I am sure this has been talked about before but couldnt find it.. why cant this two stations reach an agreement to minimize interference to each other is clearly evident WPRB causes interference to WKTU's analog and digital signal inside its primary service area see this on my hd radio in my car driving in central and northern nj whats the real deal on this.. its ridiculous
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
WKTU Crippled Coverage in New Jersey thanks to WPRB digital
- Thread starter rain9613
- Start date
A wee bit more testing might have worked in this digital era, especially since both of these stations would have made perfect test subjects and they were "down the street" from the test station at Brookdale.
In any event, this subject has come up before on the board and explained as an agreement so that 103.5 could become a full power non-directional NYC signal from a directional inferior one that led WQHT to move from 103.5 to 97.1.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
In any event, this subject has come up before on the board and explained as an agreement so that 103.5 could become a full power non-directional NYC signal from a directional inferior one that led WQHT to move from 103.5 to 97.1.
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
These stations are short spaced to each other. It is not one or the other station's fault. At the time the stations went on the air, they complied with all rules at the time. All classes of stations were protected to the 1 mV/m contour, which is now usually designated as 60 dBu. Many stations were at lower ERP or HAAT back in the 1960s, and didn't overlap. Various incarnations of Section 73.213 were in place over the years, which allowed upgrades. One had short spacing zones which allowed full Class B facilities. Later, special negotiations were allowed. If IBOC rules had taken real interference into account, it wouldn't be allowed. I have nothing against digital, it just should have been in a new band, so it didn't affect existing service areas. Digital does not necessarily produce better sound than FM, just like AM can sound as good as FM under the right circumstances.
To me it seems that WKTU's digital signal cripples WPRB's signal within WPRB's own state.
Here's the real deal behind WKTU's problems in New Jersey: WKTU is licensed to Lake Success, NY. Since its inception it has moved west several times to get a better crack at the lucrative NYC market. Over the years (whatever call letters it has had) it has been on the Chrysler Building and then directional (aimed back towards L.I.) from the south tower of the WTC. With the bulk of its signal heading east it always had problems with NJ coverage. 103.5's first adjacents: 103.3 in Princeton and 103.7 WNNJ in Newton also had to remain at less than full facilities in order to protect 103.5 towards NY. These problems devalued all three properties. The (then) owner of 103.5, Westwood One, really wanted to reach a deal with Princeton and Newton to allow 103.5 to go ND. There was a lot of legal bickering and proposed payments to get consent from Princeton and Newton to allow 103.5 to be able to have a better signal in NJ. In the late 80's a deal was struck, money changed hands and the FCC begrudgingly blessed this arrangement: All three stations in question could up power and go to full facilities and they all had to accept whatever interference resulted. For the most part it worked. 103.5 got better coverage in the Jersey parts of the NY metro market, WNNJ got better coverage and the terrain prevented much of its energy from causing problems with 103.5 and WPRB could also raise power. WPRB's signal was most problematic. One look at a topo map will show you that the general trend of the mountain ridges in Northern NJ is SW to NE. WPRB's signal emanating from the south goes right up the valleys between and 103.5's has to cross over them, coming from the east, creating lots of shadows and nulls. After the WTC went down, the 103.5 signal remained ND from Four Times Square. There you go... Jim Huste, CE during 103.5's move to ND with the WTC tower # 1 master antenna during late 1989.
Jim, Thank you for the explanation.jimofnyc said:
Since that arrangement was for 103.5 at WTC, how did the agreement change when the signal was moved uptown, or did it?
And since the FCC "begrudgingly" accepted the arrangement, doesn't that set a precedence for 94.7's possible ND move to Manhattan?
Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
Hi Jeff, I do not believe the mutual agreement between these three stations changed when 103.5 moved to 4 Times Square. The 4 Times Square transmitter had already been constructed by CC when the WTC went down. It was originally designed to be 103.5's backup site. There may have been some slight power level change due to location and antenna height but only to insure that the signal from 4 Times Square didn't exceed the coverage 103.5 had been getting from WTC.
I said 'begrudgingly" because there had been years of legal battles in front of the FCC before the agreement was forged between the three stations. I think the FCC was somewhat tired of the protracted wrangling and if the three stations reached an agreement on their own then FCC was happy to put the matter to bed.
There may be a way to move 94.7 to NYC but its signal from NYC would have to put a city grade signal over 94.7's city of license and also not exceed the coverage area that 94.7 enjoyed from its West Orange, NJ site - which looks like they'd need a directional antenna to limit power to the east and/or reach agreements with all other stations which might become short spaced to 94.7 (or cause problems with 94.7 transmitting from NYC)
I said 'begrudgingly" because there had been years of legal battles in front of the FCC before the agreement was forged between the three stations. I think the FCC was somewhat tired of the protracted wrangling and if the three stations reached an agreement on their own then FCC was happy to put the matter to bed.
There may be a way to move 94.7 to NYC but its signal from NYC would have to put a city grade signal over 94.7's city of license and also not exceed the coverage area that 94.7 enjoyed from its West Orange, NJ site - which looks like they'd need a directional antenna to limit power to the east and/or reach agreements with all other stations which might become short spaced to 94.7 (or cause problems with 94.7 transmitting from NYC)
Why should the FCC blame the licensees when the FCC created the problem in the first place by numerous rule changes over the years?
WNTIRadio said:
It couldn't move to the ESB due to spacing issues (prior to the mutual interference pact)... which is why it was originally on the WTC South Tower. I did due diligence for a purchase from Friendly Frost in 1979 and saw the separate directional antenna on one of the masts, and reviewed the engineering data with our consulting engineer, Jules Cohen. For our intention of changing to a Spanish language format, the ESB location would have been better, but as long as the station had to be directional, we could not contemplate that possibility.
When 103.5 originally moved to the WTC it was as a directional signal from the south tower. (WTC#2) It had to be directional to protect its two first adjacents in NJ. The need to be directional precluded using the master antennas of either WTC#1 or Empire. When the WTC went down 103.5 was already ND from the WTC master antenna and had an already constructed and functioning back-up site at 4 Times Square. Although the newer ERI master antenna system was in place and functioning at Empire before 9/11/2001 attention was focused on returning those stations to air that had lost their site at the WTC. Those stations had no back-up site like 103.5. There was a mad rush to plumb them into Empire's master antenna. Initially several were running low power into "emergency ports" on the ERI master antenna or running from Alpine, NJ. 103.5's full power back-up from 4 Times Square took the pressure off their need to get on the Empire master antenna immediately. Ultimately though this influx of new stations to Empire necessitated the addition of a second master antenna system at Empire called the "mini-master."
With regard to the question, "wouldn't the ESB location work out best for all the stations?" That's debatable. The WTC site was taller and stations from there didn't suffer the same mid-town reception problems that ESB stations incur. Although WTC located stations did have their own unique coverage problems into the upper west side due to shadowing from tall buildings located between Times Square to Central Park. I don't know about the rents but I believe they were competitive. I also believe that when the new WTC or Freedom Tower is finished you will see some stations moving there.
With regard to the question, "wouldn't the ESB location work out best for all the stations?" That's debatable. The WTC site was taller and stations from there didn't suffer the same mid-town reception problems that ESB stations incur. Although WTC located stations did have their own unique coverage problems into the upper west side due to shadowing from tall buildings located between Times Square to Central Park. I don't know about the rents but I believe they were competitive. I also believe that when the new WTC or Freedom Tower is finished you will see some stations moving there.
- Status