70 years ago today...

Dan.Strassberg dan.strassberg@att.net
Tue Mar 29 11:13:52 EDT 2011

But the short spacing that bothered WLW the most (and caused WLW to 
construct a DA) was to 690 in Toronto. My understanding is that 690 
did not move to Montreal until NARBA or shortly thereafter. And I 
believe it was the WLW situation that put 740 in Toronto to replace 
690, which was moved to Montreal. WLW's (four tower, I think) DA with 
a rather simple pattern went bye-bye after the 500-kW "experimental" 
operation was finally turned off.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Fybush" <scott@fybush.com>
To: "Kevin Vahey" <kvahey@gmail.com>
Cc: "(newsgroup) Boston-Radio-Interest" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: 70 years ago today...

> Kevin Vahey wrote:
>> Certainly didn't work all well for some Canadian stations not owned 
>> by the government. ( see CFCF)
>> Scott - was it by accident or design that the NY and Chicago 
>> stations were assigned to adjacent channels?
> A little of both, I think. They were adjacent even before NARBA - 
> 660/670, 710/720, 760/770, 860/870. Before NARBA, there was a 
> mandatory 50 kHz spacing between local AM stations, so in each city 
> stations were spaced in even 50 kHz increments up from the bottom of 
> the dial. In the 1928 dial realignment, the 50 kHz increments 
> starting at 660 were almost the only ones that had US clear channels 
> available every 50 kHz going up. (650/700/750/800 would have worked 
> as well, but 680/730/780/830 hit a Mexican-Canadian clear at 730 and 
> a regional channel at 780, while 690/740/790/840 hit Canadian clears 
> at 690 and 840.)
> It might indeed have made sense to use 650/700/750/800 in New York, 
> but then WLW might have ended up on 710 with even more painful 
> short-spacing to WGN. 

More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest mailing list