• 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

WKVB has applied for a new transmitter site

B

brian marchand

WKVB 107.3 has applied to move to a new transmitter site yesterday closer to Boston. They also applied for 3 FM boosters in Boston a few weeks ago and EMF closed on the sale on 4/22/2020.
 
brian marchand said:
WKVB 107.3 has applied to move to a new transmitter site yesterday closer to Boston. They also applied for 3 FM boosters in Boston a few weeks ago and EMF closed on the sale on 4/22/2020.
Click to expand...

Where is the main transmitter moving to? The FCC web page shows the three boosters, the main signal in Boylston on the Ch. 27 tower, and the back-up in Paxton. Are they modifying the technical parameters at Boylston as there is a CP for that site? Could 107.3 return back to Paxton with its original 20 kw non-directional signal. What other stations would make such a move impossible?
 
wcozBoston said:
Where is the main transmitter moving to? The FCC web page shows the three boosters, the main signal in Boylston on the Ch. 27 tower, and the back-up in Paxton. Are they modifying the technical parameters at Boylston as there is a CP for that site? Could 107.3 return back to Paxton with its original 20 kw non-directional signal. What other stations would make such a move impossible?
Click to expand...

Ever think of going to fccinfo.com and looking up that info? lemme help ya

https://fccinfo.com/CMDProFacLookup.php?sCurrentService=FM&sFacilityID=74467&tabSearchType=Faci
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
Ever think of going to fccinfo.com and looking up that info? lemme help ya

https://fccinfo.com/CMDProFacLookup.php?sCurrentService=FM&sFacilityID=74467&tabSearchType=Faci
Click to expand...

I went here: (The link is truncated however)
https://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/...&slat2=&NS=N&dlon2=&mlon2=&slon2=&EW=W&size=9

They just added the Hudson "Application for a Construction Permit" within the last 12 or so hours. It is 0838 on 1 May 2020 now. For some reason they did not list Hudson application but did list the CPs for the boosters last night, so hence the reason for asking where they were moving to.
 
EMF's fine engineering team will make Entercom's people look like a bunch of chumps.

I bet reception of 107.3 in the Greater Boston area will be greatly improved within a year's time.

From one of the filings just made by EMF:
The proposed facility is a class B1 grandfathered short-spaced station (as defined in 47 C.F.R. 73.213) serving Westborough, MA on channel 297.

The distance between the proposed facility does not meet separation requirements of 47 C.F.R. 73.207(b) for third-adjacent WXKS-FM, channel 300B, Medford, MA and third-adjacent WMJX, channel 294B, Boston, MA.

However, according to 73.213(a)(4), there are no distance separation or interference protection requirements with respect to second-adjacent and third-adjacent channel shortspacings. Therefore, the proposed facility is in compliance with the spacing requirement to these facilities.
Click to expand...


Why couldn't Entercom's engineering & legal staff figure this out?!?! If EMF pulls this off, the aforementioned people at Entercom should feel embarrassed. The 70 dBu will nudge into the western suburbs, and almost the entire urbanized portion of the metro area will receive at least a 60 dBu signal. If boosters are effectively implemented, which admittedly is not at all an easy feat, effective 70 dBu coverage will be better yet.
 
More info:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.213

Assuming what is stated in EMF's filing is indeed true (regarding existence of authorization prior to November 16, 1964), EMF will only need to show that the population receiving co-channel or first adjacent interference is either maintained or decreased as a result of the proposed changes. So, we're talking Fun 107 (WFHN-FM) in the New Bedford area primarily here.

(a) Stations at locations authorized prior to November 16, 1964, that did not meet the separation distances required by § 73.207 and have remained continuously short-spaced since that time may be modified or relocated with respect to such short-spaced stations, provided that (i) any area predicted to receive interference lies completely within any area currently predicted to receive co-channel or first-adjacent channel interference as calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or that (ii) a showing is provided pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section that demonstrates that the public interest would be served by the proposed changes.

(1) The F(50,50) curves in Figure 1 of § 73.333 are to be used in conjunction with the proposed effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, as calculated pursuant to § 73.313(c), (d)(2) and (d)(3), using data for as many radials as necessary, to determine the location of the desired (service) field strength. The F(50,10) curves in Figure 1a of § 73.333 are to be used in conjunction with the proposed effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, as calculated pursuant to § 73.313(c), (d)(2) and (d)(3), using data for as many radials as necessary, to determine the location of the undesired (interfering) field strength. Predicted interference is defined to exist only for locations where the desired (service) field strength exceeds 0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) for a Class B station, 0.7 mV/m (57 dBu) for a Class B1 station, and 1 mV/m (60 dBu) for any other class of station.

(i) Co-channel interference is predicted to exist, for the purpose of this section, at all locations where the undesired (interfering station) F(50,10) field strength exceeds a value 20 dB below the desired (service) F(50,50) field strength of the station being considered (e.g., where the protected field strength is 60 dBu, the interfering field strength must be 40 dBu or more for predicted interference to exist).

(ii) First-adjacent channel interference is predicted to exist, for the purpose of this section, at all locations where the undesired (interfering station) F(50,10) field strength exceeds a value 6 dB below the desired (service) F(50,50) field strength of the station being considered (e.g., where the protected field strength is 60 dBu, the interfering field strength must be 54 dBu or more for predicted interference to exist).

(2) For co-channel and first-adjacent channel stations, a showing that the public interest would be served by the changes proposed in an application must include exhibits demonstrating that the total area and population subject to co-channel or first-adjacent channel interference, caused and received, would be maintained or decreased. In addition, the showing must include exhibits demonstrating that the area and the population subject to co-channel or first-adjacent channel interference caused by the proposed facility to each short-spaced station individually is not increased. In all cases, the applicant must also show that any area predicted to lose service as a result of new co-channel or first-adjacent-channel interference has adequate aural service remaining. For the purpose of this section, adequate service is defined as 5 or more aural services (AM or FM).

(3) For co-channel and first-adjacent-channel stations, a copy of any application proposing interference caused in any areas where interference is not currently caused must be served upon the licensee(s) of the affected short-spaced station(s).

(4) For stations covered by this paragraph (a), there are no distance separation or interference protection requirements with respect to second-adjacent and third-adjacent channel short-spacings that have existed continuously since November 16, 1964.
Click to expand...
 
even with the "cheapening" of car radios , when was the last time you had a third adjacent interfered with inside the 50 Dbu contour?

The only thing it could hurt would be a first adjacent LPFM and even then they have no protections there is no LPFM on 107.1 within 100 miles, and on 107.3 it is on the other side of Hartford
 
johnster said:
https://www.rabbitears.info/fmq.php?request=list&facid=74467

Looks like main back at original WAAF site with boosters at several sites. One possibly on the Hancock?
Click to expand...
I'm completely confused.

I've just been to rabbitears.info and fccdata.org and I cannot find ANY indication that 107.3 is moving back to Paxton.

As far as I know, the plan is to downgrade to B1 from the Hudson tower, and have multiple low power on-channel boosters covering the Boston/center city.
 
I don’t see why Entercom didn’t do this with WAAF. This signal from Hudson will still cover downtown Worcester and towns north and south of Worcester well, it will just lose some small towns west of Worcester. It will be a big improvement in metro-Boston, and with the boosters, 107.3 will have a viable signal within most of the 128 belt and downtown for the first time.

With Entercom having tried to market WAAF as a Boston rock station, I didn’t see the need to keep coverage in small towns west of Worcester to stay on Stiles Hill, which never really covered Boston any better than Paxton.

If EMF can get the adjacent pirate interference from 107.1 and 107.5 off the air, it would cover Boston’s neighborhoods, where it was pretty much inaudible from Stiles.
 
Eli Polonsky said:
I don’t see why Entercom didn’t do this with WAAF.
Click to expand...

In a similar way, they bought WNSH from Cumulus a year ago, received permission to move the tower a few miles to the east to improve reception in NYC, and they haven't actually moved yet. Lots of people are wondering what the hold up is. All of the FCC applications have been approved. Still no action.
 
TheBigA said:
In a similar way, they bought WNSH from Cumulus a year ago, received permission to move the tower a few miles to the east to improve reception in NYC, and they haven't actually moved yet. Lots of people are wondering what the hold up is. All of the FCC applications have been approved. Still no action.
Click to expand...

WMAS has to modifiy their facilities first..... and with COVID bursting onto the scene in the winter, thats delayed things too
 
SomeRadioGuy said:
WMAS has to modifiy their facilities first..... and with COVID bursting onto the scene in the winter, thats delayed things too
Click to expand...

Entercom bought both stations from Cumulus at the same time, made applications for the various modifications, and all were approved last year.

Still no action that I'm aware of.
 
TheBigA said:
In a similar way, they bought WNSH from Cumulus a year ago, received permission to move the tower a few miles to the east to improve reception in NYC, and they haven't actually moved yet. Lots of people are wondering what the hold up is. All of the FCC applications have been approved. Still no action.
Click to expand...

At least Entercom applied and got permission for the WNSH move, despite not having done it. It appears that moving 107.3 to the Hudson tower may never have even crossed their minds. I’m guessing it took EMF engineers to look at the situation and come up with the idea. It would have probably made more sense for Entercom’s goal of WAAF covering Boston to have originally moved it there from Paxton instead of to W. Boylston.
 
Entercom didn't do this for WAAF years ago because their FCC legal experts and/or corporate engineers evidently aren't as knowledgeable as they should be!
 
MarkW said:
Entercom didn't do this for WAAF years ago because their FCC legal experts and/or corporate engineers evidently aren't as knowledgeable as they should be!
Click to expand...

Or maybe they got to a point where they were throwing too much good money at a bad station. They have lots of licenses, and thinning the herd is sometimes a good idea.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom