With 940 now officially vacant

[Paul B. Walker, Jr.]

It makes my head hurt too.



On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Dan.Strassberg <dan.strassberg@att.net>wrote:

> One thing that happened around that time was that what were then US
> Class II-D stations on what were then Mexican Class I channels were
> allowed to operate at night. The affected frequencies were (IIRC) 540,
> 730, 800, 900, 1050, 1220, and 1570. Also, US Class II-D stations on
> these Mexican Class I channels were allowed to increase their D power
> to 5 kW (the previous maximum had been 1 kW) if such an increase did
> not adversly affect adjacent-channel US stations. I believe that the
> all-night operation by US II-Ds on Mexican Class I channels happened
> in phases. IIRC, the affected stations were initially granted
> post-sunset authority. A few years later, they were allowed nighttime
> operation with a maximum of 500W. Use of 1050 in New York City and
> 1220 in Cleveland by US stations operating with 50 kW DA-1 had been
> part of a much earlier treaty.
>
> Oh, and 540, like 940, became a Mexican/Canadian Class I channel at
> some point. Apparently, at least some US II-Ds on the channels on
> which there had been Class I stations in both Canada and Mexico were
> allowed more nighttime power than US II-Ds on channels on which there
> were Class I stations only in Mexico. This issue becomes very murky
> and hard to follow because Canada now has Class A (the modern
> equivalent of the old Class I-B) stations on what had been Mexican
> Class I channels. Previously, Canada had been allowed only Class II
> stations on these channels. For example, on 730, CKAC and CKLG became
> Class A AMs, whereas, before the treaty was modified, they had been
> Class IIs with no protection of their nighttime-skywave service. When
> these stations were "promoted" to Class A, they still had no skywave
> protection, however. This subject makes my head hurt.
>
> -----
> Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
> eFax 1-707-215-6367
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Joseph Ross" <joe@attorneyross.com>
> To: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
> Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: With 940 now officially vacant
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun 2010 at 21:25, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>
>> > For that matter perhaps it is time for Canada, Mexico, the US et
>>> > all
>>> > to redo the treaty. A lot has changed in 70 years.
>>>
>>> Not so much has changed in twenty-five years, when they last redid
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> They did?  What happened then?
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>