Audacy New York

[Barry]

This reminds me of the situation with 103.9 WFAS FM. Cumulus moved it into New York from Westchester County, expecting a much wider audience. That turned out to be a disappointment for them.
In this case Audacy is trying to transform this NJ based 94.7 FM signal into a New York station. So far the second format attempt is achieving modest results. Perhaps they would be better off with programming that caters to northern NJ.

 

[CTListener]

Edit: I think Manhattan may be fully spaced to Brentwood to allow a second adjacent Class A to Class B situation. So, WWSK might not be the biggest roadblock after all. I know there is the 94.7 allotment in the Springfield, MA area, too.

That would be WMAS. I've always been puzzled by its status as a roadblock to NYC/LI stations, given the topography of Connecticut. Line of sight from NYC/LI drops off sharply in central Connecticut -- south of Hartford -- thanks to some pretty large hills including the "mountain" in Meriden and the ridge it's part of. I can't get anything from LI driving north of Hartford, so why should WMAS need protection?

 

[djl]

That would be WMAS. I've always been puzzled by its status as a roadblock to NYC/LI stations, given the topography of Connecticut. Line of sight from NYC/LI drops off sharply in central Connecticut -- south of Hartford -- thanks to some pretty large hills including the "mountain" in Meriden and the ridge it's part of. I can't get anything from LI driving north of Hartford, so why should WMAS need protection?

If WWSK agreed to an interference waiver, would that allow a move to NYC? If not, what’s holding up the 94.7 move to the new antenna?

 

[MVB13]

Years ago they signed an agreement with WKTU which allowed WKTU to go non-directional from 1WTC

They are both owned by IHM which was easier for them. IMH owns the entire Sussex cluster.

 

[victorres43]

Perhaps they would be better off with programming that caters to northern NJ.

New Jersey 101.5 didn't just become a success overnight.

 

[MarkW]

I want to thank fybush for his very informative explanation!

 

[nd2023]

Receivers have improved so much that even with IBOC, second adjacent interference is negligible and third adjacent interference doesn’t exist. So why continue to protect those?

 

[CTListener]

Receivers have improved so much that even with IBOC, second adjacent interference is negligible and third adjacent interference doesn’t exist. So why continue to protect those?

Easy. Because people still have older receivers.

 

[semoochie]

Easy. Because people still have older receivers.

How old are the receivers, how many still exist and how many of their owners are still alive? There are still cylinder players but no one has programed for them for some time!

 

[davideduardo]

Easy. Because people still have older receivers.

In all the nations south of us, FM allocations every other channel in local markets is common and not problematic. Even on AM, stations every 20 kHz work fine in the same market.

And these closer assignments have worked fine since the 50's for AM and the 60's for FM.

 

[MVB13]

In all the nations south of us, FM allocations every other channel in local markets is common and not problematic. Even on AM, stations every 20 kHz work fine in the same market.

And these closer assignments have worked fine since the 50's for AM and the 60's for FM.

I wonder why we can't do that here? Is it another ridiculous American rule like our English language or how we can't use metric like everyone else?

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

That would be WMAS. I've always been puzzled by its status as a roadblock to NYC/LI stations, given the topography of Connecticut. Line of sight from NYC/LI drops off sharply in central Connecticut -- south of Hartford -- thanks to some pretty large hills including the "mountain" in Meriden and the ridge it's part of. I can't get anything from LI driving north of Hartford, so why should WMAS need protection?

Because topography is irrelevant to required separations between stations on the same, first-adjacent or second-adjacent channels. Section 73.207 of the FCC rules has all the details.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I wonder why we can't do that here? Is it another ridiculous American rule like our English language or how we can't use metric like everyone else?

Technically, we could do it. Economically, it probably wouldn’t fly.

 

[nd2023]

Because topography is irrelevant to required separations between stations on the same, first-adjacent or second-adjacent channels. Section 73.207 of the FCC rules has all the details.

Topography should be relevant but it isn’t. For instance, there could be class C’s in Denver and Colorado Springs and they won’t interfere with each other because a big mountain between the two cities blocks the line of sight.
And the 94.3’s in Long Island and Connecticut interfere mainly over the water. If only 94.3 The Shark could move a few miles east, that could get 94.7 the Block into Manhattan