From joe@attorneyross.com Sun Dec 1 20:51:58 2019 From: joe@attorneyross.com (A Joseph Ross) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 20:51:58 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX Message-ID: WATD has been IDing as WATD Marshfield, WMEX Quincy and WBMS (I think) Brockton.? I can only get WATD on my car radio and online. When I heard that ID this afternoon in my car, I switched the radio to 1510 and heard them there with a pretty good signal, driving down to Dedham from Brookline.? I tried just now from home in Brookline and couldn't hear them.? Maybe they have a weaker night signal.. -- A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 ? Newton, MA 02459 617.367.0468 ? Fax:617.507.7856 ? http://www.attorneyross.com From 011010001@interpring.com Mon Dec 2 07:35:11 2019 From: 011010001@interpring.com (Rob Landry) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 07:35:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow, so he's simulcasting? I wonder what areas the Brockton and Quincy siignals are getting him that he couldn't cover from Marshfield. Rob On Sun, 1 Dec 2019, A Joseph Ross wrote: > WATD has been IDing as WATD Marshfield, WMEX Quincy and WBMS (I think) > Brockton.? I can only get WATD on my car radio and online. When I heard that > ID this afternoon in my car, I switched the radio to 1510 and heard them > there with a pretty good signal, driving down to Dedham from Brookline.? I > tried just now from home in Brookline and couldn't hear them.? Maybe they > have a weaker night signal.. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 ? Newton, MA 02459 > 617.367.0468 ? Fax:617.507.7856 ? http://www.attorneyross.com > From kvahey@gmail.com Sun Dec 1 22:53:35 2019 From: kvahey@gmail.com (Kevin Vahey) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 22:53:35 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Perry said a month ago night power would be 1 or 2 watts for the time being On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:32 PM A Joseph Ross wrote: > WATD has been IDing as WATD Marshfield, WMEX Quincy and WBMS (I think) > Brockton. I can only get WATD on my car radio and online. When I heard > that ID this afternoon in my car, I switched the radio to 1510 and heard > them there with a pretty good signal, driving down to Dedham from > Brookline. I tried just now from home in Brookline and couldn't hear > them. Maybe they have a weaker night signal.. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 ? Newton, MA 02459 > 617.367.0468 ? Fax:617.507.7856 ? http://www.attorneyross.com > From jjlehmann@comcast.net Mon Dec 2 08:18:34 2019 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (jjlehmann@comcast.net) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:18:34 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012601d5a913$0120d7a0$036286e0$@comcast.net> The simulcasts are temporary. WMEX is only 100 watts at night, WBMS only 30. The low power is because both stations are non directional. Jeff Lehmann -----Original Message----- From: Boston-Radio-Interest On Behalf Of Rob Landry Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:35 AM To: A Joseph Ross Cc: Boston Radio Subject: Re: WATD and WMEX Wow, so he's simulcasting? I wonder what areas the Brockton and Quincy siignals are getting him that he couldn't cover from Marshfield. Rob On Sun, 1 Dec 2019, A Joseph Ross wrote: > WATD has been IDing as WATD Marshfield, WMEX Quincy and WBMS (I think) > Brockton. I can only get WATD on my car radio and online. When I heard that > ID this afternoon in my car, I switched the radio to 1510 and heard them > there with a pretty good signal, driving down to Dedham from Brookline. I > tried just now from home in Brookline and couldn't hear them. Maybe they > have a weaker night signal.. > > -- > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 ? Newton, MA 02459 > 617.367.0468 ? Fax:617.507.7856 ? http://www.attorneyross.com > From elipolo881@gmail.com Mon Dec 2 13:53:39 2019 From: elipolo881@gmail.com (Eli Polonsky) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:53:39 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 07:35:11 -0500 (EST) > From: Rob Landry <011010001@interpring.com> > To: A Joseph Ross > Cc: Boston Radio > Subject: Re: WATD and WMEX > > Wow, so he's simulcasting? I wonder what areas the Brockton and Quincy > signals are getting him that he couldn't cover from Marshfield. > > Rob > Full-time simulcasting is temporary until the completion of the new studios for both stations, being built from scratch, within the WATD facility in Marshfield. The target date for the new studios going on is the week following New Years. I've seen recent pictures of them being built in progress, they're coming along. There will still be some simulcasting, the WATD weekday South Shore Morning News program will be simulcast until 9 AM, with expanded news coverage into the new signal areas. There will be live separate hosts on both WMEX and WBMS weekdays mid-days and afternoons. There may still be some simulcasting weekends (I'm guessing most likely the longtime weekend oldies shows on WATD), and I haven't heard about nighttimes. I doubt the nighttime low power AM signals will warrant much of a regular audience for separate hosts, but there are still plans to air local school games and community events due to the two FM translators that will have good signals in certain south shore and metro-south communities they will serve (as well as streaming). EP From martinjwaters@yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 00:26:13 2019 From: martinjwaters@yahoo.com (Martin Waters) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:26:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> >Rob Landry wrote: ??> Wow, so he's simulcasting? I wonder what areas the Brockton and Quincy > signals are getting him that he couldn't cover from Marshfield. ??? WATD's 60 dBu contour goes through Weymouth and falls just east of the Brockton city line. It's a Class A with 1.6 kW. WMEX is going to be 10kW day and Brockton is 5 kW day.? ? ? I guess I have not followed Mr. Perry's efforts closely enough, as I don't understand why the two AM stations are going to have such pipsqueak nighttime signals -- 100 watts on 1510 and 30 watts on 1460. WMEX used to run 50 kW days, 5 kW nights from essentially the same location in Quincy. And, IIRC, good 'ole WBET used to be 1 kW at night.? ? ? To the extent that AM signals are worth anything these days, 1510 in Boston, even at 5 kW night, is not that bad. Maybe it's seen as not worth a big investment to restore what it had. After WMEX's construction permit is turned into a license, however, there may be other stations on 1510 going for higher power that would fence in WMEX permanently. ? ? But the big issue for this facility results from WMEX operating on a Class A (once I-B) clear channel. When the FCC finalizes its rulemaking that abolishes all skywave protection and the extra groundwave protection for Class A (used to be I-A and I-B) stations, a station like WMEX, 50kW full-time or even 5 kW at night, would be in a good spot to loosen up its night pattern and perhaps get a nighttime power increase from Quincy. It no longer would have to protect WLAC in Nashville. And, again, other stations on 1510 in the eastern United States are likely to jump in then, applying for their first nighttime power or nighttime power. I think I can hear the engineering consultants they already have hired tapping their keyboards? and calculators even though it's midnight.? From ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu Mon Dec 2 17:53:18 2019 From: ssmyth@alumni.psu.edu (Sean Smyth) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:53:18 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: <012601d5a913$0120d7a0$036286e0$@comcast.net> References: <012601d5a913$0120d7a0$036286e0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: I heard both 1460 and 1510 late this afternoon while in Weymouth. I?m assuming they were on critical hours/night power as I could barely hear both. Hadn?t heard 1510 on for a while. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:51 AM wrote: > The simulcasts are temporary. > > WMEX is only 100 watts at night, WBMS only 30. The low power is because > both stations are non directional. > > Jeff Lehmann > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boston-Radio-Interest < > boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org> On Behalf Of Rob > Landry > Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:35 AM > To: A Joseph Ross > Cc: Boston Radio > Subject: Re: WATD and WMEX > > > Wow, so he's simulcasting? I wonder what areas the Brockton and Quincy > siignals are getting him that he couldn't cover from Marshfield. > > > Rob > > On Sun, 1 Dec 2019, A Joseph Ross wrote: > > > WATD has been IDing as WATD Marshfield, WMEX Quincy and WBMS (I think) > > Brockton. I can only get WATD on my car radio and online. When I heard > that > > ID this afternoon in my car, I switched the radio to 1510 and heard them > > there with a pretty good signal, driving down to Dedham from Brookline. > I > > tried just now from home in Brookline and couldn't hear them. Maybe > they > > have a weaker night signal.. > > > > -- > > A. Joseph Ross, J.D. ? 1340 Centre Street, Suite 103 ? > Newton, > MA 02459 > > 617.367.0468 ? Fax:617.507.7856 ? http://www.attorneyross.com > > > > > -- Sent from my iPhone From elipolo881@gmail.com Tue Dec 3 02:11:16 2019 From: elipolo881@gmail.com (Eli Polonsky) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 02:11:16 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> References: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:26 AM Martin Waters wrote: > > I guess I have not followed Mr. Perry's efforts closely enough, as I > don't understand why the two AM stations are going to have such pipsqueak > nighttime signals -- 100 watts on 1510 and 30 watts on 1460. WMEX used to > run 50 kW days, 5 kW nights from essentially the same location in Quincy. > And, IIRC, good 'ole WBET used to be 1 kW at night. > The original WMEX could run 50 kW days and 5 kW nights from about the same location because it was highly directional. It beamed mostly north, into Boston, and into northern New England, especially up the coast. It could be heard well up the Maine coast and in Nova Scotia both day and night, but was weak by day and inaudible at night in Framingham. Ed Perry's WMEX is non-directional, requiring much less power at night under still-current FCC restrictions. Ed doesn't want the expense of constructing and maintaining a directional antenna system. I doubt the original directional WMEX sent much more than 100 watts west/southwest at night though 5 kW was going up the New England coast and out to sea. EP > From wollman@bimajority.org Tue Dec 3 23:45:43 2019 From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:45:43 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: References: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <24039.14839.916396.403690@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> < said: > Ed Perry's WMEX is non-directional, requiring much less power at night > under still-current FCC restrictions. Ed doesn't want the expense of > constructing and maintaining a directional antenna system. I doubt the > original directional WMEX sent much more than 100 watts west/southwest at > night though 5 kW was going up the New England coast and out to sea. And in particular, there's no point in investing much in a night signal if most of your listenership is going to be on FM anyway. Ed should be commended for actually operating at night, even with pipsqueak power, because the cross-band translator rules allow "translators" to operate at night even if the parent station doesn't. (Cross-band translators are not required to use an off-air pickup or even be located within the interference-free contour of the parent station.) -GAWollman From 011010001@interpring.com Wed Dec 4 09:02:01 2019 From: 011010001@interpring.com (Rob Landry) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:02:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: <2b3dd7d3-3fd5-180a-23d3-1703b3d209ee@attorneyross.com> References: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> <2b3dd7d3-3fd5-180a-23d3-1703b3d209ee@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: The Waltham site was 50 KW 24/7, but with three different directional patterns: day, critical hours, and night. It was a very touchy array, requiring lots of engineering support. I'm told one reason it was so touchy was the close tower spacing. Waltham was not a good location for this station; much of its power went out to sea and up the coast. I'm told it put a better signal into Portland, Maine than into parts of greater Boston. They would have done better with a site farther to the west and south, I think. I wonder if they could have used Ashland or even Burrilville. Rob On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, A Joseph Ross wrote: > I thought WMEX moved its transmitter site to somewhere in Waltham when it > went to 50 kw.? I didn't think they transmitted at 50k from Waltham.? Am I > mistaken? From 011010001@interpring.com Wed Dec 4 09:22:41 2019 From: 011010001@interpring.com (Rob Landry) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:22:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> References: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, Martin Waters wrote: > ? ? But the big issue for this facility results from WMEX operating on a > Class A (once I-B) clear channel. When the FCC finalizes its rulemaking > that abolishes all skywave protection and the extra groundwave > protection for Class A (used to be I-A and I-B) stations, a station like > WMEX, 50kW full-time or even 5 kW at night, would be in a good spot to > loosen up its night pattern and perhaps get a nighttime power increase > from Quincy. It no longer would have to protect WLAC in Nashville. And, > again, other stations on 1510 in the eastern United States are likely to > jump in then, applying for their first nighttime power or nighttime > power. I think I can hear the engineering consultants they already have > hired tapping their keyboards? and calculators even though it's > midnight.? That'll be just what we need: more noise and interference on the AM band. One of the few advantages AM offers over FM is the ability to reach beyond the horizon. Many a summer evening I've listened to Yankees games on 660 while driving in northern New England. Now stations that come in perfectly clear at night will be drowned in interference from people trying to serve no more than their local communities but whose signals go hundreds of miles farther. That's bad spectrum management. AM should be a regional band and FM a local one, as nature intended them to be. Rob From elipolo881@gmail.com Wed Dec 4 11:28:25 2019 From: elipolo881@gmail.com (Eli Polonsky) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: WATD and WMEX In-Reply-To: <2b3dd7d3-3fd5-180a-23d3-1703b3d209ee@attorneyross.com> References: <211044892.2408343.1575350773428@mail.yahoo.com> <2b3dd7d3-3fd5-180a-23d3-1703b3d209ee@attorneyross.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:43 AM A Joseph Ross wrote: > I thought WMEX moved its transmitter site to somewhere in Waltham when it > went to 50 kw. I didn't think they transmitted at 50k from Waltham. Am I > mistaken? > WMEX first went 50 kW directional, but daytime only, from the Quincy site around 1969. It remained 5 kW at night from there. 1510 (by then WITS) went 50 kW full-time, but with three increasingly restrictive directional patterns, (daytime, critical hours, and nighttime), when it was moved to the then-new Waltham site off of Waverley Oaks Rd. (Route 60) around 1981. EP From dave@skywaves.net Thu Dec 12 16:45:05 2019 From: dave@skywaves.net (Dave Doherty) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:45:05 -0500 Subject: FCC Nails Two Boston Area FM Pirates Message-ID: <008c01d5b135$6ae5dd50$40b197f0$@skywaves.net> FCC PROPOSES FINE OF OVER $450,000 AGAINST BOSTON-AREA PIRATE RADIO OPERATOR Highest Proposed FCC Fine Ever for Unlicensed Broadcasting -- WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019?The Federal Communications Commission today proposed a $453,015 fine against Gerlens Cesar, the operator of an enterprise identifying itself as Radio TeleBoston, for apparent unlicensed and unlawful broadcasting. Today?s action marks the largest fine ever proposed by the FCC against a pirate radio operation. Cesar used three separate transmitters for his apparently unlawful broadcasting, resulting in three apparent violations of the law. The Commission proposed imposing the statutory maximum forfeiture amount for each of these three apparent violations. FCC PROPOSES $151,005 FINE AGAINST UNLICENSED RADIO BROADCASTER IN BOSTON Station Operator Ignored Repeated Warnings from FCC Field Agents -- WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019?The Federal Communications Commission today proposed the maximum allowable fine, $151,005, against Acerome Jean Charles, the operator of a longstanding unlicensed radio station in Boston, Massachusetts, called Radio Concorde. Despite FCC warnings, Jean Charles apparently continued to broadcast radio signals without a license at power levels requiring an FCC license. From jjlehmann@comcast.net Thu Dec 12 18:48:43 2019 From: jjlehmann@comcast.net (Jeff Lehmann) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:48:43 -0500 Subject: FCC Nails Two Boston Area FM Pirates In-Reply-To: <008c01d5b135$6ae5dd50$40b197f0$@skywaves.net> References: <008c01d5b135$6ae5dd50$40b197f0$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: Until they actually collect one of these fines, the amount doesn?t matter, as far as I can tell. Could be $1 or $500 Billion. Right now it makes no difference. Jeff Lehmann > On Dec 12, 2019, at 6:34 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: > > ?FCC PROPOSES FINE OF OVER $450,000 AGAINST BOSTON-AREA > PIRATE RADIO OPERATOR > Highest Proposed FCC Fine Ever for Unlicensed Broadcasting > -- > WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019?The Federal Communications Commission today > proposed a $453,015 fine against Gerlens Cesar, the operator of an enterprise identifying itself > as Radio TeleBoston, for apparent unlicensed and unlawful broadcasting. Today?s action > marks the largest fine ever proposed by the FCC against a pirate radio operation. Cesar used > three separate transmitters for his apparently unlawful broadcasting, resulting in three apparent > violations of the law. The Commission proposed imposing the statutory maximum forfeiture > amount for each of these three apparent violations. > > > > > FCC PROPOSES $151,005 FINE AGAINST UNLICENSED RADIO > BROADCASTER IN BOSTON > Station Operator Ignored Repeated Warnings from FCC Field Agents > -- > WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019?The Federal Communications Commission today > proposed the maximum allowable fine, $151,005, against Acerome Jean Charles, the operator > of a longstanding unlicensed radio station in Boston, Massachusetts, called Radio Concorde. > Despite FCC warnings, Jean Charles apparently continued to broadcast radio signals without a > license at power levels requiring an FCC license. > > > From obrienron2@gmail.com Fri Dec 13 14:19:29 2019 From: obrienron2@gmail.com (Ron) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:19:29 -0500 Subject: FCC Nails Two Boston Area FM Pirates In-Reply-To: References: <008c01d5b135$6ae5dd50$40b197f0$@skywaves.net> Message-ID: <004801d5b1ea$3e870f80$bb952e80$@gmail.com> Are the fines the result of a "visit" or "inspection"? -----Original Message----- From: Boston-Radio-Interest On Behalf Of Jeff Lehmann Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 6:49 PM To: Dave Doherty Cc: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org Subject: Re: FCC Nails Two Boston Area FM Pirates Until they actually collect one of these fines, the amount doesn?t matter, as far as I can tell. Could be $1 or $500 Billion. Right now it makes no difference. Jeff Lehmann > On Dec 12, 2019, at 6:34 PM, Dave Doherty wrote: > > ?FCC PROPOSES FINE OF OVER $450,000 AGAINST BOSTON-AREA PIRATE RADIO > OPERATOR Highest Proposed FCC Fine Ever for Unlicensed Broadcasting > -- > WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019?The Federal Communications Commission > today proposed a $453,015 fine against Gerlens Cesar, the operator of > an enterprise identifying itself as Radio TeleBoston, for apparent > unlicensed and unlawful broadcasting. Today?s action marks the largest > fine ever proposed by the FCC against a pirate radio operation. Cesar > used three separate transmitters for his apparently unlawful > broadcasting, resulting in three apparent violations of the law. The Commission proposed imposing the statutory maximum forfeiture amount for each of these three apparent violations. > > > > > FCC PROPOSES $151,005 FINE AGAINST UNLICENSED RADIO BROADCASTER IN > BOSTON Station Operator Ignored Repeated Warnings from FCC Field > Agents > -- > WASHINGTON, December 12, 2019?The Federal Communications Commission > today proposed the maximum allowable fine, $151,005, against Acerome > Jean Charles, the operator of a longstanding unlicensed radio station in Boston, Massachusetts, called Radio Concorde. > Despite FCC warnings, Jean Charles apparently continued to broadcast > radio signals without a license at power levels requiring an FCC license. > > > From richard@chonak.com Tue Dec 31 08:53:11 2019 From: richard@chonak.com (richard@chonak.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:53:11 -0500 Subject: WGBH's Transmitter Power Increase Message-ID: Has any further news come since October about implementing the power increase for Channel 2 and Channel 44?--RCSent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device------ Original message------From: Larry SochrinDate: Tue, Oct 22, 2019 10:37 AMTo: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org;Cc: Subject:Fwd: WGBH's Transmitter Power Increase > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "info@wgbh.org" > Subject: Re: WGBH's Transmitter Power Increase > Date: October 10, 2019 at 9:44:42 AM EDT > To: "lsochrin@rcn.com" > > > Dear Viewer, > > I?m writing with good news. WGBH?s petition to increase its broadcasting frequency strength was approved by the Federal Communication Commission. > > The power of our transmitter will be increased from 6.9kW to 34.5 kW. We expect this increase to result in significant improvements to reception quality. Getting the right hardware, testing and installation brings us to approximately first week of January ? however it is very possible it will be completed sooner. > > Most importantly, I send this message with deep gratitude. Without you and the 1,200+ other viewers who took the time to directly provide their feedback to us, this petition would not have been approved. > Thank you for your generous support of WGBH, and thank you for allowing us to share our excitement with you. I hope this boost will allow you to enjoy all of the shows with improved HD quality! > > If you are still unable to receive either channel, please get in touch with the Audience & Member Services team at info@WGBH.org or (617) 300 3300. > > P.S. We?ll be sure to keep you updated as our installation timetable becomes clearer > > Best, > Zack Finn > Associate Director of Development - Audience and Member Services > > 1 Guest St. Boston MA 02135 > From mikemalone@wdoa.com Tue Dec 31 11:53:07 2019 From: mikemalone@wdoa.com (Mike Malone) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:53:07 -0500 Subject: WGBH's Transmitter Power Increase In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I haven't heard anything but at my location (out in the boonies of Spencer, MA) I've noticed that WGBX digital channel 32 (which also provides a home to NBCBoston on 15.1) has deteriorated markedly in the last few weeks. Ditto for WBZ channel 4. I think they all use the same Cabot St. tower location so maybe everyone is running at reduced power as they work on the WGBH digital channel 5 upgrade. Mike On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:36 AM richard@chonak.com wrote: > Has any further news come since October about implementing the power > increase for Channel 2 and Channel 44?--RCSent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE > device------ Original message------From: Larry SochrinDate: Tue, Oct 22, > 2019 10:37 AMTo: boston-radio-interest@lists.BostonRadio.org;Cc: > Subject:Fwd: WGBH's Transmitter Power Increase > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: "info@wgbh.org" > > Subject: Re: WGBH's Transmitter Power Increase > > Date: October 10, 2019 at 9:44:42 AM EDT > > To: "lsochrin@rcn.com" > > > > > > Dear Viewer, > > > > I?m writing with good news. WGBH?s petition to increase its broadcasting > frequency strength was approved by the Federal Communication Commission. > > > > The power of our transmitter will be increased from 6.9kW to 34.5 kW. We > expect this increase to result in significant improvements to reception > quality. Getting the right hardware, testing and installation brings us to > approximately first week of January ? however it is very possible it will > be completed sooner. > > > > Most importantly, I send this message with deep gratitude. Without you > and the 1,200+ other viewers who took the time to directly provide their > feedback to us, this petition would not have been approved. > > Thank you for your generous support of WGBH, and thank you for allowing > us to share our excitement with you. I hope this boost will allow you to > enjoy all of the shows with improved HD quality! > > > > If you are still unable to receive either channel, please get in touch > with the Audience & Member Services team at info@WGBH.org or (617) 300 > 3300. > > > > P.S. We?ll be sure to keep you updated as our installation timetable > becomes clearer > > > > Best, > > Zack Finn > > Associate Director of Development - Audience and Member Services > > > > 1 Guest St. Boston MA 02135 > > > > >