Atlanta's major broadcast towers- short & stubby

[upstate29651]

Why is this? The cluster of towers along Atlanta's east side are barely 1000', if that in some instances. Why is that? Hartsfield? Is HAAT sufficient?

It would seem to me in order to throw signals all over N. GA, the towers would need to be at least 1500' tall, or atop a fairly close in montain (Stone, Kennesaw, etc). Can someone break down the engineering philosophy behind this?

G

 

[BIGSTICK]

I agree. Atlanta was always like the red headed stepchild. Being the largest Metro in the interior SE. Markets like Greenville, Chattanooga, Birmingham have hemed Atlanta in somewhat with how tall and how much power. For many years Atlanta was the most under radioed top market in the Country. Hope others can add to this?

 

[upstate29651]

I agree. Atlanta was always like the red headed stepchild. Being the largest Metro in the interior SE. Markets like Greenville, Chattanooga, Birmingham have hemed Atlanta in somewhat with how tall and how much power. For many years Atlanta was the most under radioed top market in the Country. Hope others can add to this?

Good point. I know there's towers that serve the Greenville market that are taller than that Atlanta sticks, AND they're atop mountains (WYFF, WHNS)! Charlotte has several 2k+' sticks that cover as hilly a georgraphy as Atlanta, in a market of the same georgraphic size.

G

 

[jabba17]

I know that neither Kennesaw nor Stone Mountain would be available for new towers, being national/state parks.

Might find this page I found interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlanta_broadcast_stations_by_location

Some towers missing on this list:
The WAOK field out near Hightower/I-20
The WSB-AM tower near Northlake (how'd they miss this one?)
The WCNN field near Spalding and Winters Chapel
The "Five Cheshire Bridge AMs" (the WQXI field and the WGKA, WMLB, WNIV, and WAFS towers)
The WRAS tower in Panthersville
The WDWD field in Powder Springs
The WATB field in Scottdale, adjacent to the Perimeter
The WFSH/WYAY tower near Loganville
The "blink and you'll miss it" WLKQ tower near Buford Dam

Also, the entry for the Richland site lists two of the three candelabras--the Channel 46 (skinny) one and one of the others. What is on the third candelabra? Channel 5 (WAGA)? What else?

 

[mr13013]

It's because the air lanes are referenced to sea level. Since we are already 1000 ft above sea level, the towers can only go another 1000 ft. At sea level, the towers could go to 2000 ft. This is over simplifed, but the crux of the matter.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

Also, the entry for the Richland site lists two of the three candelabras--the Channel 46 (skinny) one and one of the others. What is on the third candelabra? Channel 5 (WAGA)? What else?

The "skinny" tower holds the analog antenna for Channel 46, but the station's digital antenna is on the newer Richland tower. Also on the first tower are 94.9 and 96.1.

The newer tower holds the analog antenna for Channel 36, and the digital antennas of Channels 17, 34, 36 and 46. It also carries the antennas for 89.3, 97.9, 99.7 and 101.5.

The Channel 5 candelabra is down the road.

 

[BIGSTICK]

It's because the air lanes are referenced to sea level. Since we are already 1000 ft above sea level, the towers can only go another 1000 ft. At sea level, the towers could go to 2000 ft. This is over simplifed, but the crux of the matter.

Wow, did not think of that. So if a tower is physically 1000 feet and it sits on a plateau of 1050 feet, it is actually 2050 feet??? ???

 

[upstate29651]

It's because the air lanes are referenced to sea level. Since we are already 1000 ft above sea level, the towers can only go another 1000 ft. At sea level, the towers could go to 2000 ft. This is over simplifed, but the crux of the matter.

Wow, did not think of that. So if a tower is physically 1000 feet and it sits on a plateau of 1050 feet, it is actually 2050 feet??? ???

I can & can't understand this. Example: Most of the N. GA mtns are in the Atlanta DMA. These short sticks (I can't imagine) would be able to throw much signal up that way. Again, go back to my examples earlier in the thread about towers in the Greenville & Charlotte markets. Both serve hilly (and mountainous terrain moreso in the case of Greenville), and they have taller towers. I know no one is going to tear down & reconstruct new towers as a result of this thread, but again, maybe I'm missing something on the engineering side that shows these towers are of perfect height to cover the entire DMA.

G

 

[littlejohn]

The maximum allowable hieght the FAA will permit is 2000' AGL. However, when there are airspace uses reasonably low to the ground, the maximum allowable height will be controlled by the airspace needs. Go get an Atlanta Sectional Chart (faa pilot's map) and take a look at the thing. The Atlanta TCA covers the city, and restricts the height of towers.
Cionsequently, about a thousand feet off the ground is what you can get here. As a matter of interest, someyears ago when the Stone Mountain airport closed, one bright fellow did some research and went and asked the FAA Airspace folks about what might open up as a resuly. Supposedly, the FAA guy put his finger on the chart and said 'why don't you file for right here?'. That gentleman's employers, sadly mine at the time as well, and several others were unwilling to band together and invest the risk money to get a taller tower built.
Today, airspace use has changed to the degree that the opportunity no longer exists.
This mindset can be seen in the move made by 106.7 several years back. On paper, they gained a substantial audience by moving closer to town and downgrading. In reality, they lost potential audience both because the downgrade allowed stations to move closer to the city increasing the interference to them, and by reducing their overall footprint of coverage. But, on paper to the money folks, they gained a million or so in potential audience. The fantasy world does not often coincide with the real worls.

 

[upstate29651]

^ So the answer is ....blame Hartsfield!

I kinda thought so.

G

 

[littlejohn]

Yeh, that's the short answer. The long answer is somewhat more invovled, but hinges on the players being willing to spend money for a long - term future tall tower. No broadcasting company is currently willing to do so. The money is substantial, the risk is there, and the payback - a Finding of No Hazard - is five o rmore years in the future. 'Tain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

 

[RadioDoogie]

So...the question to be asked now is which markets have the most highest/stongest towers and which markets have the most shortest/weakest towers. I looked on RadioStationWorld.com the other day and realized that there are not many markets with many 100kw or full power class C FM towers. NYC obviously has lower power towers due to the short spacing between the many many FM stations. In contrast, out west where there are less populated areas the towers tend to always be very tall and most are at 100kw. Down south it is hit or miss - 50/50. I guess the moral to the story is...more populated, less power and less populated, more power. The power/height factor I would believe is also due to your market's proximity to other metropolitan areas and the density of the different metropolitan areas in the region. West - Low Proximity, South - Medium Proximity, Northeast - High Proximity.

 

[littlejohn]

In the Northeast, the FCC has not allowed Class C fms. 500 feet is tops, or the reduced power equivqlent.

 

[BIGSTICK]

So...the question to be asked now is which markets have the most highest/stongest towers and which markets have the most shortest/weakest towers. I looked on RadioStationWorld.com the other day and realized that there are not many markets with many 100kw or full power class C FM towers. NYC obviously has lower power towers due to the short spacing between the many many FM stations. In contrast, out west where there are less populated areas the towers tend to always be very tall and most are at 100kw. Down south it is hit or miss - 50/50. I guess the moral to the story is...more populated, less power and less populated, more power. The power/height factor I would believe is also due to your market's proximity to other metropolitan areas and the density of the different metropolitan areas in the region. West - Low Proximity, South - Medium Proximity, Northeast - High Proximity.

Probably Los Angeles. ???

 

[Greg Strickland]

As an Atlanta outsider- my view is the in-town towers were probably more than adequate for full market coverage in the time when they were built. This could have been in the 50's and 60's when Atlanta was smaller. Once the benefit of a taller tower (in town or slightly out of town) became apparent, other stations had blocked the relocation options and the FAA had fully baked the upside down wedding cake that is the Atlanta traffic control area.

Also- the in-town towers provide very strong signals in the dense city, and while it may not be really necessary to have that much signal, once you get used to it, it is hard to give it up.

 

[jabba17]

As an Atlanta outsider- my view is the in-town towers were probably more than adequate for full market coverage in the time when they were built. This could have been in the 50's and 60's when Atlanta was smaller. Once the benefit of a taller tower (in town or slightly out of town) became apparent, other stations had blocked the relocation options and the FAA had fully baked the upside down wedding cake that is the Atlanta traffic control area.

Also- the in-town towers provide very strong signals in the dense city, and while it may not be really necessary to have that much signal, once you get used to it, it is hard to give it up.

It's obvious that Atlanta got its first radio and TV back when it was much smaller. If they reallocated VHF TV today (ignoring DTV), Atlanta would get more than the 4 it got way back when. It might not get the max of 7 (2 or 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13), but it would get more than 4--at least 5 and maybe 6. Same goes for radio, including class A clears (that's how ATL only wound up with one).