From raccoonradio@mail.com Fri Dec 2 03:25:04 2011 From: raccoonradio@mail.com (Bob Nelson) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:25:04 -0500 Subject: Gene Burns, others let go at KGO Message-ID: <20111202082504.134680@gmx.com> Gene Burns, Gil Gross etc let go in San Fran. Come back Gene! "ALL ACCESS hears that CUMULUS cuts have hit the on-air staff at Talk KGO-A/SAN FRANCISCO hard, with hosts GIL GROSS (2-4p), GENE BURNS (7-10p)..." http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/99745/four-hosts-out-at-kgo-san-francisco-as-station-add?ref=mail_bulletin From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Dec 2 06:07:33 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 06:07:33 -0500 Subject: Gene Burns, others let go at KGO In-Reply-To: <20111202082504.134680@gmx.com> References: <20111202082504.134680@gmx.com> Message-ID: Staffers at WLS in Chicago are very scared right now. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Bob Nelson wrote: > Gene Burns, Gil Gross etc let go in San Fran. Come back Gene! > > "ALL ACCESS hears that CUMULUS cuts have hit the on-air staff at Talk > KGO-A/SAN FRANCISCO hard, with hosts GIL GROSS (2-4p), GENE BURNS > (7-10p)..." > > > http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/99745/four-hosts-out-at-kgo-san-francisco-as-station-add?ref=mail_bulletin > From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Dec 2 18:55:50 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:55:50 -0500 Subject: Looks like move to FM hasn't helped WEEI that much Message-ID: http://www.radio-info.com/markets/boston Looking at the cume - it seems like sports fans are just going back and forth between the 2 stations. I am curious what the FM/AM split is with EEI. But in the end - the Red Sox drive EEI and the Patriots 98.5 No other major surprises that I can see. From markwats@comcast.net Thu Dec 8 21:37:16 2011 From: markwats@comcast.net (Mark Watson) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:37:16 -0500 Subject: Bob Lobel Coming To WCAP Message-ID: <001507895148400D84DA856DF2F85078@MarkOTS3> Read an article in Thursday's Lowell Sun regarding WCAP's 18th annual Salvation Army radiothon which will take place this Saturday live in the WCAP studios from 6AM to 1PM. From 9AM till 12 Noon there will be live cut ins from the lobby of the Lowell Sun hosted by Bob Lobel, who will begin hosting a sports talk show on WCAP starting soon according to the article. IIRC wasn't he hosting a show on WTPL in Hillsborough NH? Link to the Sun article: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19492984 Mark Watson From billohno@gmail.com Sat Dec 10 17:43:24 2011 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:43:24 +0000 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) Message-ID: I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal upgrade with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the timing of that? Bill O'Neill From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Sat Dec 10 17:43:00 2011 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:43:00 -0600 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I guess it's possible, but no CP or even application exsists for WCVT. Paul On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: > I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of the > Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal upgrade with a > facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the timing of that? Bill > O'Neill > From walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com Sat Dec 10 23:43:54 2011 From: walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com (Paul B. Walker, Jr.) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:43:54 -0600 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: it didn't show when I looked it up... fccinfo.com didnt show it. What changes with this CP? Paul On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: > There is a CP: > > BPH-20080605ABU, granted 3/31/2009. > > > http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?App > lication_id=1249180 > > The CP expires at 3AM on 3/31/2012, so they need to get it finished soon. > > -d > > > > Dave Doherty > Skywaves Consulting LLC > PO Box 4 > Millbury, MA 01527-0004 > 401-354-2400 > 202-370-6357 (DC) > 650-479-2881 (fax) > > > > > > > -----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: Saturday, December 10, 2011 5:43 PM > To: Bill O'Neill > Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > > > I guess it's possible, but no CP or even application exsists for WCVT. > > Paul > > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: > > > I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of > > the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal > > upgrade with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the > > timing of that? Bill O'Neill > > > > > > From scott@fybush.com Sat Dec 10 22:57:56 2011 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:57:56 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EE42A44.4020600@fybush.com> On 12/10/2011 5:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: > I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of > the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal upgrade > with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the timing of that? > Bill O'Neill They've had several CPs in the past to make that move, but as Paul notes, there's nothing currently on the books for it. If they applied for it right now, it would probably take a couple of months for the FCC to grant a new CP, and then there's the issue of construction on Mount Mansfield. Nobody's building anything up there THIS time of year! s From dave@skywaves.net Sat Dec 10 23:30:41 2011 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:30:41 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> There is a CP: BPH-20080605ABU, granted 3/31/2009. http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?App lication_id=1249180 The CP expires at 3AM on 3/31/2012, so they need to get it finished soon. -d Dave Doherty Skywaves Consulting LLC PO Box 4 Millbury, MA 01527-0004 401-354-2400 202-370-6357 (DC) 650-479-2881 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Paul B. Walker, Jr. Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 5:43 PM To: Bill O'Neill Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) I guess it's possible, but no CP or even application exsists for WCVT. Paul On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: > I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of > the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal > upgrade with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the > timing of that? Bill O'Neill > From dave@skywaves.net Sun Dec 11 01:09:51 2011 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 01:09:51 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: <000801ccb7cb$7ed98350$7c8c89f0$@skywaves.net> The new facility on Mansfield was licensed on Wednesday, 12/7. -d From: Paul B. Walker, Jr. [mailto:walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 11:44 PM To: Dave Doherty Cc: Bill O'Neill; boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) it didn't show when I looked it up... fccinfo.com didnt show it. What changes with this CP? Paul On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: There is a CP: BPH-20080605ABU, granted 3/31/2009. http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?App lication_id=1249180 The CP expires at 3AM on 3/31/2012, so they need to get it finished soon. -d Dave Doherty Skywaves Consulting LLC PO Box 4 Millbury, MA 01527-0004 401-354-2400 202-370-6357 (DC) 650-479-2881 (fax) -----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: Saturday, December 10, 2011 5:43 PM To: Bill O'Neill Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) I guess it's possible, but no CP or even application exsists for WCVT. Paul On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: > I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of > the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal > upgrade with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the > timing of that? Bill O'Neill > From scott@fybush.com Sun Dec 11 00:16:56 2011 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:16:56 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> Lo and behold, it looks like they DID finish construction on it: they filed for the license to cover on Wednesday, and the surveyor's statement filed with the app says the antenna was installed in October. On 12/10/2011 11:43 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > it didn't show when I looked it up... fccinfo.com didnt show it. > > What changes with this CP? > > Paul > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> There is a CP: >> >> BPH-20080605ABU, granted 3/31/2009. >> >> >> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?App >> lication_id=1249180 >> >> The CP expires at 3AM on 3/31/2012, so they need to get it finished soon. >> >> -d >> >> >> >> Dave Doherty >> Skywaves Consulting LLC >> PO Box 4 >> Millbury, MA 01527-0004 >> 401-354-2400 >> 202-370-6357 (DC) >> 650-479-2881 (fax) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org >> [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf >> Of >> Paul B. Walker, Jr. >> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 5:43 PM >> To: Bill O'Neill >> Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org >> Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) >> >> >> I guess it's possible, but no CP or even application exsists for WCVT. >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >> >>> I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of >>> the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal >>> upgrade with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the >>> timing of that? Bill O'Neill >>> >> >> >> >> From billohno@gmail.com Sun Dec 11 09:36:36 2011 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 09:36:36 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian Harwood, said recently. b - -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _____________________________________________ From: Scott Fybush Sent: Sun Dec 11 00:16:56 EST 2011 To: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) Lo and behold, it looks like they DID finish construction on it: they filed for the license to cover on Wednesday, and the surveyor's statement filed with the app says the antenna was installed in October. On 12/10/2011 11:43 PM, Paul B. Walker, Jr. wrote: > it didn't show when I looked it up... fccinfo.com didnt show it. > > What changes with this CP? > > Paul > > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: > >> There is a CP: >> >> BPH-20080605ABU, granted 3/31/2009. >> >> >> http://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_det.pl?App >> lication_id=1249180 >> >> The CP expires at 3AM on 3/31/2012, so they need to get it finished soon. >> >> -d >> >> >> >> Dave Doherty >> Skywaves Consulting LLC >> PO Box 4 >> Millbury, MA 01527-0004 >> 401-354-2400 >> 202-370-6357 (DC) >> 650-479-2881 (fax) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----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: Saturday, December 10, 2011 5:43 PM >> To: Bill O'Neill >> Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org >> Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) >> >> >> I guess it's possible, but no CP or even application exsists for WCVT. >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >> >>> I'm hearing on WCVT (101.7 Stowe) that the classical station, part of >>> the Radio Vermont Group, will be undergoing a significant signal >>> upgrade with a facility move to atop Mt. Mansfield. Any news on the >>> timing of that? Bill O'Neill >>> >> >> >> >> From scott@fybush.com Sun Dec 11 11:21:47 2011 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:21:47 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> On 12/11/2011 9:36 AM, Bill O'Neill wrote: > The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian Harwood, said > recently. > Well no, not exactly. WCVT on Mansfield will be (is?) a class C2 station, which is the equivalent of 50 kW at 152 meters above average terrain. But the actual WCVT facilities are just one kilowatt ERP at 811 meters above average terrain. That combination of lower power and much higher antenna height results, *in theory*, in the same distance to the 60 dBu protected contour. But theory and practice aren't exactly the same thing, especially up there in the mountains. With that little power coming out of the antenna, it lacks what the experts call "grunt" - you might be in Burlington or Bolton or Shoreham and have clear line-of-sight to the WCVT antenna, and you might be able to hear the signal just fine in your car or with a rooftop antenna, but if you're in a steel building or down in the cellar or what have you, even the slightest bit of signal attenuation or interference will probably kill it, whereas a "gruntier" signal like WEZF or WVPS, which really ARE putting out 50 kW or thereabouts from way up high, will push through just fine. And there's one more factor at play: the new WCVT is quite directional, so if you're not in its main lobes (southeast and, to some extent, southwest), the signal won't really be there at all. Don't get me wrong - this is still a good move, the best that could be done with WCVT...but it's by no means going to make WCVT the equivalent of WEZF. s From wollman@bimajority.org Sun Dec 11 13:29:47 2011 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:29:47 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> Message-ID: <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > On 12/11/2011 9:36 AM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >> The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian Harwood, said >> recently. >> > Well no, not exactly. > WCVT on Mansfield will be (is?) a class C2 station, which is the > equivalent of 50 kW at 152 meters above average terrain. But the actual > WCVT facilities are just one kilowatt ERP at 811 meters above average > terrain. That combination of lower power and much higher antenna height > results, *in theory*, in the same distance to the 60 dBu protected contour. This is a mistake that many non-technical people make -- and in fact, I made it myself when I was first learning about radio regulation. The cause is that slippery word "effective", in "effective radiated power". In normal English usage, one would expect it to mean something like "equivalent", but as a matter of engineering jargon, it's actually much more restricted: take the transmitter power output, multiply by the transmission line efficiency, then multiply by the antenna gain. Nothing else enters into it. (Normally, engineers, who are used to working in decibels, a logarithmic scale, would say "TPO in dB over a kilowatt, minus line loss, plus antenna gain" instead.) The FCC then plugs the ERP and the height above average terrain into an empirically-derived formula to determine what the theoretical coverage radius is, and station classes are actually based on the area covered -- even though they are specified in terms of prototypical transmitters rather than the area. So for a given class, there is a curve (which you can see in the FCC rules) which represents permissible combinations of ERP and HAAT; at heights higher than the "standard", the power must be "derated" in accordance with the curve. However, the FCC does not allow applicants to compensate for a lower-than-"standard" height by increasing power above the class maximum; this is done to encourage stations to put their antennas higher. (Also, and for reasons not relevant here, there are many ways to compute HAAT, and applicants are permitted to use the one most favorable to them -- possibly more than one in the same application!) This method of licensing FM stations by coverage area goes back to the early 1940s, when the FCC started requiring applicants to specify their service area in addition to the specific transmitter and antenna they planned to use. At that time, there were four FM station classes: A, B, C, and D in order of increasing coverage; the Yankee Network stations WGTR (44.3) and WMTW (43.9) were both class-D stations licensed to Boston. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Sun Dec 11 16:55:44 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:55:44 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> The 50 kW at 152 meters and 1 kW at 811 meters claimed for WCVT seem inconsistent with each other. The curves that show height-adjusted max-allowable ERP (at the azimuth of peak ERP) vs HAAT show that the empirical curves are pretty close to the theoretical. For the Class C2 case, ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(h/152)^2, where h is the HAAT for a partiular station. If h for WCVT = 811m, the formula reduces to peak ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(811/152)^2 ~50 kW/28.5 = 1.75 kW or 75% more than the 1 kW that somebody mentioned in an earlier post. Sure, 1.75 kW is a long way from 50 kW but it's almost twice as much as 1 kW. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:29 PM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > < said: > >> On 12/11/2011 9:36 AM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >>> The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian >>> Harwood, said >>> recently. >>> > >> Well no, not exactly. > >> WCVT on Mansfield will be (is?) a class C2 station, which is the >> equivalent of 50 kW at 152 meters above average terrain. But the >> actual >> WCVT facilities are just one kilowatt ERP at 811 meters above >> average >> terrain. That combination of lower power and much higher antenna >> height >> results, *in theory*, in the same distance to the 60 dBu protected >> contour. > > This is a mistake that many non-technical people make -- and in > fact, > I made it myself when I was first learning about radio regulation. > The cause is that slippery word "effective", in "effective radiated > power". In normal English usage, one would expect it to mean > something like "equivalent", but as a matter of engineering jargon, > it's actually much more restricted: take the transmitter power > output, > multiply by the transmission line efficiency, then multiply by the > antenna gain. Nothing else enters into it. (Normally, engineers, > who > are used to working in decibels, a logarithmic scale, would say "TPO > in dB over a kilowatt, minus line loss, plus antenna gain" instead.) > > The FCC then plugs the ERP and the height above average terrain into > an empirically-derived formula to determine what the theoretical > coverage radius is, and station classes are actually based on the > area > covered -- even though they are specified in terms of prototypical > transmitters rather than the area. So for a given class, there is a > curve (which you can see in the FCC rules) which represents > permissible combinations of ERP and HAAT; at heights higher than the > "standard", the power must be "derated" in accordance with the > curve. > However, the FCC does not allow applicants to compensate for a > lower-than-"standard" height by increasing power above the class > maximum; this is done to encourage stations to put their antennas > higher. (Also, and for reasons not relevant here, there are many > ways > to compute HAAT, and applicants are permitted to use the one most > favorable to them -- possibly more than one in the same > application!) > > This method of licensing FM stations by coverage area goes back to > the > early 1940s, when the FCC started requiring applicants to specify > their service area in addition to the specific transmitter and > antenna > they planned to use. At that time, there were four FM station > classes: A, B, C, and D in order of increasing coverage; the Yankee > Network stations WGTR (44.3) and WMTW (43.9) were both class-D > stations licensed to Boston. > > -GAWollman From dave@skywaves.net Sun Dec 11 17:55:31 2011 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:55:31 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net> Hi, Dan- It has to do with "reference distance" to the 60 dBu contour according to the f(50,50) curves. For Class C2 - 50 kW at 150 m AAT (not 152) - the reference distance is 52 km. At 811 m AAT, the curves produce a reference distance of 52.0 km at an ERP of 1.05 kW. 1.75 kW produces a reference distance of 56.9 km, well above the limit for Class C2. -d -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Dan.Strassberg Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:56 PM To: Garrett Wollman; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) The 50 kW at 152 meters and 1 kW at 811 meters claimed for WCVT seem inconsistent with each other. The curves that show height-adjusted max-allowable ERP (at the azimuth of peak ERP) vs HAAT show that the empirical curves are pretty close to the theoretical. For the Class C2 case, ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(h/152)^2, where h is the HAAT for a partiular station. If h for WCVT = 811m, the formula reduces to peak ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(811/152)^2 ~50 kW/28.5 = 1.75 kW or 75% more than the 1 kW that somebody mentioned in an earlier post. Sure, 1.75 kW is a long way from 50 kW but it's almost twice as much as 1 kW. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:29 PM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > < said: > >> On 12/11/2011 9:36 AM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >>> The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian >>> Harwood, said >>> recently. >>> > >> Well no, not exactly. > >> WCVT on Mansfield will be (is?) a class C2 station, which is the >> equivalent of 50 kW at 152 meters above average terrain. But the >> actual >> WCVT facilities are just one kilowatt ERP at 811 meters above >> average >> terrain. That combination of lower power and much higher antenna >> height >> results, *in theory*, in the same distance to the 60 dBu protected >> contour. > > This is a mistake that many non-technical people make -- and in > fact, > I made it myself when I was first learning about radio regulation. > The cause is that slippery word "effective", in "effective radiated > power". In normal English usage, one would expect it to mean > something like "equivalent", but as a matter of engineering jargon, > it's actually much more restricted: take the transmitter power > output, > multiply by the transmission line efficiency, then multiply by the > antenna gain. Nothing else enters into it. (Normally, engineers, > who > are used to working in decibels, a logarithmic scale, would say "TPO > in dB over a kilowatt, minus line loss, plus antenna gain" instead.) > > The FCC then plugs the ERP and the height above average terrain into > an empirically-derived formula to determine what the theoretical > coverage radius is, and station classes are actually based on the > area > covered -- even though they are specified in terms of prototypical > transmitters rather than the area. So for a given class, there is a > curve (which you can see in the FCC rules) which represents > permissible combinations of ERP and HAAT; at heights higher than the > "standard", the power must be "derated" in accordance with the > curve. > However, the FCC does not allow applicants to compensate for a > lower-than-"standard" height by increasing power above the class > maximum; this is done to encourage stations to put their antennas > higher. (Also, and for reasons not relevant here, there are many > ways > to compute HAAT, and applicants are permitted to use the one most > favorable to them -- possibly more than one in the same > application!) > > This method of licensing FM stations by coverage area goes back to > the > early 1940s, when the FCC started requiring applicants to specify > their service area in addition to the specific transmitter and > antenna > they planned to use. At that time, there were four FM station > classes: A, B, C, and D in order of increasing coverage; the Yankee > Network stations WGTR (44.3) and WMTW (43.9) were both class-D > stations licensed to Boston. > > -GAWollman From billohno@gmail.com Sun Dec 11 22:20:01 2011 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:20:01 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> <000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: <1f3f11e3-6169-4637-afd7-d36421e91dee@email.android.com> Well one thing is for certain, at under 2 kW for a footprint that size, the check to Green Mountain Power will be worth every dime. Bill O' -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _____________________________________________ From: Dave Doherty Sent: Sun Dec 11 17:55:31 EST 2011 To: "'Dan.Strassberg'" , 'Garrett Wollman' , boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: RE: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) Hi, Dan- It has to do with "reference distance" to the 60 dBu contour according to the f(50,50) curves. For Class C2 - 50 kW at 150 m AAT (not 152) - the reference distance is 52 km. At 811 m AAT, the curves produce a reference distance of 52.0 km at an ERP of 1.05 kW. 1.75 kW produces a reference distance of 56.9 km, well above the limit for Class C2. -d -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Dan.Strassberg Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:56 PM To: Garrett Wollman; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) The 50 kW at 152 meters and 1 kW at 811 meters claimed for WCVT seem inconsistent with each other. The curves that show height-adjusted max-allowable ERP (at the azimuth of peak ERP) vs HAAT show that the empirical curves are pretty close to the theoretical. For the Class C2 case, ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(h/152)^2, where h is the HAAT for a partiular station. If h for WCVT = 811m, the formula reduces to peak ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(811/152)^2 ~50 kW/28.5 = 1.75 kW or 75% more than the 1 kW that somebody mentioned in an earlier post. Sure, 1.75 kW is a long way from 50 kW but it's almost twice as much as 1 kW. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:29 PM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > < said: > >> On 12/11/2011 9:36 AM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >>> The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian >>> Harwood, said >>> recently. >>> > >> Well no, not exactly. > >> WCVT on Mansfield will be (is?) a class C2 station, which is the >> equivalent of 50 kW at 152 meters above average terrain. But the >> actual >> WCVT facilities are just one kilowatt ERP at 811 meters above >> average >> terrain. That combination of lower power and much higher antenna >> height >> results, *in theory*, in the same distance to the 60 dBu protected >> contour. > > This is a mistake that many non-technical people make -- and in > fact, > I made it myself when I was first learning about radio regulation. > The cause is that slippery word "effective", in "effective radiated > power". In normal English usage, one would expect it to mean > something like "equivalent", but as a matter of engineering jargon, > it's actually much more restricted: take the transmitter power > output, > multiply by the transmission line efficiency, then multiply by the > antenna gain. Nothing else enters into it. (Normally, engineers, > who > are used to working in decibels, a logarithmic scale, would say "TPO > in dB over a kilowatt, minus line loss, plus antenna gain" instead.) > > The FCC then plugs the ERP and the height above average terrain into > an empirically-derived formula to determine what the theoretical > coverage radius is, and station classes are actually based on the > area > covered -- even though they are specified in terms of prototypical > transmitters rather than the area. So for a given class, there is a > curve (which you can see in the FCC rules) which represents > permissible combinations of ERP and HAAT; at heights higher than the > "standard", the power must be "derated" in accordance with the > curve. > However, the FCC does not allow applicants to compensate for a > lower-than-"standard" height by increasing power above the class > maximum; this is done to encourage stations to put their antennas > higher. (Also, and for reasons not relevant here, there are many > ways > to compute HAAT, and applicants are permitted to use the one most > favorable to them -- possibly more than one in the same > application!) > > This method of licensing FM stations by coverage area goes back to > the > early 1940s, when the FCC started requiring applicants to specify > their service area in addition to the specific transmitter and > antenna > they planned to use. At that time, there were four FM station > classes: A, B, C, and D in order of increasing coverage; the Yankee > Network stations WGTR (44.3) and WMTW (43.9) were both class-D > stations licensed to Boston. > > -GAWollman From joe@attorneyross.com Mon Dec 12 00:31:49 2011 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:31:49 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> On 12/11/2011 1:29 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > This method of licensing FM stations by coverage area goes back to the > early 1940s, when the FCC started requiring applicants to specify > their service area in addition to the specific transmitter and antenna > they planned to use. At that time, there were four FM station classes: > A, B, C, and D in order of increasing coverage; the Yankee Network > stations WGTR (44.3) and WMTW (43.9) were both class-D stations > licensed to Boston. -GAWollman But IIRC, in those days, the stations wouldn't have had those calls, they would have had calls in the form W##B. When did the FCC get rid of those calls? And when did they finally allow the suffixes -FM and -TV to call letters? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Dec 12 02:12:12 2011 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:12:12 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > But IIRC, in those days, the stations wouldn't have had those calls, > they would have had calls in the form W##B. When did the FCC get rid of > those calls? November 1, 1943. > And when did they finally allow the suffixes -FM and -TV to call > letters? For -FM: November 1, 1943. For -TV, I don't know, but it was some time after the war. -GAWollman From dan.strassberg@att.net Mon Dec 12 08:45:34 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:45:34 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> <000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: <7A292F3014CE4B0595CD7D40370F0459@SatU205S5044> I thought that HAAT was determined by subtracting from the height above mean sea level of the antenna's electrical center the average height above mean sea level of the eight highest radials starting at eight miles from the antenna and ending I know not where. I also do not remember how many points along each radial were to be used in computing the height above mean sea level of the average ground level along each radial, but it boggles my mind that HAAT could depend upon the height of the ground above mean sea level of a single high point at a specified distance from the antenna or even of eight points (one point per radial) at the same distance. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Doherty" To: "'Dan.Strassberg'" ; "'Garrett Wollman'" ; Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 5:55 PM Subject: RE: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > Hi, Dan- > > It has to do with "reference distance" to the 60 dBu contour > according to > the f(50,50) curves. > > For Class C2 - 50 kW at 150 m AAT (not 152) - the reference distance > is 52 > km. > > At 811 m AAT, the curves produce a reference distance of 52.0 km at > an ERP > of 1.05 kW. > > 1.75 kW produces a reference distance of 56.9 km, well above the > limit for > Class C2. > > -d > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org > [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On > Behalf Of > Dan.Strassberg > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:56 PM > To: Garrett Wollman; boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > > > The 50 kW at 152 meters and 1 kW at 811 meters claimed for WCVT seem > inconsistent with each other. The curves that show height-adjusted > max-allowable ERP (at the azimuth of peak ERP) vs HAAT show that the > empirical curves are pretty close to the theoretical. For the Class > C2 case, ERP (allowed) ~50 kW/(h/152)^2, where h is the HAAT for a > partiular > station. If h for WCVT = 811m, the formula reduces to peak ERP > (allowed) ~50 > kW/(811/152)^2 ~50 kW/28.5 = 1.75 kW or 75% more than the 1 kW that > somebody > mentioned in an earlier post. Sure, 1.75 kW is a long way from 50 kW > but > it's almost twice as much as 1 kW. > > ----- > Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) > eFax 1-707-215-6367 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Garrett Wollman" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:29 PM > Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > > >> <> said: >> >>> On 12/11/2011 9:36 AM, Bill O'Neill wrote: >>>> The ERP will be 50 kW according to what the AM host, Brian >>>> Harwood, said >>>> recently. >>>> >> >>> Well no, not exactly. >> >>> WCVT on Mansfield will be (is?) a class C2 station, which is the >>> equivalent of 50 kW at 152 meters above average terrain. But the >>> actual >>> WCVT facilities are just one kilowatt ERP at 811 meters above >>> average >>> terrain. That combination of lower power and much higher antenna >>> height >>> results, *in theory*, in the same distance to the 60 dBu protected >>> contour. >> >> This is a mistake that many non-technical people make -- and in >> fact, >> I made it myself when I was first learning about radio regulation. >> The cause is that slippery word "effective", in "effective radiated >> power". In normal English usage, one would expect it to mean >> something like "equivalent", but as a matter of engineering jargon, >> it's actually much more restricted: take the transmitter power >> output, >> multiply by the transmission line efficiency, then multiply by the >> antenna gain. Nothing else enters into it. (Normally, engineers, >> who >> are used to working in decibels, a logarithmic scale, would say >> "TPO >> in dB over a kilowatt, minus line loss, plus antenna gain" >> instead.) >> >> The FCC then plugs the ERP and the height above average terrain >> into >> an empirically-derived formula to determine what the theoretical >> coverage radius is, and station classes are actually based on the >> area >> covered -- even though they are specified in terms of prototypical >> transmitters rather than the area. So for a given class, there is >> a >> curve (which you can see in the FCC rules) which represents >> permissible combinations of ERP and HAAT; at heights higher than >> the >> "standard", the power must be "derated" in accordance with the >> curve. >> However, the FCC does not allow applicants to compensate for a >> lower-than-"standard" height by increasing power above the class >> maximum; this is done to encourage stations to put their antennas >> higher. (Also, and for reasons not relevant here, there are many >> ways >> to compute HAAT, and applicants are permitted to use the one most >> favorable to them -- possibly more than one in the same >> application!) >> >> This method of licensing FM stations by coverage area goes back to >> the >> early 1940s, when the FCC started requiring applicants to specify >> their service area in addition to the specific transmitter and >> antenna >> they planned to use. At that time, there were four FM station >> classes: A, B, C, and D in order of increasing coverage; the Yankee >> Network stations WGTR (44.3) and WMTW (43.9) were both class-D >> stations licensed to Boston. >> >> -GAWollman > > > > From bob.bosra@demattia.net Mon Dec 12 09:17:50 2011 From: bob.bosra@demattia.net (Bob DeMattia) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:17:50 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <7A292F3014CE4B0595CD7D40370F0459@SatU205S5044> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> <000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net> <7A292F3014CE4B0595CD7D40370F0459@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: HAAT is calculated using eight evenly spaced radials, starting at 0 degrees and every 45 degrees after that. Fifty evenly spaced points along each radial from 3 km to 16 km are taken and the 8 x 50 = 400 points are then averaged. The FCC allows the applicant to use more radials if they want to, but the points are always evenly spaced between 3km and 16km. This is explained on the FCC website here: http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html -Bob From dan.strassberg@att.net Mon Dec 12 10:51:50 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:51:50 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com><20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044><000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net><7A292F3014CE4B0595CD7D40370F0459@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <84A135F3885A44808170A0E5F9DD3B57@SatU205S5044> Thanks! That sounds a lot more reasonable, but I don't understand the meaning or significance of the reference distance that Dave Doherty mentioned, how the reference distance is derived, or how it enters into the HAAT or maximum-ERP calculations. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob DeMattia" To: "boston Radio Interest" Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 9:17 AM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > HAAT is calculated using eight evenly spaced radials, > starting at 0 degrees and every 45 degrees after that. Fifty > evenly spaced points along each radial from 3 km to 16 km are > taken and the 8 x 50 = 400 points are then averaged. The FCC > allows the applicant to use more radials if they want to, but > the points are always evenly spaced between 3km and 16km. > > This is explained on the FCC website here: > http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/haat_calculator.html > > -Bob From wollman@bimajority.org Mon Dec 12 14:29:21 2011 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:29:21 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <84A135F3885A44808170A0E5F9DD3B57@SatU205S5044> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044> <000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net> <7A292F3014CE4B0595CD7D40370F0459@SatU205S5044> <84A135F3885A44808170A0E5F9DD3B57@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <20198.22033.418994.105113@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Thanks! That sounds a lot more reasonable, but I don't understand the > meaning or significance of the reference distance that Dave Doherty > mentioned, how the reference distance is derived, or how it enters > into the HAAT or maximum-ERP calculations. The answers to all of your questions may be found in the FCC rules, 47 CFR 73.211. -GAWollman From dave@skywaves.net Mon Dec 12 14:17:15 2011 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:17:15 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <84A135F3885A44808170A0E5F9DD3B57@SatU205S5044> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com><20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><6DA857C810A74F7BB54ED57AC11EF766@SatU205S5044><000001ccb857$fc8d3580$f5a7a080$@skywaves.net><7A292F3014CE4B0595CD7D40370F0459@SatU205S5044> <84A135F3885A44808170A0E5F9DD3B57@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <003701ccb902$a8cf1ac0$fa6d5040$@skywaves.net> Hi, Dan- The reference distance is simply the distance to the 60 dBu (1mV/m) f(50,50) contour, given the Effective Radiated Power and the Height Above Average Terrain. That distance can be taken from the f(50,50) charts the FCC published years ago, or it can be computed. The FCC has an online calculator and lots of reference material here: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/curves.html Information about the class contour distances for the various classes is contained in the rules 47 CFR 73.210 and 47 CFR 73.211. You can Google those terms and see online copies. The actual charts are linked from the page referenced above. -d -----Original Message----- From: Dan.Strassberg [mailto:dan.strassberg@att.net] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:52 AM To: Bob DeMattia; boston Radio Interest Cc: Dave Doherty Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) Thanks! That sounds a lot more reasonable, but I don't understand the meaning or significance of the reference distance that Dave Doherty mentioned, how the reference distance is derived, or how it enters into the HAAT or maximum-ERP calculations. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob DeMattia" To: "boston Radio Interest" Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 9:17 AM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) From kvahey@gmail.com Mon Dec 12 18:05:18 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:05:18 -0500 Subject: WBZ-TV news makeover Message-ID: New set, graphics and the return of the CBS eye and channel number. Change over happened at 5. Looks good in HD http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2011_1212wbz_studio_gets_makeover/srvc=home&position=7 From dlh@donnahalper.com Mon Dec 12 19:13:00 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:13:00 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend In-Reply-To: <4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044> <4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> I was asked to find some research about the first Grease Weekend held by WBZ in 1972, but for some reason, I find much more info about the second one, which was held in late July 1973. Anyone recall the first one, held at good old Paragon Park? From kc1ih@mac.com Mon Dec 12 20:10:59 2011 From: kc1ih@mac.com (Larry Weil) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:10:59 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend In-Reply-To: <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044> <4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Donna Halper wrote: > I was asked to find some research about the first Grease Weekend held by WBZ in 1972, but for some reason, I find much more info about the second one, which was held in late July 1973. Anyone recall the first one, held at good old Paragon Park? I?m kinda afraid to ask, but what is a Grease Weekend? Larry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH From lspin@comcast.net Mon Dec 12 21:31:08 2011 From: lspin@comcast.net (Lou) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:31:08 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend In-Reply-To: <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044> <4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <004001ccb93f$461548e0$d23fdaa0$@net> Donna, I remember listening to the first Grease Weekend on WBZ in July of 1972. It was such a treat to hear Arnie Ginsberg back on the radio with his sound effects and wacky sense of humor. WBZ even brought out their old station IDs and sounders. It was all really well done. The thing that I don't remember is that it was held at Paragon Park. I had always thought it was done at the 'BZ studios. I recorded about an hour of it, mostly Arnie Ginsberg. It's not the best quality, but I'd be happy to share with you. Let me know if you're interested. -Lou -----Original Message----- From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@tsornin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of Donna Halper Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 7:13 PM To: Scott Fybush Cc: (newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest Subject: Grease Weekend I was asked to find some research about the first Grease Weekend held by WBZ in 1972, but for some reason, I find much more info about the second one, which was held in late July 1973. Anyone recall the first one, held at good old Paragon Park? From dlh@donnahalper.com Mon Dec 12 23:59:24 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:59:24 -0500 Subject: autographed copies of Donna's book In-Reply-To: References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044> <4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <4EE6DBAC.6040601@donnahalper.com> If you know anyone who wants an autographed copy of my book about Boston radio, I do have some to sell. Feel free to contact me off-list for more information. From dlh@donnahalper.com Mon Dec 12 23:34:54 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:34:54 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend In-Reply-To: References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044> <4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <4EE6D5EE.2050500@donnahalper.com> On 12/12/2011 8:10 PM, Larry Weil wrote: > > I?m kinda afraid to ask, but what is a Grease Weekend? > In the early 70s, as some of the top 40 stations were moving in a more Adult Contemporary direction, a few stations (WBZ among them) got the idea to bring back some of the 1950s and early 60s top-40 legends for one amazing weekend. In 1973, that meant Wolfman Jack, Arnie Ginsburg, and a number of others. Trying to find out who was on the air for the 1972 version. From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Dec 13 00:29:13 2011 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:29:13 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> On 12/12/2011 2:12 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> But IIRC, in those days, the stations wouldn't have had those calls, >> they would have had calls in the form W##B. When did the FCC get rid of >> those calls? > November 1, 1943. > >> And when did they finally allow the suffixes -FM and -TV to call >> letters? > For -FM: November 1, 1943. For -TV, I don't know, but it was some > time after the war. It occurs to me that those original FM calls must have caused a lot of trouble. If a station was on the same channel in Boston and in Buffalo, or Baltimore, or Binghamton, or ..., they would have had to have the same callsign. Would the FCC do that or would they avoid certain frequency assignments in order to avoid duplication of calls? If FM had grown more than it did in those days, that could have been a considerable headache. -- 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 Tue Dec 13 02:27:51 2011 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:27:51 -0500 Subject: Pre-war FM callsigns (was: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT)) In-Reply-To: <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <20198.65143.979649.806786@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > It occurs to me that those original FM calls must have caused a lot of > trouble. If a station was on the same channel in Boston and in Buffalo, > or Baltimore, or Binghamton, or ..., they would have had to have the > same callsign. That was, in fact, one of the motivations for changing the system. The other primary motivation was that broadcasters expected to need to change channels as the FM band became more developed, and they did not want to lose all the "goodwill" built up for their station's identity simply because they moved to a different (presumably better) frequency. There were only 44 commercial FM stations when the change was made. The 1944 /Broadcasting Yearbook/, published two months after the change, shows: Alpine: WFMN 43.1 (Armstrong) Baton Rouge (BR): WBRL 44.5 (WJBO) Binghamton (BN): WNBF-FM 44.9 Boston (B): WBZ-FM 46.7, WGTR 44.3, WMTW 43.9 Chicago (C): WBBM-FM 46.7, WDLM 47.5 (WMBI), WGNB 45.9, WWZR 45.1 (Zenith) Columbus (CM): WELD 44.5 (WBNS) Detroit (D): WENA 44.5 (WWJ), WLOU 44.9 (WJLB) Evansville (V): WMLL 44.5 (WEOA-WGBF) Fort Wayne (FW): WOWO-FM 44.9 Hartford (H): WDRC-FM 46.5 and WTIC-FM 45.3 Kansas City (KC): KOZY 44.9 (independent) Los Angeles (LA): KHJ-FM 44.5 Milwaukee (M): WMFM 45.5 (WTMJ) Nashville (NV): WSM-FM 44.7 New York (NY): WABC-FM 46.7 (CBS), WABF 47.5 (independent), WGYN 44.7 (Muzak), WHNF 46.3, WNYC-FM 43.9, WBAM 47.1 (WOR), WQXQ 45.9 (WQXR) Philadelphia (PH): KYW-FM 45.7, WCAU-FM 46.9, WFIL-FM 45.3, WIP-FM 44.9, WLBC 46.5 (WIBG), WPEN-FM 47.3 Pittsburgh (P): KDKA-FM 47.5, WTNT 44.7 (WWSW) Rochester (R): WHEF 44.7 (WHEC), WHFM 45.1 (WHAM) Salt Lake City (SL): KSL-FM 44.7 Schenectady (A): WBCA 44.7 (independent), WGFM 48.5 (WGY) South Bend (SB): WSBF 47.1 Springfield (SP): WBZA-FM 48.1 Winston-Salem (MM): WMIT 44.1 (WSJS) I've given the "trading area" codes that were used by these stations prior to the change. You'll note that there are only two stations in the South (Nashville and Baton Rouge), and only three stations west of the Mississippi (in Kansas City, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles). Nashville's W47NV was the first ever commercial FM station. NBC did not have any, in any of its markets; there was no commercial FM in Washington, D.C. (There was an experimental FM there, operated by the engineering firm Jansky & Bailey.) Why we ended up with FM stations in Evansville, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Salt Lake, but not San Francisco, Atlanta, Denver, St. Louis, or Cincinnati is something of a mystery. -GAWollman From Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 01:41:29 2011 From: Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com (Don) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:41:29 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044><4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <546B2A8E29DE4A7A9F76892429253E7A@s20035> In my travels I've heard an aircheck of Wolfman Jack ID-ing the station as WBZ-1030.... I always wondered when this was....as I never remember Wolfman being on WBZ. Could it have been that weekend? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Halper" To: "Scott Fybush" Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 7:13 PM Subject: Grease Weekend >I was asked to find some research about the first Grease Weekend held by >WBZ in 1972, but for some reason, I find much more info about the second >one, which was held in late July 1973. Anyone recall the first one, held >at good old Paragon Park? From scott@fybush.com Tue Dec 13 01:36:53 2011 From: scott@fybush.com (Scott Fybush) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:36:53 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <4EE6F285.30803@fybush.com> On 12/13/2011 12:29 AM, A Joseph Ross wrote: > It occurs to me that those original FM calls must have caused a lot of > trouble. If a station was on the same channel in Boston and in Buffalo, > or Baltimore, or Binghamton, or ..., they would have had to have the > same callsign. Would the FCC do that or would they avoid certain > frequency assignments in order to avoid duplication of calls? If FM had > grown more than it did in those days, that could have been a > considerable headache. It was a terrible system, really - imagine the poor New Yorkers trying to differentiate between "W67NY" and "W71NY" and "W75NY"! There were at least some two-letter suffixes - Binghamton was W49BN, for instance, but the system would not have scaled up very well, for sure. And getting back to Garrett's earlier note about the TV calls, I think the start of the "-TV" suffix can be dated to 1947. Everything before that (which was only eight or so stations) had a separate four-letter call (WNBT, WCBW, WNBW, WABD, etc.); February 1947 marked the start of KSD-TV in St. Louis, followed quickly by WGN-TV, KOB-TV, WFIL-TV and others. s From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Dec 13 02:42:17 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:42:17 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend In-Reply-To: <546B2A8E29DE4A7A9F76892429253E7A@s20035> References: <4D91E894.9060004@fybush.com> <20110329142105.A7A3330F3E@mailwash6.pair.com> <4D91EE49.3080806@fybush.com> <4D91F32F.6090604@fybush.com> <4D91F984.709@fybush.com> <6F989606FEB14F07A2D65E4EE843393E@SatU205S5044><4D9217A2.8020408@fybush.com> <4EE6988C.30008@donnahalper.com> <546B2A8E29DE4A7A9F76892429253E7A@s20035> Message-ID: <4EE701D9.3000307@donnahalper.com> On 12/13/2011 1:41 AM, Don wrote: > In my travels I've heard an aircheck of Wolfman Jack ID-ing the > station as WBZ-1030.... Yes, he participated in the second Grease Weekend, at Paragon Park in July 1973. He was one of the special guest disc jockeys for the event. From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Dec 13 06:52:40 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:52:40 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <4EE6F285.30803@fybush.com> Message-ID: <1C62D26091374A41BB024DF45F1E4A91@SatU205S5044> I was there (New York City) in 1947 and I distinctly remember WABD (the TV calls from that era that--I think--survived the longest), WCBW, and WNBT. But I have no memory of WNBW. The fascinating (to me) thing about WNBT is that, after their run of several years in Gotham City, those calls next surfaced on a Class IV AM 1490 in bucolic Wellsboro, in the mountains of northwestern PA. Apparently, they found a good home there because, according to CDBS, 60 or so years later, they still reside there. I remember being in Wellsboro, probably around 1950. It was after sundown and, as you might imagine, it was very, very quiet. I spotted the flashing red lights of the AM tower atop a hill not far from the center of town and I persuaded my parents to join me on a walk up there. I don't know whether the FCC yet allowed remote-controlled operation of AM transmitting facilities but it did not appear that there was a soul around. Maybe the little Class IVs (then maxed out at 250W-U and all ND-U) were allowed remote control before more powerful stations--many of them directional at least part of the time--were granted the privilege. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fybush" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:36 AM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) > On 12/13/2011 12:29 AM, A Joseph Ross wrote: > >> It occurs to me that those original FM calls must have caused a lot >> of >> trouble. If a station was on the same channel in Boston and in >> Buffalo, >> or Baltimore, or Binghamton, or ..., they would have had to have >> the >> same callsign. Would the FCC do that or would they avoid certain >> frequency assignments in order to avoid duplication of calls? If FM >> had >> grown more than it did in those days, that could have been a >> considerable headache. > > It was a terrible system, really - imagine the poor New Yorkers > trying to differentiate between "W67NY" and "W71NY" and "W75NY"! > > There were at least some two-letter suffixes - Binghamton was W49BN, > for instance, but the system would not have scaled up very well, for > sure. > > And getting back to Garrett's earlier note about the TV calls, I > think the start of the "-TV" suffix can be dated to 1947. Everything > before that (which was only eight or so stations) had a separate > four-letter call (WNBT, WCBW, WNBW, WABD, etc.); February 1947 > marked the start of KSD-TV in St. Louis, followed quickly by WGN-TV, > KOB-TV, WFIL-TV and others. > > s From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Dec 13 07:26:04 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:26:04 -0500 Subject: Pre-war FM callsigns (was: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT)) References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com><20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com><20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <20198.65143.979649.806786@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6AB6950C3146466B88452AA688187BA6@SatU205S5044> I remember getting my first AM/FM receiver for my 13th birthday in 1948. It had only tne then-new (88 to 108-MHz) FM band. A gentleman in my building who was a classical music fan had a Scott console radio that picked up both bands. He occasionally deigned to let me visit his apartment and listen, so I learned which stations were simulcasting on both the new band and the old (42 to 50?-MHz) band. Most apparently used the same calls on both bands. But not Maj Armstrong's stations, which transmitted from his Alpine tower a few miles away across the Hudson--clearly visible from my sixth-floor bedroom window. Armstrong at first did not use the (commercial) WFMN calls. The stations IDed as W2XMN (on the old band, IIRC) and W2XEA (on the new band). W2XEA (on 93.1--later occupied by WPAT-FM) had the loudest and cleanest signal of any of the FM stations I could pick up. Considering that it was the only station within my line of sight, I suppose that should have been no surprise. (Hmmm. Maybe the Alpine tower wasn't the only FM site that was within my line of sight. The top of the Empire State Building, about 15 miles to the south, was visible from the living room. I assume that at least RCA-owned WEAF-FM had its antenna on the ESB.) Anyhow, I believe that Armstrong used the separate W2Xxx calls until the FCC closed down the old band. At that point, what had been W2XEA started IDing as WFMN. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Wollman" To: "A Joseph Ross" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 2:27 AM Subject: Pre-war FM callsigns (was: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT)) > < said: > >> It occurs to me that those original FM calls must have caused a lot >> of >> trouble. If a station was on the same channel in Boston and in >> Buffalo, >> or Baltimore, or Binghamton, or ..., they would have had to have >> the >> same callsign. > > That was, in fact, one of the motivations for changing the system. > The other primary motivation was that broadcasters expected to need > to > change channels as the FM band became more developed, and they did > not > want to lose all the "goodwill" built up for their station's > identity > simply because they moved to a different (presumably better) > frequency. > > There were only 44 commercial FM stations when the change was made. > The 1944 /Broadcasting Yearbook/, published two months after the > change, shows: > > Alpine: WFMN 43.1 (Armstrong) > Baton Rouge (BR): WBRL 44.5 (WJBO) > Binghamton (BN): WNBF-FM 44.9 > Boston (B): WBZ-FM 46.7, WGTR 44.3, WMTW 43.9 > Chicago (C): WBBM-FM 46.7, WDLM 47.5 (WMBI), WGNB 45.9, WWZR 45.1 > (Zenith) > Columbus (CM): WELD 44.5 (WBNS) > Detroit (D): WENA 44.5 (WWJ), WLOU 44.9 (WJLB) > Evansville (V): WMLL 44.5 (WEOA-WGBF) > Fort Wayne (FW): WOWO-FM 44.9 > Hartford (H): WDRC-FM 46.5 and WTIC-FM 45.3 > Kansas City (KC): KOZY 44.9 (independent) > Los Angeles (LA): KHJ-FM 44.5 > Milwaukee (M): WMFM 45.5 (WTMJ) > Nashville (NV): WSM-FM 44.7 > New York (NY): WABC-FM 46.7 (CBS), WABF 47.5 (independent), WGYN > 44.7 (Muzak), > WHNF 46.3, WNYC-FM 43.9, WBAM 47.1 (WOR), WQXQ 45.9 (WQXR) > Philadelphia (PH): KYW-FM 45.7, WCAU-FM 46.9, WFIL-FM 45.3, WIP-FM > 44.9, > WLBC 46.5 (WIBG), WPEN-FM 47.3 > Pittsburgh (P): KDKA-FM 47.5, WTNT 44.7 (WWSW) > Rochester (R): WHEF 44.7 (WHEC), WHFM 45.1 (WHAM) > Salt Lake City (SL): KSL-FM 44.7 > Schenectady (A): WBCA 44.7 (independent), WGFM 48.5 (WGY) > South Bend (SB): WSBF 47.1 > Springfield (SP): WBZA-FM 48.1 > Winston-Salem (MM): WMIT 44.1 (WSJS) > > I've given the "trading area" codes that were used by these stations > prior to the change. > > You'll note that there are only two stations in the South (Nashville > and Baton Rouge), and only three stations west of the Mississippi > (in > Kansas City, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles). Nashville's W47NV > was > the first ever commercial FM station. NBC did not have any, in any > of > its markets; there was no commercial FM in Washington, D.C. (There > was an experimental FM there, operated by the engineering firm > Jansky > & Bailey.) Why we ended up with FM stations in Evansville, > Milwaukee, > Kansas City, and Salt Lake, but not San Francisco, Atlanta, Denver, > St. Louis, or Cincinnati is something of a mystery. > > -GAWollman From cohasset@frontiernet.net Tue Dec 13 07:25:12 2011 From: cohasset@frontiernet.net (Cohasset / Hippisley) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:25:12 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <1C62D26091374A41BB024DF45F1E4A91@SatU205S5044> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <4EE6F285.30803@fybush.com> <1C62D26091374A41BB024DF45F1E4A91@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <292F5D98-B529-4421-BA8E-A4D811191CF2@frontiernet.net> On Dec 13, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > I don't know whether the FCC yet > allowed remote-controlled operation of AM transmitting facilities but > it did not appear that there was a soul around. Maybe the little Class > IVs (then maxed out at 250W-U and all ND-U) were allowed remote > control before more powerful stations--many of them directional at > least part of the time--were granted the privilege. Wasn't the timing of the change-over to allowing remote control dependent on whether the station was non-directional? In the mid-50s I believe the sole AM station (then WMBO, now apparently WWLF, ND1-U) in my hometown (Auburn, NY) may have been remote controlled. At the time it ran 1000 watts daytime and 250 watts nightime ? from a single tower at its present site. But WHEN (620 kHz, 5000 ND-day and 1000 D-night)) with four towers in the Syracuse suburb of Liverpool required a transmitter engineer until 1960. When I was a summer replacement engineer for them in 1960 they had just switched over to having the transmitter metering read by the studio control room engineer in downtown Syracuse, where I was assigned. In fact, I had to go to the Boston FCC office in the spring of 1960 while at college to take my FCC 1st Phone license exam as a prerequisite for actually taking the job that summer. Bud Hippisley From hishaun@hotmail.com Tue Dec 13 19:25:56 2011 From: hishaun@hotmail.com (Shaun Hayes) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:25:56 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joe Smith was there. Curt Gowdy did a reconstruction of Ted Williams last game. (That reminds me: are there any recordings of the original game in circulation?) To: scott@fybush.com Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:13:00 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend I was asked to find some research about the first Grease Weekend held by WBZ in 1972, but for some reason, I find much more info about the second one, which was held in late July 1973. Anyone recall the first one, held at good old Paragon Park? From dan.strassberg@att.net Tue Dec 13 23:55:05 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:55:05 -0500 Subject: Pre-war FM callsigns References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com><20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com><20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <20198.65143.979649.806786@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6AB6950C3146466B88452AA688187BA6@SatU205S5044> <4EE8265E.7050306@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <7382E8D10AD3486982F2EA0503FAB60F@SatU205S5044> Long story. Can't do it now. I'm in the middle of a long nursing-a-PC-back-to-life saga, which just keeps getting worse and worse. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "A Joseph Ross" To: "Dan.Strassberg" Cc: "Garrett Wollman" ; Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:30 PM Subject: Re: Pre-war FM callsigns > On 12/13/2011 7:26 AM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > >> I remember getting my first AM/FM receiver for my 13th birthday in >> 1948. It had only tne then-new (88 to 108-MHz) FM band. A gentleman >> in >> my building who was a classical music fan had a Scott console radio >> that picked up both bands. He occasionally deigned to let me visit >> his >> apartment and listen, so I learned which stations were simulcasting >> on >> both the new band and the old (42 to 50?-MHz) band. Most apparently >> used the same calls on both bands. ... > >> Anyhow, I believe that Armstrong used the separate W2Xxx calls >> until the FCC closed down the old band. At that point, what had >> been >> W2XEA started IDing as WFMN. > > So why did the FCC change the FM band? It would seem that something > like that would retard the development of FM and make all existing > radios obsolete. How long a transition was allowed? > > -- > 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 karenmctrotsky@gmail.com Tue Dec 13 10:54:21 2011 From: karenmctrotsky@gmail.com (Karen McTrotsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:54:21 -0500 Subject: Grease weekend Message-ID: The first Grease weekend featured mainly local talent while the second was less interesting from a local history point of view since it brought in a lot of out-of-towners. While for some unfathomable reason Dick Biondi kicked off the second , the second began more appropriately on Friday night midnight with a jock from the WCOP rock and roll days, Paul Coss who at the time was the WBZ-TV program manager. There was the obligatory Fenway (not sure of which one) and a Dan Donovan ("first of the original Dan Donovans" he called himself which would suggest Johnny Dark, and probably not Arthur McTague, since he was doing traffic on a format competitor as Kevin O'Keefe at the time) and Ginsburg. It was heavy on ex-WMEXers with some BZ and WCOP folks too, Joe Smith was on one of them I don't recall if it was the first. In many ways, they just did the early 60's BZ format ("Request line number ALgonquin4-5678,:"Stand by for news, first, fast, factual"). Larry Justice did a lot of shifts and appeared to have an absolute blast, although his was more reminiscent of MEX "color radio" than early BZ.. If I remember correctly, he stayed on during the usual Sunday night maintenance period, no doubt to the shock and chagrin of Carl DeSuze. Until the Grease Weekend, the only oldies on BZ were a middle-of-the-roadish Jim Sands program with no requests and a daily feature Justice and Guy Mainella did just before the Five O'clock Report that they called the "Grease Corner" which featured the playing of a single oldie, usually 50s. The first Grease Weekend was far better than the second, and it was because of Justice whose energy and unbridled enthusiasm for the whole thing was one the great radio performances of all time. Unfortunately, It worked so well that apparently Westinghouse marketers got to work and decided Round 2 needed "celebrities" that meant nothing in the market, including the lamentable decision to bring in Wolfman Jack to give it celebrity appeal, thus ruining it nostalgically and artistically. Lawrence K. probably remembers everything about it. He's in real estate in Fla. LarryJusticeRealtor.com (bio page of his Web site has a publicity shot of him with the Beatles when he MCd them in Philly) From karenmctrotsky@gmail.com Tue Dec 13 11:03:23 2011 From: karenmctrotsky@gmail.com (Karen McTrotsky) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:03:23 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend (CORRECTION) Message-ID: Original message make read, in first graf, second sentence: XXX While for some unfathomable reason Dick Biondi kicked off the second , the first began more appropriately on Friday night midnight with a jock from the WCOP rock and roll days, Paul Coss XXX Stead as sent. From stevesnow1@gmail.com Tue Dec 13 11:55:53 2011 From: stevesnow1@gmail.com (Steve Snow) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:55:53 -0500 Subject: Grease Weekend 1972? Message-ID: FYI: Recording on sale on e-bay Actual Broadcast Recording (Aircheck) Station:? WBZ - Boston, Massachusetts DJ: Dick Biondi Program:? "Greaser Weekend" Oldies Rock and Roll Show Date:? July 17. 1972 (Monday?)(USS Warrington destroyed in the Gulf of Tonkin) Length:?31 minutes (digitally remastered and placed on CD at our studios here at Rock-it Radio RIR Release #: 257 http://rockradioscrapbook.ca/almanac.html sets the date as 7/24/1972 (also a Monday?)(date Prozac discovered) From lglavin@mail.com Tue Dec 13 18:13:03 2011 From: lglavin@mail.com (Laurence Glavin) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:13:03 -0500 Subject: WBZ-TV news makeover Message-ID: <20111213231304.12140@gmx.com> >----- Original Message ----- >From: Kevin Vahey >Sent: 12/12/11 06:05 PM >To: Boston Radio Group >Subject: WBZ-TV news makeover >New set, graphics and the return of the CBS eye and channel number. >Change over happened at 5. Looks good in HD >http://bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2011_1212wbz_studio_gets_makeover/srvc=home&position=7 I watched the 11:00 pm news last night (Monday, 12/12/11) and was able to observe one advance over the old set. Weatherman Todd Gutner announced that thanks to the H-U-G-E screen WBZ-TV was using for weather graphics instead of a green screen, HE WAS WEARING A GREEN TIE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS CAREER! This is the greatest advance in television broadcasting since the installation of the coast-to-coast coaxial cable 50 years ago! I can hardly wait until St. Patrick's Day 2012...the meteorolgists at WBZ-TV will be the only such people wearing o' the green. From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Dec 13 23:26:09 2011 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:26:09 -0500 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4EE6F285.30803@fybush.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <4EE6F285.30803@fybush.com> Message-ID: <4EE82561.9040801@attorneyross.com> On 12/13/2011 1:36 AM, Scott Fybush wrote: > It was a terrible system, really - imagine the poor New Yorkers trying > to differentiate between "W67NY" and "W71NY" and "W75NY"! > > There were at least some two-letter suffixes - Binghamton was W49BN, > for instance, but the system would not have scaled up very well, for sure. Which raises the question, what idiot put it into effect in the first place? -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. 617.367.0468 92 State Street, Suite 700 Fax: 617.507.7856 Boston, MA 02109-2004 http://www.attorneyross.com From joe@attorneyross.com Tue Dec 13 23:30:22 2011 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:30:22 -0500 Subject: Pre-war FM callsigns In-Reply-To: <6AB6950C3146466B88452AA688187BA6@SatU205S5044> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net><4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com><4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com><4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com><20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com><20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <20198.65143.979649.806786@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6AB6950C3146466B88452AA688187BA6@SatU205S5044> Message-ID: <4EE8265E.7050306@attorneyross.com> On 12/13/2011 7:26 AM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > I remember getting my first AM/FM receiver for my 13th birthday in > 1948. It had only tne then-new (88 to 108-MHz) FM band. A gentleman in > my building who was a classical music fan had a Scott console radio > that picked up both bands. He occasionally deigned to let me visit his > apartment and listen, so I learned which stations were simulcasting on > both the new band and the old (42 to 50?-MHz) band. Most apparently > used the same calls on both bands. ... > Anyhow, I believe that Armstrong used the separate W2Xxx calls > until the FCC closed down the old band. At that point, what had been > W2XEA started IDing as WFMN. So why did the FCC change the FM band? It would seem that something like that would retard the development of FM and make all existing radios obsolete. How long a transition was allowed? -- 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 Dec 14 01:05:15 2011 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:05:15 -0500 Subject: Pre-war FM callsigns In-Reply-To: <4EE8265E.7050306@attorneyross.com> References: <004401ccb7bd$a4410bd0$ecc32370$@skywaves.net> <4EE43CC8.1000109@fybush.com> <4fce3408-dd95-4601-9551-acdd7b94d24d@email.android.com> <4EE4D89B.8030905@fybush.com> <20196.63131.644659.805108@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE591C5.3060602@attorneyross.com> <20197.43340.904893.145342@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE6E2A9.9080008@attorneyross.com> <20198.65143.979649.806786@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <6AB6950C3146466B88452AA688187BA6@SatU205S5044> <4EE8265E.7050306@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <20200.15515.796877.76197@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > So why did the FCC change the FM band? Because the guy in charge of developing industry proposals for post-war spectrum allocation worked for RCA? The usual story is that Sarnoff feared competition from FM, so he engineered the spectrum reallocation to intentionally set FM back ten years. (I'm actually very close to reading about this in /Broadcasting/ so I will soon know how it was reported in the contemporary trade press.) It is true that the old FM band was much more prone to sporadic-E propagation, which some argued was a reason to find a different allocation. -GAWollman From chris2526@comcast.net Wed Dec 14 01:02:36 2011 From: chris2526@comcast.net (Chris Hall) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:02:36 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies Message-ID: To make a long story short, David Sarnoff of RCA in collusion with the FCC to screw Edwin Howard Armstrong to protect the standard (AM) band by keeping his superior (FM) transmission system from gaining ground with the public. This made all old band FM receivers obsolete, he then tried to screw him out of royalties on new band RCA FM receivers along with royalties for FM mandated TV audio. If you want the full details I suggest getting a copy of the PBS documentary ?Empire of the air? TV at its best. Longest patent and royalty suit in US history, he finally won 40 years after he died. From billohno@gmail.com Wed Dec 14 08:31:57 2011 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:31:57 +0000 Subject: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) In-Reply-To: <4EE82561.9040801@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: WCVT (101.7 Stowe) will be flipping the switch to the new tower and XMTR on Mt. Mansfield on Friday at 1:01 p.m. The morning host Brian Harwood, mentioned it in passing this morning. Found it interesting (in a geeky sort of way) that while they aren't hyping the event, the are flipping it at a time that lines up with their frequency, 101.7. Harwood is a very good "listen" in the morning. Very low key and yet funny in the sense that he seems to thoroughly enjoy what he is doing. I suspect that is a critical piece missing from many jocks today; they either sound like they would rather be somewhere else, or they ARE somewhere else. Harwood is a radio (and advertising) legend in Vermont and is well known in classical music circles; he recently replaced Ken Squier as Chairman of the Vermont VSO board. He is retired from his HMC advertising in Stowe around '06. He's been with WDEV/WCVT for decades. A bio I found online mentions his having worked as a reporter for WCAX-TV years ago. With all that time in with the station, it must be a thrill for Harwood and others there to be able to kick up the juice on classical music in Vermont. With VPR Classical and now a broader reaching WCVT, the state certainly has a solid terrestrial radio base of classical music. Bill O'Neill ------ Original Message ------ From: "A Joseph Ross" To: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org Sent: 12/13/2011 11:26:09 PM Subject: Re: WCVT (101.7 Stowe, VT) >On 12/13/2011 1:36 AM, Scott Fybush wrote: > >>It was a terrible system, really - imagine the poor New Yorkers >>trying >>to differentiate between "W67NY" and "W71NY" and "W75NY"! >> >>There were at least some two-letter suffixes - Binghamton was W49BN, >>for instance, but the system would not have scaled up very well, for >>sure. > >Which raises the question, what idiot put it into effect in the first >place? > >-- >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 Dec 15 00:00:35 2011 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:00:35 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> On 12/14/2011 1:02 AM, Chris Hall wrote: > To make a long story short, David Sarnoff of RCA in collusion with the FCC to screw Edwin Howard Armstrong to protect the standard (AM) band by keeping his superior (FM) transmission system from gaining ground with the public. This made all old band FM receivers obsolete, he then tried to screw him out of royalties on new band RCA FM receivers along with royalties for FM mandated TV audio. If you want the full details I suggest getting a copy of the PBS documentary ?Empire of the air? TV at its best. Longest patent and royalty suit in US history, he finally won 40 years after he died. I think I've seen Empire of the Air. In fact, I may have a tape of it in my collection. -- 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 Dec 15 00:45:29 2011 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:45:29 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > I think I've seen Empire of the Air. In fact, I may have a tape of it > in my collection. I should point out that the television (1992) and radio (1993) versions were based on the 1991 book of the same name by Tom Lewis. -GAWollman From dlh@donnahalper.com Thu Dec 15 01:38:56 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:38:56 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> On 12/15/2011 12:45 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > I should point out that the television (1992) and radio (1993) > versions were based on the 1991 book of the same name by Tom Lewis. > And while it was a well-done TV documentary, it badly underplayed anyone was not corporate (Westinghouse, GE, RCA), never mentioned any women or minorities, and focused on Sarnoff, Armstrong and DeForest as if they were the entire story of radio. Agreed, they were three major figures (although DeForest's role could be debated-- he was quite a self-promoter), but the early years of broadcasting had some amazing entrepreneurs, including the late great John Shepard 3rd, who was mentioned but just barely. From wilkinsmg@hotmail.com Thu Dec 15 10:04:33 2011 From: wilkinsmg@hotmail.com (Michael Wilkins) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:04:33 -0500 Subject: WBCN documentary In-Reply-To: <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com>, <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu>, <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: Hello all, Came across this and thought I'd pass along: Bill Lichtenstein is producing, ""The American Revolution," (an) exciting new documentary film about the early days of underground radio station WBCN-FM in Boston." find out more here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lcmedia/the-american-revolution Mike From mamros@mit.edu Thu Dec 15 10:51:57 2011 From: mamros@mit.edu (Shawn Mamros) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:51:57 -0500 Subject: WBCN documentary In-Reply-To: References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com>, <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu>, <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <201112151551.pBFFpvda025615@outgoing.mit.edu> For what it's worth, Chronicle on Channel 5 showed an excerpt from what I assume to be the work-in-progress this past Tuesday night. Looks interesting, probably even more so to those who remember the station from "back in the day". -Shawn From peterwmurray@gmail.com Thu Dec 15 12:36:40 2011 From: peterwmurray@gmail.com (Peter Murray) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:36:40 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Donna Halper wrote: > > And while it was a well-done TV documentary, it badly underplayed anyone was > not corporate (Westinghouse, GE, RCA), never mentioned any women or > minorities, and focused on Sarnoff, Armstrong and DeForest as if they were > the entire story of radio. ?Agreed, they were three major figures (although > DeForest's role could be debated-- he was quite a self-promoter), but the > early years of broadcasting had some amazing entrepreneurs, including the > late great John Shepard 3rd, who was mentioned but just barely. Donna- Would you make the same statement about the book as well? I would rather get the book than watch the TV show - I expect there is much more info in the text rather than the couple of hours in the TV documentary... -Peter From dlh@donnahalper.com Thu Dec 15 12:53:05 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:53:05 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <4EEA3401.1020909@donnahalper.com> On 12/15/2011 12:36 PM, Peter Murray wrote: > > Would you make the same statement about the book as well? I would > rather get the book than watch the TV show - I expect there is much > more info in the text rather than the couple of hours in the TV > documentary... > I have always enjoyed Tom Lewis's historical work, and even quoted him in my PhD dissertation. But while the book does indeed have a lot more information that was not in the documentary, it too is quite corporate focused. But in fairness to Tom, it was the major broadcasting corporations that kept a lot of their archival materials. I wish I knew who ended up with the Yankee Network archives-- I have yet to find one place where all of the papers and correspondence from John Shepard 3rd's extensive career can be found. From dlh@donnahalper.com Thu Dec 15 12:58:37 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:58:37 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com><20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <4EEA354D.9040209@donnahalper.com> On 12/15/2011 12:55 PM, Dan.Strassberg wrote: > With all due respect to Donna, I think she is biased regarding Mr > Shepard's importance to radio as a nationwide communications medium. > He certainly was very important in New England but how important were > his contributions outside of New England? Why yes, Dan, they were. Shepard was on the board of the NAB (a founding member, back when they really did stand up for smaller stations), was also on the board of nearly every major broadcasting advocacy group, was a passionate defender of broadcast journalism, and there was not a week that went by when a broadcasting magazine did not quote him. From dan.strassberg@att.net Thu Dec 15 12:55:53 2011 From: dan.strassberg@att.net (Dan.Strassberg) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:55:53 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com><20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu><4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: With all due respect to Donna, I think she is biased regarding Mr Shepard's importance to radio as a nationwide communications medium. He certainly was very important in New England but how important were his contributions outside of New England? I think there is ample justification for for giving him only passing mention in a book and a TV documentary that attempted to portray the importance of radio to the entire nation. As for inadequate coverage of the roles of women and minorities, although the lack of emphasis on those groups would almost certainly be considered egregious in 21st-century publications and programs, the lack was endemic throughout the American culture of 20 or more years ago. I think it would have been nothing short of miraculous if works of that era had provided the level of emphasis we would consider necessary in semi-scholarly works today. ----- Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net) eFax 1-707-215-6367 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Murray" To: "Boston Radio Group" Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:36 PM Subject: Re: Change of FM band frequencies > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Donna Halper > wrote: >> >> And while it was a well-done TV documentary, it badly underplayed >> anyone was >> not corporate (Westinghouse, GE, RCA), never mentioned any women or >> minorities, and focused on Sarnoff, Armstrong and DeForest as if >> they were >> the entire story of radio. Agreed, they were three major figures >> (although >> DeForest's role could be debated-- he was quite a self-promoter), >> but the >> early years of broadcasting had some amazing entrepreneurs, >> including the >> late great John Shepard 3rd, who was mentioned but just barely. > > Donna- > > Would you make the same statement about the book as well? I would > rather get the book than watch the TV show - I expect there is much > more info in the text rather than the couple of hours in the TV > documentary... > > -Peter > From radiotest@plymouthcolony.net Thu Dec 15 12:46:17 2011 From: radiotest@plymouthcolony.net (Dale H. Cook) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:46:17 -0500 Subject: Change of FM band frequencies In-Reply-To: References: <4EE97EF3.9020104@attorneyross.com> <20201.35193.396151.253501@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <4EE99600.2010907@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20111215124349.027bc320@plymouthcolony.net> At 12:36 PM 12/15/2011, Peter Murray wrote: >Would you make the same statement about the book as well? I do not know whether Donna would, but I certainly would, having read the book well before the TV program appeared, and having worked in broadcasting for 40+ years (and having studied the industry in an academic setting beginning in 1970). Dale H. Cook, Contract Engineer, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html From elipolo@earthlink.net Fri Dec 16 01:52:06 2011 From: elipolo@earthlink.net (elipolo@earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:52:06 -0500 Subject: WBCN documentary Message-ID: <380-22011125166526185@M2W130.mail2web.com> Bill Lichtenstein was known as "Little Bill" on WBCN in the early and mid '70s, also "Captain Steamboat Willie" on WNTN in Newton at around the same time. There is a deadline of this coming Monday to secure funding for this non-profit documentary project. If you would like to make a tax-deductible pledge to help make it become a reality, a shorter URL is: http://www.kickstartwbcn.com There are various incentives for different amounts of pledges offered on the site. If the goal is not met by the deadline, no accounts will be charged. Eli Polonsky > Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:04:33 -0500 > From: Michael Wilkins > Cc: > Subject: WBCN documentary > > Hello all, > Came across this and thought I'd pass along: > Bill Lichtenstein is producing "The American Revolution", > (an) exciting new documentary film about the early days > of underground radio station WBCN-FM in Boston." -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft? Windows? and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting From kvahey@gmail.com Sat Dec 17 08:28:17 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:28:17 -0500 Subject: WCVT switch over complete Message-ID: WCAX covers the moment when WCVT changed transmitters to their new home on top of Mt Mansfield. http://www.wcax.com/story/16343257/vt-classical-radio-station-pumps-up-its-signal A friend reports the station can now be heard in Greenfield Park, Quebec just south of Montreal. From billohno@gmail.com Sat Dec 17 09:25:48 2011 From: billohno@gmail.com (Bill O'Neill) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:25:48 -0500 Subject: WCVT switch over complete In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's been throwing a dead carrier for about an hour. Here in Shoreham (SW Champlain Valley), there is definitely better signal strength but comparatively weaker closer south where 101.7 Glens Falls splashes. There may be some next adjacent from 101.5 Brandon. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _____________________________________________ From: Kevin Vahey Sent: Sat Dec 17 08:28:17 EST 2011 To: Boston Radio Group Subject: WCVT switch over complete WCAX covers the moment when WCVT changed transmitters to their new home on top of Mt Mansfield. http://www.wcax.com/story/16343257/vt-classical-radio-station-pumps-up-its-signal A friend reports the station can now be heard in Greenfield Park, Quebec just south of Montreal. From brouder@juno.com Tue Dec 20 11:43:42 2011 From: brouder@juno.com (brouder@juno.com) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:43:42 GMT Subject: Ed Walsh back at WBZ? Message-ID: <20111220.114342.7520.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> Anybody know the backstory as to why retired news director Ed Walsh was anchoring at WBZ around 3:30PM on Monday 12/19? Ed Brouder Manchester, NH ____________________________________________________________ FreeCreditScore.com® A Good Credit Score = 700 & Above. See Yours in 2 Easy Steps for $0. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ef0bb7ab942723371b6st01vuc From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Dec 20 15:09:27 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:09:27 -0500 Subject: Ed Walsh back at WBZ? In-Reply-To: <20111220.114342.7520.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> References: <20111220.114342.7520.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <4EF0EB77.8080300@donnahalper.com> On 12/20/2011 11:43 AM, brouder@juno.com wrote: > Anybody know the backstory as to why retired news director Ed Walsh was anchoring at WBZ around 3:30PM on Monday 12/19? > And you will hear him again too. Yes he is retired, but he will be doing some occasional vacation relief and fill-in work for WBZ, I am told. From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Dec 23 08:46:41 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:46:41 -0500 Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. Message-ID: Gil Santos goes back to 1966 when he did color with Bob Starr. Gino Cappelletti took over the color role when Starr left after the 71 season. There was about a 10 year period when WEEI and WHDH had the games and they were called by John Carlson, Curt Gowdy and Dale Arnold. Truth is the games have become hard to listen to. http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2011/12/23/gil_santos_and_gino_cappelletti_need_to_go_as_patriots_radio_broadcast_team/?page=full From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Dec 23 12:19:07 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 12:19:07 -0500 Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. In-Reply-To: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Still it isn't as bad as when WHDH hired Curt Gowdy who if memory serves was replaced by Dale Arnold after just a few games. BTW is John Carlson still on the planet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_Patriots_broadcasters From ssmyth@psualum.com Fri Dec 23 12:08:59 2011 From: ssmyth@psualum.com (Sean Smyth) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:08:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. References: Message-ID: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Kevin Vahey writes:? << Gil Santos goes back to 1966 when he did color with Bob Starr. Gino Cappelletti took over the color role when Starr left after the 71 season. There was about a 10 year period when WEEI and WHDH had the games and they were called by John Carlson, Curt Gowdy and Dale Arnold. Truth is the games have become hard to listen to. >> I was listening to the Pats-Skins game a couple weeks ago while running around town, and Cappelletti sounded really bad. I wonder how much of Gil's issue is with spotters; I'm presuming he has some good ones, but it also sounds like stuff he's missing is very basic, and stuff even age shouldn't affect. And he may be shouldering more of the load with Gino (understandably) sounding less like his younger self, too. That tandem is still miles ahead of the Redskins radio team, especially Sam Huff, who should have been off the radio 10 years ago. From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Dec 23 13:46:31 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:46:31 -0500 Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. In-Reply-To: <1324664712.12241.YahooMailNeo@web110504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EF4C41A.4020404@donnahalper.com> <1324664712.12241.YahooMailNeo@web110504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I have been told that former Pawsox announcer Dan Hoarde might have the inside track. He is currently doing the Bengals but his wife Peg Rusconi wants to come back to Boston where she worked at channel 4 for years and they would take her back in a heartbeat. From dlh@donnahalper.com Fri Dec 23 13:10:34 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:10:34 -0500 Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. In-Reply-To: References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4EF4C41A.4020404@donnahalper.com> On 12/23/2011 12:19 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: > Still it isn't as bad as when WHDH hired Curt Gowdy who if memory serves > was replaced by Dale Arnold after just a few games. > It's a brutal business, as we all know. I am reticent to say anything bad about Gil or Gino, two very good human beings, even though I do agree that at times, they are increasingly making more verbal stumbles. I am also reticent to just say "fire them" because they are a wealth of institutional memory and experience. But that said, there comes a time when a change is needed, when the veteran callers could benefit from some new perspectives. This may be a good time to make such a move. My problem is when a station sweeps out all the vets and replaces them with young announcers who are not ready to do the quality job the vets did (but who work cheaper). I don't think WBZ/Sports Hub will make that mistake. If they replace these two guys, I am sure the replacement will be either a big name or an experienced voice. And there was a time when all of these guys were the new kid and people wondered who they were and whether they'd be successful. As I recall, Curt Gowdy gave Ned Martin a chance after Ned had only been doing play by play of minor league ball for a couple of years. From paul@derrynh.net Fri Dec 23 13:10:24 2011 From: paul@derrynh.net (Paul Hopfgarten) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:10:24 -0500 Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappellettito retire. In-Reply-To: References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Unless "Bill Shea's Countertops" ads are old (and I don?t think they are), I believe he's still on the planet. He did New England Whalers games back in 72-73 (Your Avco Cup Champs that year defeating the Winnipeg Jets).....I got his autograph (along with "Pie" MacKenzie) at a Dec 1972 game vs. the Philadelphia Blazers. Ahhh...the WHA.....hockey for those of us that could not secure Bruins Tickets! -Paul Hopfgarten Epping NH -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Vahey Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:19 PM To: Sean Smyth Cc: (newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest Subject: Re: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappellettito retire. Still it isn't as bad as when WHDH hired Curt Gowdy who if memory serves was replaced by Dale Arnold after just a few games. BTW is John Carlson still on the planet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_Patriots_broadcasters From ssmyth@psualum.com Fri Dec 23 13:25:12 2011 From: ssmyth@psualum.com (Sean Smyth) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:25:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. In-Reply-To: <4EF4C41A.4020404@donnahalper.com> References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EF4C41A.4020404@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <1324664712.12241.YahooMailNeo@web110504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Donna Halper writes:? > My problem is when a station sweeps out all the > vets and replaces them with young announcers who are not ready to do the quality > job the vets did (but who work cheaper).? I don't think WBZ/Sports Hub will > make that mistake.? If they replace these two guys, I am sure the replacement > will be either a big name or an experienced voice.? I'm interested in Chad Finn's speculation on Gary Tanguay as a successor. He has great pipes but I don't know if he's ever done high-level play-by-play. Maybe some college stuff? But that's it. I know Dale Arnold has his detractors, but I'd think he'd be the obvious choice. From m_carney@yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 14:43:32 2011 From: m_carney@yahoo.com (Maureen Carney) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:43:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. In-Reply-To: <1324664712.12241.YahooMailNeo@web110504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EF4C41A.4020404@donnahalper.com> <1324664712.12241.YahooMailNeo@web110504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1324669412.26129.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Gary has done some fill-in for Mike Gorman on Celtics telecasts in the past. I think they are grooming Scott Zolak to take over for Gino in the near future. Dale Arnold's WEEI contract is up next spring, but he may be happy with his Bruins gig at NESN. From francini@mac.com Sat Dec 24 15:27:28 2011 From: francini@mac.com (John Francini) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:27:28 -0500 Subject: Globe writer says it is time for Gil Santos and Gino Cappelletti to retire. In-Reply-To: <1324669412.26129.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1324660139.31497.YahooMailNeo@web110513.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4EF4C41A.4020404@donnahalper.com> <1324664712.12241.YahooMailNeo@web110504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1324669412.26129.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5C3F2688-1EBE-47ED-AAE4-A2EC0A8EB937@mac.com> Dale would be a good replacement for Gil. He can 'paint a picture in words' of what's happening in a game, much as Gil can do. -- John Francini "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm; and that three or more become a Congress. And by God I have had *this* Congress!" --John Adams On Dec 23, 2011, at 14:43, Maureen Carney wrote: > Gary has done some fill-in for Mike Gorman on Celtics telecasts in the past. > > > I think they are grooming Scott Zolak to take over for Gino in the near future. Dale Arnold's WEEI contract is up next spring, but he may be happy with his Bruins gig at NESN. From kvahey@gmail.com Sun Dec 25 20:14:13 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:14:13 -0500 Subject: Dan Davis retires Message-ID: One of the good guys signed off for the last time on Friday - ESPN Radio's Dan Davis who had a long career in Boston before moving to Connecticut. http://www.rbr.com/radio/espn-radio-s-dan-davis-retiring.html From dlh@donnahalper.com Tue Dec 27 02:12:12 2011 From: dlh@donnahalper.com (Donna Halper) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:12:12 -0500 Subject: a question about unreliable old technology In-Reply-To: <687PLAB1Q9232S02.1324950822@web02.cms.usa.net> References: <687PLAB1Q9232S02.1324950822@web02.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: <4EF96FCC.4080908@donnahalper.com> My Canadian friend Art, who is writing a book with a backdrop in late 1940s or early 1950s broadcasting, asked this of me, and since technology is not my strong suit, I thought I'd ask you nice folks. I'll pass along your replies to him. He was reading some old articles about technical failures in TV equipment: "Everyone who was working in TV at the time recalls how temperamental and unreliable the electronics were, but exactly how temperamental and unreliable is not spelled out. So I am trying to find comprehensive and detailed information about the extent of it: what were the most common component failures that would lead to loss of service (not necessarily loss of the signal altogether, which was quite rare.) Essentially anything that led to the "We Are Experiencing Technical Difficulties" slide appearing fits the definition, with the exception of component failure from external causes: a burst water main that shorted out the electronics, or a lightning bolt that fried the transmitter don't count. What were the most common components to fail, how long on average would it take to fix them, and what percentage of the broadcast hours would the average station expect to lose over the course of a month?" Any guidance you can offer will be appreciated! From cohasset@frontiernet.net Tue Dec 27 07:44:50 2011 From: cohasset@frontiernet.net (Cohasset / Hippisley) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:44:50 -0500 Subject: a question about unreliable old technology In-Reply-To: <4EF96FCC.4080908@donnahalper.com> References: <687PLAB1Q9232S02.1324950822@web02.cms.usa.net> <4EF96FCC.4080908@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Donna Halper wrote: > My Canadian friend Art, who is writing a book with a backdrop in late 1940s or early 1950s broadcasting, asked this of me, and since technology is not my strong suit, I thought I'd ask you nice folks. I'll pass along your replies to him. He was reading some old articles about technical failures in TV equipment: "Everyone who was working in TV at the time recalls how temperamental and unreliable the electronics were, but exactly how temperamental and unreliable is not spelled out. So I am trying to find comprehensive and detailed information about the extent of it: what were the most common component failures that would lead to loss of service (not necessarily loss of the signal altogether, which was quite rare.) Essentially anything that led to the "We Are Experiencing Technical Difficulties" slide appearing fits the definition, with the exception of component failure from external causes: a burst water main that shorted out the electronics, or a lightning bolt that fried the transmitter don't count. What were the most common components to fail, how long on average would it take to fix them, and what percentage of the broadcast hours would the average station expect to lose over the course of a month?" Any guidance you can offer will be appreciated! Without a doubt, the primary sources of "temperamental and unreliable" functioning of electronics equipment in my 50s & 60s (sorry for the slight time skew, Donna) broadcasting experience were vacuum tubes. Even in the mid-60s, I think WBZ-TV had more stockroom space allocated to storing spare, new vacuum tubes that the combined Studio B / Control Room B of then-WTBS! (I even recall a major RCA tube distributor being located just a few blocks from their Soldiers Field Road facility...I wonder if that was deliberate!) The problems we most commonly experienced had at least four origins: 1. The gain and other electronic characteristics of tubes slowly changed as the operating hours on those tubes increased. To the extent that the (analog) circuitry of the day was a function on those characteristics, the operation of the circuitry would gradually shift and/or decline over time. 2. The use of large amounts of feedback and other compensating techniques in circuit designs to stabilize the "black box" input / output performance of electronic circuits was nowhere near as universal as it became in later years. One reason for this is that ? at the bandwidths required by TV baseband video and at the over-the-air frequencies assigned to commercial FM and VHF television stations -- many circuit designs and vacuum tubes were at the limits of their (gain-bandwidth) capabilities even before applying feedback techniques. 3. The heat generated by the filaments of even very low level stages with hardly any plate dissipation was, like high blood pressure, a "silent killer" over time. Worse yet, just like "second-hand smoke", that heat affected the useful life of ALL components in the same circuit, the same equipment enclosure, and even the same room. Heat further de-stabilized circuit operation; circuit designs needed to be stable not just over the temperature range provided by the (often controlled) environment but over the additional temperature rise between cold turn-on (or room) temperature and the ultimate temperature INSIDE the equipment enclosure after an hour or more of operation. 4. Many circuits of the day were sensitive to "hum" from the normal 60-cycle alternating current filament voltages. In quality audio gear, those filaments were actually fed from DC power supplies ? especially in the low-level stages needed for microphone and turntable pre-amps. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent swapping out glass triodes, trying to minimize hum in the amplified output of a high-fidelity audio amplifier! (A related problem was "microphonics" ? usually heard as a modulation on the desired output signal whenever the offending tube was tapped or otherwise subjected to vibration.) No better example of the combined effects of # 1-#4 above exists than this: Even in the mid-60s I remember the techs at Channel 4 spending more time getting the studio color cameras "tweaked" to deliver the same amount of green in flesh-tones to the control room than the actual duration of the local-origination newscast they were preparing for! Probably the second-most likely component to fail in my experience was the electrolytic capacitor. Primarily used in DC power supplies to reduce or eliminate any AC (hum) on the output of the supply, the lifetimes of these devices were seriously compromised by high temperatures. Further, they were usually found in the highest voltage sections of equipment. Typical plate voltages in ordinary studio and control room electronics devices might be 150, 300, 600 volts, for instance. (Transmitter voltages were much higher, of course.) Electrolytics were additionally temperamental in that they were best operated regularly, and at a large fraction (say 85%) of their rated working voltage or they would prematurely fail. In fact, there are published techniques for "re-forming" electrolytics that haven't been used in a long time. I don't think I've seen anything similar for any other components except high-power glass triode transmitting tubes. In third place I would put tape decks of all kinds. Certainly by the mid-60s the video tape decks were the highest maintenance and most temperamental of the entire group ? largely because of the extremely high frequency content and bandwidth of the recording techniques required for television video, coupled with the basic limitations of magnetic tape as a recording medium. But in the 50s we certainly had our share of "fun" with audio tape decks, as well. Of course, the quality and reliability of the Ampex professional machines was one of the high points of the era, but even those units needed periodic alignment and head cleaning / replacement. And they, too, were susceptible to all the vacuum tube issues listed above ? especially microphonics, since the solenoid-controlled tape handling subjected the entire tape deck chassis to shock and vibration seldom felt anywhere else in the station. The extent to which tubes or capacitors or tape decks caused stations to put up the "Technical Difficulties" slide depended primarily on two aspects of station management philosophy: a. The Preventive Maintenance policies and procedures in place and actually practiced. b. The extent to which critical pieces of equipment were replicated: extra channels in the station signal paths, spare studio cameras, power supplies, tubes, etc. Without following the Boy Scout precept ("Be Prepared") through some combination of (a) and (b) above, a simple vacuum tube failure could take hours to locate. So I'm inclined to believe you can't build a purely-electronic or electro-mechanical cause-and-effect relationship between the failure of a component and the amount of dead air experienced. Failed components were a fact of life; if you built your station and its procedures around that premise, you would experience little, if any, dead air. If you didn't, you were always going to be in a "heap of hurt". An extreme example is the transmitter: A failed electrolytic capacitor might take a shift or two to identify, another shift or more to replace. The only smart work-around is a back-up transmitter. Also, please remember that the view from inside is not the same as the general public's perception. A large part of what the technical professionals in our industry did was work their butts off, dealing with these "notoriously unreliable" devices every hour of every working day so that the image of broadcasting presented to the lay public was one of unparalleled reliability and "up-time". There were doubtless completely separate issues associated with the "portable" equipment used for "remotes", but I won't go there....:-) Bud Hippisley From Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 12:24:04 2011 From: Donald_Astelle@yahoo.com (Don) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:24:04 -0500 Subject: a question about unreliable old technology References: <687PLAB1Q9232S02.1324950822@web02.cms.usa.net> <4EF96FCC.4080908@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: <5ADCA8EA5F41494AAC67742418DBAD77@s20035> > My Canadian friend Art, who is writing a book with a backdrop in late > 1940s or early 1950s broadcasting, asked this of me, and since technology > is not my strong suit, I thought I'd ask you nice folks. I'll pass along > your replies to him. He was reading some old articles about technical > failures in TV equipment: "Everyone who was working in TV at the time > recalls how temperamental and unreliable the electronics were, but exactly > how temperamental and unreliable is not spelled out. So I am trying to > find comprehensive and detailed information about the extent of it: what > were the most common component failures that would lead to loss of service > (not necessarily loss of the signal altogether, which was quite rare.) > Essentially anything that led to the "We Are Experiencing Technical > Difficulties" slide appearing fits the definition, with the exception of > component failure from external causes: a burst water main that shorted > out the electronics, or a lightning bolt that fried the transmitter don't > count. What were the most common components to fail, how long on average > would it take to fix them, and what percentage of the broadcast hours > would the average station expect to lose over the course of a month?" Any > guidance you can offer will be appreciated! I realize I am not answering your question, but when I think of old broadcast failure events, one of the things that changed is the proliferation of backup systems...and redundancies bult into the todays broadcast facilities. I think management has come to their senses as to how important, backup programming, backup switchers, backup transmitters, backup sites are. I haven't heard anyone in a long time respond to a bad rating book by saying "remember, we were only on half-power for 10 days during the book!" ;-) Again, not answering your question Donna, just offering some thoughts... From kvahey@gmail.com Tue Dec 27 12:01:17 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:01:17 -0500 Subject: a question about unreliable old technology In-Reply-To: References: <687PLAB1Q9232S02.1324950822@web02.cms.usa.net> <4EF96FCC.4080908@donnahalper.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Cohasset / Hippisley wrote: > > > > There were doubtless completely separate issues associated with the "portable" equipment used for "remotes", but I won't go there....:-) > I remember one doozy that WMUR had with a minor league baseball game. Channel 9 had a bare bones remote unit and around 1970 they entered into a contract with the Manchester Yankees baseball team. So the plan was to televise the game and use a backup STL link from Gill Stadium to Mt. Uncanoonuc. Incredibly it never occurred to anyone that the backup STL was on the same frequency as the main one. Another big cause of a technical difficulties slide going up was loss of signal from AT&T Long Lines. We would use our trusty Conrac OTA tuner to get an ABC signal from channel 7 at least once a week. From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Tue Dec 27 12:45:21 2011 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:45:21 -0500 Subject: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 15, Issue 331 References: Message-ID: <249FE198A7824E1982F2042D8246C21C@YOURbcbbe822ed> Wow, does this bring back memories. When I was a kid my best friend and I were "geeks of the time" and we repaired TV's for his dad's appliance store. I can't remember how many 1 B3GT's we replaced (High voltage rectifier, so no picture) and 12 AX 7's (Audio preamp tube, so no sound). When a panicked customers called we'd wink at each other and say "Yup, that the problem." We always carried many of them in out tool kit. I remember one very pissed customer who tried to replace the HVR himself and got the famous second anode jolt. "Why didn't you tell me about it?," he screamed. "Sorry I thought you wanted us to do the work. Wasn't that why you called?" Those were the days. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:00 PM Subject: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 15, Issue 331 > Send Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list submissions to > boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.BostonRadio.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-radio-interest > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > boston-radio-interest-request@lists.BostonRadio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > boston-radio-interest-owner@lists.BostonRadio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Boston-Radio-Interest digest..." > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Today's Topics: > > 1. a question about unreliable old technology (Donna Halper) > 2. Re: a question about unreliable old technology > (Cohasset / Hippisley) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list > Boston-Radio-Interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > http://lists.BostonRadio.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-radio-interest > From tlmedia@triad.rr.com Tue Dec 27 12:45:21 2011 From: tlmedia@triad.rr.com (Ted Larsen) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:45:21 -0500 Subject: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 15, Issue 331 References: Message-ID: <249FE198A7824E1982F2042D8246C21C@YOURbcbbe822ed> Wow, does this bring back memories. When I was a kid my best friend and I were "geeks of the time" and we repaired TV's for his dad's appliance store. I can't remember how many 1 B3GT's we replaced (High voltage rectifier, so no picture) and 12 AX 7's (Audio preamp tube, so no sound). When a panicked customers called we'd wink at each other and say "Yup, that the problem." We always carried many of them in out tool kit. I remember one very pissed customer who tried to replace the HVR himself and got the famous second anode jolt. "Why didn't you tell me about it?," he screamed. "Sorry I thought you wanted us to do the work. Wasn't that why you called?" Those were the days. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 12:00 PM Subject: Boston-Radio-Interest Digest, Vol 15, Issue 331 > Send Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list submissions to > boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.BostonRadio.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-radio-interest > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > boston-radio-interest-request@lists.BostonRadio.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > boston-radio-interest-owner@lists.BostonRadio.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Boston-Radio-Interest digest..." > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Today's Topics: > > 1. a question about unreliable old technology (Donna Halper) > 2. Re: a question about unreliable old technology > (Cohasset / Hippisley) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list > Boston-Radio-Interest@lists.BostonRadio.org > http://lists.BostonRadio.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-radio-interest > From kvahey@gmail.com Fri Dec 30 14:53:51 2011 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:53:51 -0500 Subject: WODS won the Christmas Music battle Message-ID: Looking at the new book - WODS jumped when they went to holiday music but WROR dropped. http://www.radio-info.com/markets/boston I wonder if this will be the last year we see 2 stations doing it. In Chicago WLIT is the only station that does it and their ratings explode. http://www.radio-info.com/markets/chicago Same applies in NY. http://www.radio-info.com/markets/new-york From marklaurence@mac.com Fri Dec 30 18:45:23 2011 From: marklaurence@mac.com (Mark Laurence) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:45:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: WODS won the Christmas Music battle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2808f211-9c46-e241-8562-db5d57931b78@me.com> It's too soon to declare a winner in the Christmas music battle. ?The "December book" only covers up to December 7, with two and a half weeks remaining in the "Holiday book" before Christmas. ? On Dec 30, 2011, at 02:53 PM, Kevin Vahey wrote: Looking at the new book - WODS jumped when they went to holiday music but WROR dropped.