• 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

WFME tower is had been sold

It's not going to be Eagle Rock. That's an FM/TV site, not an AM site. No land for a DA and ground system, and because it's literally a rock, the ground conductivity is abysmal. You don't want to put an AM station up there..

This reminds me of a visit to the Caracas origination station of the RadioVision network in Venezuela (the radio partner to more well known VeneVision TV). I was brought in to discuss taking the manager position and was given a tour of about 10 of the stations around the country.

The Caracas station, 100 kw on 950, had a brand new transmitter site. They had, however, selected what they called a "hilltop" which in most of the US we would have called a mountain top. They leveled the peak, and had to use drilling equipment to dig the 120 ground radial trenches... almost solid rock. They brought in truckloads of soil to cover the site so it looked nice and green. But 10cm underneath it was rock. Just rock.

They wondered why a station with 5 kw that was in a fertile valley covered the market better. They did not like it when I told them that they had wasted about $250,000 dollars so far. But seeing that kind of decision made me decline the position. In retrospect, a good decision given the political turn that the nation took 20 years later.

I'm still surprised to see how many AM stations were built on hills in the past. Perhaps the lower land was too costly or there were permit issues, but it seems absurd.
 
An ad in the Hartford Courant indicates WHCT's subscription programming began in 1962, some eight years before WSMW signed on, and roughly 18 years before channel 27 added a pay wall.

When I came to Connecticut in 1982, WHCT was already in the hands of Gene Scott's Faith Center/University Network organization, running Dr. Scott's lectures and revival meetings 24/7. I didn't realize the subscription programming on Channel 18 went back into the early '60s. Thanks for the correction.
 
I looked at the history cards on 1560 in NYC ,at the FCC website. This transmitter site ( recently sold ) looks like it has been around since at least the early 1940's,prior to that it looks like it was in Long Island City. Not far from the Sunnyside Railroad Yard.
I was surprised to see that they ( WQXR at the time ) really didn't go to 50 kw until the mid 50's,from the Maspeth site ,the site just sold.

As mentioned by Scott the site up on the hill in West Orange would not be good for an AM , for reasons he mentioned. By the way that site up on the hill had WATV Channel 13 Newark,NJ when they first went on the air in the late 40's,before moving to the Empire State Building.

As a kid growing up in Northern NJ WQXR 1560 to me never had a great signal.

If Family decides keeping 1560 on the air ,I 'd see them sharing with 1010 WINS ,1050 WEPN or 1130 WBBR ,just my thoughts. They have the tower counts and would seem to be the ones that you could get to work. I think there is room to add towers too at these sites except maybe the 1050 site.

Al
 
If Family decides keeping 1560 on the air ,I 'd see them sharing with 1010 WINS ,1050 WEPN or 1130 WBBR ,just my thoughts.

They intend to stay on the air, as the terms of the sale allows them to operate from the site until the new location is operable. All of those locations are west of where they are now, so there may be a power change involved, especially at night.
 
If Family decides keeping 1560 on the air ,I 'd see them sharing with 1010 WINS ,1050 WEPN or 1130 WBBR ,just my thoughts. They have the tower counts and would seem to be the ones that you could get to work. I think there is room to add towers too at these sites except maybe the 1050 site.

Al

A new site is not about tower counts... it is about having the minimum number of towers needed in the right places to create the pattern needed to provide co-channel and adjacent channel protection and the needed signal over the city of license.

The COL issue can be solved by changing to some NJ city that has no station, becoming the first service there. And the tower issue depends on whether the location of a new shared site and the existing tower configurations can be made to work at 1560 to create the needed pattern.

The best way i have heard directional antennas described is to imagine iron particles sprinkled on a smooth surface. You take an assortment of magnets, some stronger and others weaker, and move them from the sides of the particles without getting too close... the particles will change their alignment and form a pattern.

A directional system uses wave-length spacing, power distribution and phasing of the RF to each tower to cause more to go in some directions than in others. And a system designed for one frequency does not have the same wave-length distancing at another frequency. It's not just "find another 4 towers somewhere".
 
My question is. Do you think 1560 give up clear channel station ?
 
I believe if it moves west to NJ, it will have to lower power.

Not necessarily. It can, theoretically, keep 50 kw by simply creating a relatively narrow lobe over NYC (Manhattan and the Boroughs) and out to sea.

The problem is finding a site where that would work with existing towers.
 
Isn't 1190 for sale? Why doesn't Family Radio just purchase 1190?

Likely the cost of buying 1190 is greater than the cost of rebuilding 1560.
 
Plus the signal is even more limited than 1560.

However, the signal does a pretty good job of covering the HDBA areas and the other parts of the market that have the higher concentrations of Black residents. It would be a good signal for the iHeart Black talk web... better than 1600 at least.
 
Dave,

OK on tower counts. I just noticed that stations that move transmitter sites and go to sharing seem to look for sites that are similar to what they had, then they add towers or lower power or do whatever necessary to make it work ,with the expertise of the radio consultant engineer.

Just a mention,when the NJ Tpk added extra lanes in The Meadowlands ,known as the Western Spur ( much west of the original lanes ) in the mid 60's ,two stations had to move . . . 970 WJRZ ( at the time ) had three towers in-line in Kearny,NJ along the Belleville Tpk. ( west of the same area as 570 WMCA & 830 WNYC are today ,sharing 3 towers ). 970 ended up relicensing in 1967 from Newark to Hackansack,NJ with 3 new in line towers.
Also 1130 WNEW had to move to it present site in Secaucus,NJ ,with its 4 towers. They had 2 towers with top hats in Kearny on Belleville,Tpk. If you go to google street view to this day and look just west of the NJ Tpk. Eastern Spur section, on the Belleville Tpk. you can see the old tower top hats laying in the water . . . they been there laying in the water since 1967 or so.

I wonder why 1130 moved because the NJ Tpk construction really did not effect their location they were at ,where 970 was the new Western Spur goes right thru that area. I think there were plans to do something where WNEW was related to Tpk. but it never happened.

here is streetview ,today fom the air . . . you can see the two old tower pilings ,look carefully aways below that you'll see two things in the water . . . those of the top hats from the towers that are under water . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/place/K...9d74da8b90a6e7!8m2!3d40.7684342!4d-74.1454214

one of the top hats . . . in the water . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.755...=9.677386&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

the old WNEW transmitter building . . . still there,

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.755...4!1s0iyAKVU-cZgiVresJVyWMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Al
 
Last edited:
you can see the old tower top hats laying in the water . . . they been there laying in the water since 1967 or so...

here is streetview ,today fom the air . . . you can see the two old tower pilings ,look carefully aways below that you'll see two things in the water . . . those of the top hats from the towers that are under water . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/place/K...9d74da8b90a6e7!8m2!3d40.7684342!4d-74.1454214

one of the top hats . . . in the water . . .

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.755...=9.677386&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

the old WNEW transmitter building . . . still there,

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.755...4!1s0iyAKVU-cZgiVresJVyWMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I realize this is/was an industrial area but why shouldn't the broadcaster be responsible for cleaning that mess up? Attitudes toward that sort of thing, especially in water, are a lot different today than they were in the 1960s.

I know from following cleanup efforts of a superfund site in my region, the current owner of the company that created the problem bears liability for the expense of cleaning it up even though they no longer own that piece of land. If that's the case here, then it should be Bloomberg's responsibility.
 
I would guess that part of the arrangement to move then-WNEW in the late 60s was that they'd hand the existing site over to the Turnpike, free and clear, in exchange for getting the new site built for them in Carlstadt.

They ended up with a fantastic site and signal out of the deal.
 
I would guess that part of the arrangement to move then-WNEW in the late 60s was that they'd hand the existing site over to the Turnpike, free and clear, in exchange for getting the new site built for them in Carlstadt.

They ended up with a fantastic site and signal out of the deal.

And that would seem to mean that the Turnpike and its government department would be responsible for any waste or residue left from the transmitter sit; they "bought" the land "as is" with the intent of re purposing it.
 
I realize this is/was an industrial area but why shouldn't the broadcaster be responsible for cleaning that mess up? Attitudes toward that sort of thing, especially in water, are a lot different today than they were in the 1960s.

The land was taken under either eminent domain or a negotiation prior to enforcing eminent domain; it does not matter which. The government agency that purchased it and dismantled the transmitter site is the responsible party.

I know from following cleanup efforts of a superfund site in my region, the current owner of the company that created the problem bears liability for the expense of cleaning it up even though they no longer own that piece of land. If that's the case here, then it should be Bloomberg's responsibility.

Why? They did not particularly want to leave the site, and went through a lot of work to move. The agency running the Turnpike took over what is essentially a forced sale property "as is" to re-purpose it.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom