107.3 WAAF back on paxton?

[Ozman]

Got WAAF from Putney VT all the way to New Haven CT down the I-91 corridor between 10-midnight thursday 3/5 solid most of the way. any Idea if theis is a temporary change or permanent change from their Westburo tower?

 

[rapking]

If Entercom have any thing in there heads , They would leave it there( Paxton) . Westborough site SUCK !

 

[Eli Polonsky]

If Entercom have any thing in there heads , They would leave it there( Paxton) . Westborough site SUCK !

The transmitter site is in West Boylston (on the TV Channel 27 tower), not Westborough. It's licensed to Westborough, though.

 

[Time Traveler]

Now that they have 97.7-WKAF to cover down town Boston, I can not understand why they continue to hobble that once amazing 107.3 signal. The Armstrong tower in Paxton covered all of Mass, Rhode Island,
most of Connecticut, much of New Hampshire, some of Vermont, southern Maine and eastern New York state.
Now the signal is even weaker on the north shore of Boston than it was from Paxton...

 

[DanStrassberg]

Now that they have 97.7-WKAF to cover down town Boston, I can not understand why they continue to hobble that once amazing 107.3 signal. The Armstrong tower in Paxton covered all of Mass, Rhode Island,
most of Connecticut, much of New Hampshire, some of Vermont, southern Maine and eastern New York state.
Now the signal is even weaker on the north shore of Boston than it was from Paxton...

How much did Entercom spend on the signal upgrade that turned into a downgrade? (Don't forget to include what Entercom paid for WKAF in that figure.) And aren't the person or persons who were responsible for that huge fiasco still on the payroll (still in the Boston cluster, in fact? And still in high places in the Boston cluster?). Now, does it STILL surprise you that WAAF has not returned to Paxton? Apparently, mistakes that are not admitted were never made.

 

[Ozman]

Couldn't get AAF on the way back pretty much at all in most of CT, VT and half of MA on I-91 :'( I must have gotten lucky and they were doing tower maintenance on thursday night or strong DX...

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Now that they have 97.7-WKAF to cover down town Boston, I can not understand why they continue to hobble that once amazing 107.3 signal. The Armstrong tower in Paxton covered all of Mass, Rhode Island,
most of Connecticut, much of New Hampshire, some of Vermont, southern Maine and eastern New York state.
Now the signal is even weaker on the north shore of Boston than it was from Paxton...

How much did Entercom spend on the signal upgrade that turned into a downgrade? (Don't forget to include what Entercom paid for WKAF in that figure.) And aren't the person or persons who were responsible for that huge fiasco still on the payroll (still in the Boston cluster, in fact? And still in high places in the Boston cluster?). Now, does it STILL surprise you that WAAF has not returned to Paxton? Apparently, mistakes that are not admitted were never made.

Since all of you are so damned convinced that the move was a mistake, pony up this factoid: Exactly how much money was made on all those out-of-the-Boston-and-Worcester-metros listeners? How many commercials touted businesses outside those two metros?

Hint: The answer to both questions is: Zero. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Bupkes. It's the same fallacy fervently believed by AM DXers, that somehow those monster signals of old have to be kept so they can hear all those syndicated programs from stations 1500 miles away. WAAF's signal from Paxton was a waste, and the company did something about it. That's not a mistake. That's smart business. Oh, wait...did some of you forget that radio is a business?

 

[jlehmann]

Since all of you are so damned convinced that the move was a mistake, pony up this factoid: Exactly how much money was made on all those out-of-the-Boston-and-Worcester-metros listeners? How many commercials touted businesses outside those two metros?

Hint: The answer to both questions is: Zero. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Bupkes. It's the same fallacy fervently believed by AM DXers, that somehow those monster signals of old have to be kept so they can hear all those syndicated programs from stations 1500 miles away. WAAF's signal from Paxton was a waste, and the company did something about it. That's not a mistake. That's smart business. Oh, wait...did some of you forget that radio is a business?

Yeah... but as we've said before... what about the areas IN the market that are getting a weaker signal from 107.3 now, than when it was in Paxton?

 

[Time Traveler]

Now that they have 97.7-WKAF to cover down town Boston, I can not understand why they continue to hobble that once amazing 107.3 signal. The Armstrong tower in Paxton covered all of Mass, Rhode Island,
most of Connecticut, much of New Hampshire, some of Vermont, southern Maine and eastern New York state.
Now the signal is even weaker on the north shore of Boston than it was from Paxton...

How much did Entercom spend on the signal upgrade that turned into a downgrade? (Don't forget to include what Entercom paid for WKAF in that figure.) And aren't the person or persons who were responsible for that huge fiasco still on the payroll (still in the Boston cluster, in fact? And still in high places in the Boston cluster?). Now, does it STILL surprise you that WAAF has not returned to Paxton? Apparently, mistakes that are not admitted were never made.

Since all of you are so damned convinced that the move was a mistake, pony up this factoid: Exactly how much money was made on all those out-of-the-Boston-and-Worcester-metros listeners? How many commercials touted businesses outside those two metros?

Hint: The answer to both questions is: Zero. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Bupkes. It's the same fallacy fervently believed by AM DXers, that somehow those monster signals of old have to be kept so they can hear all those syndicated programs from stations 1500 miles away. WAAF's signal from Paxton was a waste, and the company did something about it. That's not a mistake. That's smart business. Oh, wait...did some of you forget that radio is a business?

Well "dumber"...I've been in the "business" for 30 years. Guess what else...I used to work at WAAF when they were first contemplating that very move to the Channel 27 tower way back in the spring of 1980. What amazes me is that it took
over twenty five years to actually accomplish the move and that fact that they down graded the signal as significantly as they did in the process. Perhaps you can enlighten me and the others on this board as to the technical improvements that were accomplished by this??? Have their ratings improved? Has their revenue improved as a result? Exactly where has their signal been improved by this? The addition of 97.7 seems to be good "business". Tell me...What was accomplished that would be to anyone's advantage other than WBCN's by down grading 107.3????

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

I've been in the "business" for 30 years.

Close to 40 for me.

Have their ratings improved? Has their revenue improved as a result?

Yes to both.

The addition of 97.7 seems to be good "business".

Yes, because 107.3 must use a directional antenna. 97.7 was a perfect fit for what was missing in the metro area.

 

[pqgeorge]

>>WAAF's signal from Paxton was a waste, and the company did something about it. That's not a mistake. That's smart business. Oh, wait...did some of you forget that radio is a business? <<

Hate to differ but WAAF's signal from Boylston is highly inferior to the signal that came from the Armstrong tower on Asnesbumskit. Sure 'AAF has the 97.7 repeater which does allright in portions of downtown. However, due to the intermod from the Pru, 97.7's signal is still impaired in many parts of the city. Also 107.3's signal is much weaker from 27's tower than Paxton. Also, the signal from Boylston is inferior compared to the old Paxton signal in the northern suburbs of Boston and into Southern New Hampshire (all in the same market). For the same money they spent on moving to Boylston, they could have kept 107.3 full-power on Paxton, run 97.7 as is for Downtown Boston, and in the meantime keep the western coverage area into Vermont, Connecticut and Upstate New York as gravy.... all for the same cost. Since they still keep Paxton as a backup, they are now paying rent for two sites. Unfortunately, when WAAF downgraded to the Boylston tower, they effectively precluded any possibility of going back to Paxton at full-power for keeps. No doubt someone might be able to squeeze another Class A in the area which WAAF used to serve. So, they're now stuck at Boylston.

As a side note: As a former college student in Western Massachusetts in the late 70's and early 80's, I can assure you that many college students in the Springfield metro listened to WAAF all the time (myself included). It was the best rocker in the market. Many of these students came from the Boston/Worcester area and frequent the type of advertisers that WAAF caters to every week. That was beauty of the Asnesbunskit site. You could drive back and forth from school to home and never lose it. I bought many items from the stores that 'AAF advertised with. I don't see the logic about downgrading a great signal that covered everywhere (and then some) and replacing it with a signal that is totally inferior to the signal it replaced. But, they made their decision and that's that.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Unfortunately, when WAAF downgraded to the Boylston tower, they effectively precluded any possibility of going back to Paxton at full-power for keeps. No doubt someone might be able to squeeze another Class A in the area which WAAF used to serve. So, they're now stuck at Boylston.

One would think that would be so, but if you believe CDBS, the licensed site remains in Paxton and the W Boyleston site is still a CP on air. CDBS has been known to be wrong, however ;>(

Also, although my listening confirms everything I have read (and posted) in various threads here about the coverage of areas near Boston from the two sites, the coverage maps available at CDBS contradict all of the postings about inferior coverage of Boston from the W Boyleston site. Now, perhaps these are calculated maps, but if so, they show remarkable detail, which suggests that they represent MEASURED coverage (though they probably DON'T indicate areas where multipath renders a relatively strong signal unlistenable).

In any event, the W Boyleston 54 dBu contour covers Boston; the Paxton 54 dBu contour barely reaches inside of Rt 128. Some folks here, however, must know more than I do about the validity of these maps.

Those interested can follow these links:
WAAF_W-Boyleston:
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM628274.html
WAAF_Paxton:
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM970555.html

 

[masscarnage99]

I miss WAAF on Paxton, sux both in Derry and more in Londonderry, NH. Calculated maps prove less then good signal overall everywhere though.

 

[johnster]

I will say on my car radio they come in much better in Boston from the new site. I used to find them unlistenable from Alwife in. Now accept for a few spots right near the Pru I totally forget to switch to WKAF. I'm sure there are places to the North and South where the signal is worse but for my listening in Brighton/Allston, Newton and Watertown area I think it is much improved.