ran on CBS daytime for YEARS throughout the 1960's. I remember that when I was a child in the 60's! "Thank you for your question and now.... back to the countdown!" ;) -Pete Peter Q. George (K1XRB) Whitman, Massachusetts "Scanning the bands since 1967" radiojunkie3@yahoo.com *********************************************************** --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Doug Drown wrote: > From: Doug Drown > Subject: 50's TV question > To: "Boston Radio Interest Board" > Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 2:27 PM > I know this has nothing directly to > do with Board concerns, but I don' t know where else to go > with the question:? Does anyone remember the '50s time > slots for "I Love Lucy" and "The > Honeymooners"????-Doug > From Joe@attorneyross.com Tue Jun 30 17:02:12 2009 From: Joe@attorneyross.com (A. Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:02:12 -0400 Subject: 50's TV question In-Reply-To: <268302.21476.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: , <268302.21476.qm@web53307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4A4A4514.18165.5E1E9A@Joe.attorneyross.com> On 30 Jun 2009 Maureen Carney wrote: > "I Love Lucy" was on Monday @ 9p - where there would be the most > viewers and where CBS (in the days of 1 or 2 stations in many cities) > could get the most clearances. And yet, for some time it appeared in the Albany area on Sunday nights at 9:30 (I think), on WRGB, an NBC affiliate. This probably continued until around August 1956, when WTRI came back on and each network had its own affiliate. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From revdoug1@myfairpoint.net Tue Jun 30 18:24:38 2009 From: revdoug1@myfairpoint.net (Doug Drown) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:24:38 -0400 Subject: 50's TV question Message-ID: I don't know whether it's true, but I've been told that "I Love Lucy" has been on the air continuously, nonstop, in various parts of the world ever since its debut in 1951. (Urban legend??) It can be seen every weekday now on The Hallmark Channel (12 noon to 1 PM, ET). -Doug ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Q. George" > To: "Boston Radio Interest Board" ; > "Doug Drown" > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:57 PM > Subject: Re: 50's TV question > > >> >> Good question. Well, here's the scoop....... >> >> The Honeymooners were on CBS for one season (1955-1956). These are >> affectionately known as the "Classic 39", (39 first run episodes, all on >> film). The Honeymooners ran at the following times.... >> >> 10/1/55 - Saturdays at 8:30 PM >> In February of '56, the show moved to 8:00 PM. >> >> >> I Love Lucy was on CBS from 1951-1957 (first run). It varied in time >> slots over the years. According to the MBC webpage, it aired at the >> following times..... >> >> CBS October 1951-June 1957 (first run) >> Monday 9:00-9:30 April 1955-October 1955 >> Sunday 6:00-6:30 October 1955-April 1956 >> Sunday 6:30-7:00 September 1957-May 1958 >> Wednesday 7:30-8:00 July 1958-September 1958 >> Monday 9:00-9:30 October 1958-May 1959 >> Thursday 7:30-8:00 July 1959-September 1959 >> Friday 8:30-9:00 September 1961 >> >> AND, it ran on CBS daytime for YEARS throughout the 1960's. I remember >> that when I was a child in the 60's! >> >> "Thank you for your question and now.... back to the countdown!" >> >> ;) >> -Pete >> >> >> >> >> Peter Q. George (K1XRB) >> Whitman, Massachusetts >> "Scanning the bands since 1967" >> radiojunkie3@yahoo.com >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Doug Drown wrote: >> >>> From: Doug Drown >>> Subject: 50's TV question >>> To: "Boston Radio Interest Board" >>> >>> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 2:27 PM >>> I know this has nothing directly to >>> do with Board concerns, but I don' t know where else to go >>> with the question: Does anyone remember the '50s time >>> slots for "I Love Lucy" and "The >>> Honeymooners"? -Doug >>> >> >> >> >> >