Why did the FCC license the 96.1MHz frequency allocation to Worcester rather than being a Boston allocation? The 96.1MHz frequency is +/- 600kHz meeting the minimum spacing requirements unlike two other full power Worcester signals of 107.3 and 104.5MHz. Was this purposely done, did Worcester need another full market signal or did the original owners apply for 96.1MHz it and it was granted? Any understanding of this would be appreciated.
-
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
96.1MHz Worcester vs. Boston allocation
- Thread starter wcozBoston
- Start date
96.1 in Worcester predates the current table of allocations. It's been licensed continuously since the early 1940s (and indeed since before the FM dial was even kicked up to 88-108), and back then, if you wanted an FM channel, you just asked for it, especially if you were the dominant daily newspapers in town. The Telegram and Gazette (still separate papers) already owned WTAG(AM), and if they wanted an FM, they got an FM. Worcester was a much more important separate media market in the days before TV, and there was no reason to think it wouldn't be a good place for an FM. (As indeed it has been over the years, at least for WTAG-FM/WSRS.)
96.1 never really had a chance to move. FCC policy before the 1980s frowned on the sort of move-ins that have become common, and by the time they were allowed, other signals had come on (most notably WATD) that would have blocked WSRS from moving all the way into Boston as a full class B.
96.1 never really had a chance to move. FCC policy before the 1980s frowned on the sort of move-ins that have become common, and by the time they were allowed, other signals had come on (most notably WATD) that would have blocked WSRS from moving all the way into Boston as a full class B.
Scott, I'm sure you'll be able to answer this question for me. I had heard from someone that Channel 5 was initially allocated to Worcester and was "owned" by the Telegram & Gazette. However they decided not to put it on the air because they didn't think there was much value in TV and thought the future was FM. I would imagine the media landscape would be much different in Eastern Massachusetts if Worcester had a full market TV station like Channel 5.
reelyreal said:
Plus, the FCC rules mandated (and I think that law is still on the books, obsolete as it is) that at least one VHF channel be allocated in every state. My guess is that's the reason why Channel 9 was allocated to Manchester NH instead of Boston or Worcester.
Channels 11 and 13 probably were allocated as they were due to the distance from Providence. If Providence had been an all-UHF market, then 11 and 13 could have been allocated to Boston.
Channel 5 was indeed allocated to Worcester, but my recollection is that there was never actually a WTAG-TV construction permit issued, though the WSRS building on Asnebumskit was reportedly designed to handle a TV studio and transmitter.
There were a lot of different allocations proposals in the early years of TV that could have given Boston anywhere from two to six VHF channels. The politics were intense - the stations that got there first (WBZ and WNAC) didn't want more competition, political leaders in New Hampshire and central/western Massachusetts wanted their own stations instead of depending on Boston, and the FCC was still trying to figure out what the appropriate spacings should be between co- and adjacent-channel stations. (Oh - and by 1952 there were proposals to limit VHF use in the east to the big cities, with smaller markets in between being made all-UHF.)
So the allotment picture changed, over and over again, between 1947 and 1957, when the dial finally congealed into its permanent form. There were indeed some early proposals for Boston that included channels 9 and 13 (11 was then being used by WJAR). Once Providence's allocations were shifted from 11/13 to 10/12, that pretty much froze out any chance of using 11 or 13 in Boston, though there were attempts as late as the early 1960s to move channel 9 from Manchester to the Merrimack Valley.
In the end, Boston was slightly shortchanged; similarly-sized big cities tended to end up with five Vs (Chicago, Philadelphia/Wilmington) instead of the four that Boston got. But the flip side is that Boston was much more tightly spaced to other cities that became TV markets in their own rights: had the FCC, for instance, decided to make Rhode Island a UHF market, then at least one more V channel (13, probably) could have been added to Boston. (10 and 12 might then have been used to make Connecticut all-V, and Portland would probably have ended up with 12 instead of 13.)
There were a lot of different allocations proposals in the early years of TV that could have given Boston anywhere from two to six VHF channels. The politics were intense - the stations that got there first (WBZ and WNAC) didn't want more competition, political leaders in New Hampshire and central/western Massachusetts wanted their own stations instead of depending on Boston, and the FCC was still trying to figure out what the appropriate spacings should be between co- and adjacent-channel stations. (Oh - and by 1952 there were proposals to limit VHF use in the east to the big cities, with smaller markets in between being made all-UHF.)
So the allotment picture changed, over and over again, between 1947 and 1957, when the dial finally congealed into its permanent form. There were indeed some early proposals for Boston that included channels 9 and 13 (11 was then being used by WJAR). Once Providence's allocations were shifted from 11/13 to 10/12, that pretty much froze out any chance of using 11 or 13 in Boston, though there were attempts as late as the early 1960s to move channel 9 from Manchester to the Merrimack Valley.
In the end, Boston was slightly shortchanged; similarly-sized big cities tended to end up with five Vs (Chicago, Philadelphia/Wilmington) instead of the four that Boston got. But the flip side is that Boston was much more tightly spaced to other cities that became TV markets in their own rights: had the FCC, for instance, decided to make Rhode Island a UHF market, then at least one more V channel (13, probably) could have been added to Boston. (10 and 12 might then have been used to make Connecticut all-V, and Portland would probably have ended up with 12 instead of 13.)
B
BoscoGoldBear
Guest
Scott Fybush said:
Usually I defer to Scott on this issue, except that Philly/Wilmington has as many V's (3, 6, 10 and 12) as Boston does (2, 4, 5 and 7). Also, there are some who believe that Boston actually has 6 V's: the 4 mention plus 9 and 11 in NH.
KeithE4 said:
Oops, my bad. Providence couldn't have been an all-UHF market because of that "at least one VHF per state law." There had to be at least one VHF station allocated somewhere in Rhode Island as well as New Hampshire.
Boston, Philly, and Chicago really got the short end of the stick when it came to VHF allocations due to the number of surrounding markets that were close-by.
Steve's quite right: I miscounted the Philly/Wilmington total, and Philadelphia was equally shortchanged as Boston, for much the same reason: just too tightly packed in between other VHF markets. (Philly should probably have had 8, and Lancaster should have gone all-U, but WGAL-TV was there early.)
Anyone who would count 9 and 11 as "Boston" signals has never lived in Boston, or at least has never lived within Route 128. The 9 and 11 signals don't exist usably for viewers anywhere inside 128, and aren't even all that good in the northern suburbs between 495 and 128. 11 is on cable in parts of the market, but not all of it. 9 is on cable only in NH and immediately adjacent parts of Massachusetts.
As for the "one V per state" law, that wasn't in play in the 1950s, at least not with the force of law.
Anyone who would count 9 and 11 as "Boston" signals has never lived in Boston, or at least has never lived within Route 128. The 9 and 11 signals don't exist usably for viewers anywhere inside 128, and aren't even all that good in the northern suburbs between 495 and 128. 11 is on cable in parts of the market, but not all of it. 9 is on cable only in NH and immediately adjacent parts of Massachusetts.
As for the "one V per state" law, that wasn't in play in the 1950s, at least not with the force of law.
L
Laurence Glavin
Guest
I know this is ancient history in the age of digital OTA TV, but what existed in the spectrum just below 174 mhz and just above 216 mhz? The FCC had just readjusted FM from one spectrum to another. Couldn't they have done the same thing with TV? Canada, Mexico and Cuber were forced to go along with whatever the U S of A did, but they couldn't have been happy with the disjointed "solution" our Federal Government came up with. If OTA TV in the beginning contained as few as 15 contiguous channel in the high-numbered region, it would have used up just 90 mhz, but numerous cities would eventually have had 3 network Vs, one or more independent Vs and one or more noncomms in the VHF spectrum.
- Status