Potential aux sites for WBZ

[Scott Fybush]

Dan.Strassberg wrote:
> I guess I omitted my conclusion, which is: WBZ's aux can't radiate
> more toward Moncton than the greater of what WBZ's main radiates
> toward Moncton or what WBZ's existing aux radiates toward Moncton.

There are a few assumptions here that I'm not sure I agree with. The 
first is that the paper allotment in Moncton was designed to provide the 
absolute maximum possible signal without creating interference to WBZ 
inside the US. I don't believe that to be the case here. It may well be 
that WBZ could show, if need be, that the hypothetical Moncton 
allocation could be cranked up to some higher power level to overcome 
any new interference from a relocated WBZ aux site, without causing new 
interference to WBZ on US soil. Since this is merely a paper facility, 
there's no compelling reason why it couldn't, if need be, be redrawn 
with 4 or 6 or 12 towers rather than the 3-tower array specified.

The second assumption is that an AM auxiliary facility in the US needs 
to be reported separately to Canada. A check of Industry Canada's 
records (via cdbs.recnet.net) shows no auxiliary facilities reported to 
Canada for WCCO, WBZ, WFAN or WCBS. I suspect - but do not know with 
certainty - that as long as an auxiliary facility meets the FCC's 
criteria domestically, it may not require separate reporting to Canada 
or Mexico. Keep in mind that the issue with WCBS's aux vis a vis WAMG 
was a domestic issue, not an international one.

I have skimmed the very long 1984 agreement between the US and Canada on 
cross-border radio, which is available here:

http://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-bc/can-am.pdf

I don't see anything in it, at least on a first read, that addresses 
auxiliary AM facilities. (Pages 69 and 70 of the PDF seem to be the most 
relevant to this discussion.)

There's one more point here about which I'm quite uncertain. It has 
always been my understanding that the two directional class I-A clears, 
WBZ and WWL, were considered to be directional at their own convenience 
and had no obligation to actually maintain the nulls specified in their 
licenses. (At least as of a few decades ago, the WBZ license did not 
specify any monitoring points and I was told that the station was not 
required to carry out directional proofs, there being nothing in its 
null requiring protection.)

It's possible that the licensing of a fulltime 1030 in San Juan and the 
transition from NARBA to the 1981 Rio agreement and the subsequent 1984 
Canada/US agreement changed that, at least on an international level, 
but I'm not well enough versed in international broadcast treaty law to 
say for sure.

s