Dilemma for rimshot stations

[Len14043]

While perusing through the Arbitron Ratings site (see link below), I selected Rochester NY. I noticed that WYSL was dead last - even behind the Buffalo stations. The anger and antipathey toward IBOC on the part of Mr. Savage is understandable and I would probably not be so tolerant if I was in his position. WYSL is located in Avon NY which is about 20 miles from Rochester. Considering the poor ground conductivity in the area, thats a long haul. I know WYSL would desperately like to be the "News Leader of Rochester" despite that fact their signal is more suited for being the station that carries Avon HS Football. If they depend on the Rochester market for ratings, which are already abysmally low, it's not difficult to see how IBOC will snuff out their already dismal signal. I am not in radio and don't understand the day-to-day challenges in running a station, but I am curious as to why they can't relocate their tower closer to Rochester? It is my understanding that stations must be located in such a way as to minimize interference to existing stations. Seeing that lake Ontario is a 30 mile buffer between Rochester and Canada, how would that have a negative impact on stations in Canada?

http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm

 

[fybush]

First, the disclaimer: Bob Savage is a friend, and I've known him and WYSL since before the station was even on the air.

I live in Rochester (actually, about a mile outside the city line, in the southeastern suburb of Brighton), and whatever issues WYSL might have, ground conductivity here isn't one of them. Even as a 500-watt ND daytimer on 1030, the original configuration, WYSL put a respectable, if far from barn-burning, signal over most of greater Rochester. I have tapes of the station's first day on the air in 1987, recorded here in Brighton, to prove it.

Subsequent daytime increases to 1000 watts on 1030, then to 2500 watts on 1040, then to today's 20 kW (13 kW critical hours) gave WYSL an excellent signal over the metro. Bob's been out with his FIM and measured better than 5 mV/m at the Lake Ontario shoreline. In driving around town, I think it may be even better than that most days.

The issue, of course, is at night. Back in the 1030 days, Bob might as well have signed off during critical hours as far as Rochester and Monroe County were concerned - there's simply so much skywave from WBZ here, even before it's completely dark out, that his kilowatt was being smothered by WBZ's 50.

Moving to 1040 helped that immensely. We're well outside not only WHO's predicted 0.5 mV/m skywave contour here, but also its real-life 0.5 most nights. Even with only 500 watts at night, WYSL was very easily listenable (at least here in southern Monroe County) just about every night. That changed, dramatically, the first night WBZ's IBOC was on.

So why doesn't Bob pack up his Nautel and move north? I can't speak for him, but there are certainly some obvious factors. WYSL is the only signal licensed to Avon, so he can't move very far without taking away Avon's "sole local service," which he wouldn't be allowed to do. Then there's the question of available land: going north from Avon to Rochester, one passes through fairly expensive (and NIMBY-infested) exurbia in the town of Rush and the southern portion of Henrietta, then very quickly into the even more expensive commercial strip of northern Henrietta. Replicating Bob's widely-spaced four-tower array anywhere much to the north of his present site would cost more than the station is worth, most likely.

Oh, and as for the "station more suited for carrying Avon HS football"? While it wasn't the case even a generation ago (I remember it being a long-distance call from Rochester to WYSL when it first signed on), northern Livingston County has really become a bedroom community of Rochester these days. It's only a 15-minute drive from Avon to many workplaces in southern Monroe County, and most people in Avon (and even in towns to the south, such as Geneseo and Livonia) do the vast majority of their shopping in Henrietta. There's just not enough of a local business base in northern Livingston these days to support a hometown radio station, much as I (and Bob, I'm guessing) might wish otherwise.

 

[Savage]

First, thanks to both Len and Scott for their sympathetic posts.

Scott's right. The 4-tower system installed in 1997 for the fulltime DA-2 move to 1040 from NDA daytime-only on 1030 utilizes the same 13.5-acre parcel. Even if we were to move the array northwards, and were able to afford the land and get past the inevitable NIMBY challenges, it's unlikely we'd be able to move far enough north to make headway in Rochester against the WBZ adjacent-channel onslaught without getting to the point where we weren't getting the required signal strength over our COL. Note that the WHO null is at 235.5 degrees true and Avon is located on a south-southwest line from Rochester. If WYSL went appreciably north, that null as it spreads would start to cross the Avon corporate limit.

Besides, any move wouldn't make much difference. The IBOC noise from WBZ is so bad some nights you'd need something like 50kw to overcome it. We just filed our second FCC complaint. At one measurement in this filing WBZ was rendering useless, for practical listening purposes, a measured signal strength of 27.6 mv/m. We guesstimate that a signal strength of about 40 mv/m is necessary many nights to ensure prior quieting on WYSL's carrier. Bear in mind that IBOC is steady-state and WBZ is radiating a field 20 times WYSL's augmented field towards Rochester (an estimated 4100 mv/s versus 218 mv/m.) With the standard pattern available the array would just about have to be in Avon proper to accomplish that.

I know WYSL has taken a lot of shots on this board about being a "rimshot" and denigrating the fact that we don't show in Arbitron. Scott is also right in that the pre-HD night coverage in most of Rochester was perfectly listenable; on quiet nights, we sounded like any other AM licensed to Rochester. As far as the no-show in the book, I have my own theories on that, but historically it hasn't mattered. Nighttime is very well sold for live COLLEGIATE (not high school, Len) sports coverage from University of Rochester, Roberts Wesleyan College, Rochester Institute of Technology plus various pro franchises - hockey, soccer, lax, football and hoops. Whether the station shows or doesn't make the book is irrelevant for our revenue purposes. Of course, if nobody can hear the station any more, that's a big problem - much more so than our Arbitron rank or lack thereof.

 

[Savage]

I forgot: re, ground conductivity. At the WYSL site it's 8 on the M3 map, but it actually measures much better than that (while just a few miles to the south, in the Finger Lakes, it drops to 4.) There are pockets of 15, 20 and even higher on a line between Avon and Rochester, which undoubtedly gives WYSL a nice big boost over what you'd expect from a 500-watt signal arriving from 20 miles away at night.

Casual listening to WYSL in the pre-HD-from WBZ days revealed a signal comparable to the 5kw stations licensed to Rochester proper, at least in the south, west and east suburbs and much of the City.

 

[fybush]

Casual listening to WYSL in the pre-HD-from WBZ days revealed a signal comparable to the 5kw stations licensed to Rochester proper, at least in the south, west and east suburbs and much of the City.

Even accepting for the immense pride that my friend Bob has in his station, this may be just a teeny bit of a stretch.

There are four "5 kW" signals licensed to Rochester proper. Three - WHTK 1280, WXXI 1370 and WHIC 1460 - are very similar DA-N facilities, using three- or four-tower sites about 5 miles due south of downtown Rochester. They each put plenty of signal over the city of Rochester and its inner ring of suburbs, but each has significant nulls in suburban areas east and west of the city where much of the growth has happened in recent years. (Another Rochester signal, WROC 950, is similarly located but even more signal-challenged, being a 1 kW DA-2.)

The fourth is WLGZ 990, 5 kW day, 2.5 kw night, DA-2 from a six-tower array 15 miles west of downtown. It shoots a narrow beam of signal east over the city, blasting the western suburbs and the city at the expense of any area even slightly south of the city, where it's all but unlistenable after dark. This signal, too, misses much of the recent suburban growth.

Pre-IBOC, WYSL's signal from south of town did indeed do somewhat better in some of the areas southeast and southwest of Rochester that fell in the nulls of the older 5 kW signals like 1280 and 1370. But it lacked the northward-aimed "oomph" over the city that those signals, and even 950 and 990, have. The difference was quite audible, especially where I am in the southeastern suburbs, practically in the near-field of 1280 and 1370.

Those playing the home game will have noted by now that there's exactly one AM with full-market coverage: the 50 kW ND blowtorch of WHAM 1180, which beats the pants (signal-wise, anyway) off everyone else, be they Avon- or Rochester-based.

 

[R.F. Burns]

Y'know and I'm not really suggesting that Bob pursue this, IBOC or not, but what would be the possibility of diplexing his signal using one of the existing multi tower arrays located closer to Rochester? That would save him from trying to find open commercial land of his own and if it could be engineered it may allow him to not only do a better job of covering Rochester, but still put a respectable signal into Avon. That said, considering what happened to Rockland county radio when our one full county radio station became a 24 hour Polish language outlet (in a county where there is nearly no Polish language population), I'd suggest that the FCC could care less about serving any specific local market with viable programming.

 

[Len14043]

Another suggestion to Bob: If FM IBOC takes off, he could possibly arrange to be an HD-2 of an existing station. That would put a great signal into Rochester, while the AM could serve the southern suburbs. I realize this is not a viable option at this time, but it may in the future. While IBOC is hurting him on the AM side, it may prove beneficial on the FM side.

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

Another suggestion to Bob: If FM IBOC takes off, he could possibly arrange to be an HD-2 of an existing station. That would put a great signal into Rochester, while the AM could serve the southern suburbs. I realize this is not a viable option at this time, but it may in the future. While IBOC is hurting him on the AM side, it may prove beneficial on the FM side.

A good idea, but since Mr. Savage's station is the wronged party in the IBOC-related case of trespassing, any expenses for such an arrangement should be paid in full by WBZ/CBS Radio.

 

[fybush]

Y'know and I'm not really suggesting that Bob pursue this, IBOC or not, but what would be the possibility of diplexing his signal using one of the existing multi tower arrays located closer to Rochester? That would save him from trying to find open commercial land of his own and if it could be engineered it may allow him to not only do a better job of covering Rochester, but still put a respectable signal into Avon. That said, considering what happened to Rockland county radio when our one full county radio station became a 24 hour Polish language outlet (in a county where there is nearly no Polish language population), I'd suggest that the FCC could care less about serving any specific local market with viable programming.

The southernmost of those arrays is the brand-new WHIC 1460 site in Henrietta, about 10 miles north of Bob's existing site. That's still too far north to put enough signal over Avon at night, and as the sole local service to Avon, Bob can't change COL.

Those three new 199' towers are probably a bit short to be effective on 1040 without some heavy-duty top-loading, too.

 

[R.F. Burns]

So scott, what's to stop him from doing a WFAS and move his city of license closer to Rochester. He could still serve Avon. As to the enginering aspect of it and what's available that's a different matter. You mentioned many directional arrays in your region and this has nothing to do with IBOC. if he sold the land he now has and was able to diplex he could use some of the land profits to pay for the relocation. It's just a thought.

 

[Mike Walker]

Forget "if FM IBOC takes off". If I were Mr. Savage, I'd be making an accomodation with an FM station in Rochester to be carried on a multicast channel. I mean, a little commercial time on WYSL HAS TO BE WORTH MORE in strictly monetary terms NOW than the multicast spectrum. So now's the time to swap, while the value of the multicast spectrum is at a minimum, and the value of Bob's inventory is at a maximum. Let the FM have access to some revenue from sales of a certain number of "units" on WYSL...unsold inventory! A win-win situation! Both get something of value, neither is out a dime!

 

[hipporadio]

Mike... Your proposal is simply TOO fair and logical to past muster with the corporate radio marauders who control the FM band in Rochester. Since when has “win-win” been a favorable modes’ for these types? ...“I win – YOU lose [stupid]” is their preferable position. I have this nagging-notion that IF they can’t “own” Mr. Savage’s station; they would rather rub-it-out!

I was excited to get the news this past weekend, that Bob has filed the FIRST formal interference complaint on behalf of WYSL with the FCC against the post-sunset IBOC operation of WBZ. This is no “scream from the sandbox” either! Bob has included a full assortment of very-detailed, comprehensive, and credible engineering exhibits—placing ugly detail upon the shoulders of CBS/WBZ and the whole AM IBOC Science Fair project in general. I doubt the FCC can just take another “coffee break” in the face of this legally-pursued recourse – well... MAYBE : Let’s hope a few more of the afflicted will replicate Bob’s industrious and prudent effort!

 

[R.F. Burns]

Bob, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that any of the moves suggested would be in lieu of ridding 1040 from any co-channel interference. You have the right to be protected within your licensed contour. I would be interested to find out what would happen if one of the IBOC sidebands were turned off. I thought that the purpose of modulating both sidebands with a full HD signal was for redundancy purposes. Well, at least at the moment with the radios available, the HD signal isn’t much good beyond its relatively local ground wave coverage on AM. If that is true, what is really gained by modulating both sidebands in real world terms. If using a single sideband might limit interference concerns in certain specific instances, it might be something worth looking into. If this theory is viable, I wonder if, when one sideband is dropped, might the skywave signal from an IBOC station be actually more robust at the receive end ? Phase cancellation between both sidebands would become a non issue. If on the other hand both sidebands are needed to attain the full 32 Kbps, then of course this theory would be a non starter.

 

[Savage]

Guys, appreciate the ideas. RF, I can tell you there's no way the political leaders in the home community (Avon) are going to let the Livingston County's only daily media migrate to Rochester. The County government would counterfile on our Petition to change COL faster than you can say Obama. And RF is right when he says "engineering would be another matter." Essentially even if you could from a legal and engineering standpoint move to Rochester, what you're really talking about is tearing down the station and starting over, which aside from not being economically feasible, would take years.

I usually enjoy agreeing with my friend Hippo, but this time it's with a certain amount of rue. Since most of the multicast channels in Rochester are on CCU's FMs, whose 50kw AM is our main competitor, we'd be limited to the Entercom properties and I can say with a good deal of assurance that company's policies would forbid wholesale leasing of an HD subchannel to a non-company owned program source. Even if the financial angle could be worked out, what guarantee would E-com have that we wouldn't do something to endanger their license? It's an legal-FCC-control issue. I'm not aware of any instances of multicast channels being leased out to third parties in HD-FM. And not to pee in Mike's HD-FM picnic basket, but there just aren't enough multicast-capable HD-FM receivers out there (at least not yet) for this to help much in the near term.

I don't mean to shoot down all these thoughtful suggestions but there just aren't any realistic options aside from WBZ's turning HD down, or off, or dropping the upper sideband. There has to be a reasonable balancing of interests here. If WBZ knocks off the HD nighttime noise the effect on its revenues will be zero. If they continue the likelihood of serious financial consequences to WYSL will start to become certainty. I wish it weren't true. What we need here is a dose of competitive and financial reality and some respect for fellow broadcasters and their interests. Broadcasting as WBZ-HD does at night is the moral equivalent of DWI, IMHO.

 

[Savage]

Excellent thoughts, RF. Anyone on the channel with real-world HD-AM experience (I admittedly have none) have any input on this? Are both sidebands necessary for the full 32 kbps (for stereo) or as RF suggests, is it strictly a redundancy technical insurance policy?

When you subtract out the population of AM-HD radios in WBZ-HD's service area represented by receiver freaks, radio group CEs and contract engineers, actual real-world WBZ-HD listeners in Boston have to be few and far between. If redundancy is the only function of double HD digital sidebands, the lower sideband should suit those few HD-AM listeners. (Sorry, KDKA......you guys are going to have to have a "family meeting" about this....)

 

[R.F. Burns]

But again Bob, what is the real purpose of a 21st century radio station? Its only real purpose is to serve a local audience. Thanks to the laws of physics reflection occurs at medium wave frequencies. There's no real means of effectively preventing that. KDKA, a 50 KW radio station should have no problem covering the Pittsburgh metro area. They at least cover the areas they are able to sell with enough RF to prevent serious interference to their signal. I come to this conclusion because unlike Citadel, there has been no effort to turn off WBZ's HD sidebands by KDKA. Whether that effort was public or private is of no importance. If KDKA suffered serious interference from WBZ something would have been done and it has not up to this time. On the other hand you don't have 50,000 watts of RF to play with and so your signal is much more susceptible to interference. Considering that you aren't all that far from Pittsburgh in real world terms, you can see what I mean. Actually, if one could turn off a HD sideband and still make the system work, imagine what that would do not just for interference (poor receiver design notwithstanding) but for the analog frequency response. Using a device like the Khan powerside, analog frequency response could be maintained and a HD sideband can be attached allowing for much improved audio and a much lower noise floor. Either upper or lower sideband can be selected in each case limiting noise to those most susceptible to problems and yet all HD stations to provide the superior service which HD promises. The one downside would be the lack of redundancy but as receiver technology improves that should become less relevant over time.

 

[Savage]

I agree that a 50kw like KDKA should have no problem covering the Pittsburgh metro, but they do in the brave new (lonely) world of HD-AM. An acquaintance has a couple of stations down there, and called me a couple of weeks ago from his place in Greensburg, PA, Westmoreland County, about 25 miles outside the 'Burgh proper. He held his phone up to a receiver about 4:30pm - the IBOC hash from WBZ was unbelievable.

You'll get no argument from me about IBOC, skywave service and the 50kw clears. I personally think any of these flamethrowers should be forced to elect priorities with the FCC: if you want to provide skywave service, turn off HD at night. Conversely, if you want to run HD after dark, you must power down to 5kw. Skywave service is either important, or it is not. HD stations should not be allowed to have it both ways.

I do like your line of thinking re: working on the receiver end of the IBOC-AM system to enable more reliable locks using just a single digital sideband, making improved analog bandwidth possible while reducing the interference potential by half. Seems like technlogically this kind of modification should be possible. An added benefit would be that prohibitively expensive (and in some cases impracticable) modifications to existing directional phasing and coupling systems could also be mitigated.

 

[R.F. Burns]

See, this is what I thought the purpose of sites like this was. Not to denegrate individules who agree or disagree about a specific technology, but to take a little of the past when individules could try different things, experimental or not and try to find the best outcome and bring those ideas into todays world, by way of the internet. While we may be way off technologically, discussing ways to improve present technology is the best way to find a resolution to our issues. While the concept of turning off a HD sideband might not be workable, it's a start. We have a lot of differing opinions and ideas floating around here. If one of us came up with a theory, maybe by tossing it around and fine tuning our ideas we as broadcasters can come up with a viable better way of doing what needs to be done. For instance, I had heard about the difficulty of dealing with IBOC as it relates to directional arrays. Well, Bob just added that by turning off a sideband, if it is doable, that alone would allow more stations to add IBOC for less cost strictly because an antenna rebuild might not be neccessary. That's the kind of give and take I'm talkiing about. We'll probably never resolve all the issues but by discussing the topic civily we will at least hopefully add to our own knowledge base in the end.

 

[w9wi]

While the concept of turning off a HD sideband might not be workable, it's a start.

Isn't the problem with turning off one HD sideband self-interference?

It's my understanding that the two HD sidebands are out-of-phase, so that when both sidebands are received on an analog receiver they'll cancel each other out. Turning off one of the sidebands would allow the remaining sideband to be demodulated (as noise) on an analog set. Or am I off-base on that?

In any case, it's not hard to find cases where there are potential interference problems on *both* sides. Indeed, WBZ would seem to be such a case -- dropping the upper HD sideband would certainly fix the problem with regard to WYSL but would do nothing for KDKA. And vice-versa.

 

[LinoNYC]

While the concept of turning off a HD sideband might not be workable, it's a start.

Isn't the problem with turning off one HD sideband self-interference?

It's my understanding that the two HD sidebands are out-of-phase, so that when both sidebands are received on an analog receiver they'll cancel each other out. Turning off one of the sidebands would allow the remaining sideband to be demodulated (as noise) on an analog set. Or am I off-base on that?

In any case, it's not hard to find cases where there are potential interference problems on *both* sides. Indeed, WBZ would seem to be such a case -- dropping the upper HD sideband would certainly fix the problem with regard to WYSL but would do nothing for KDKA. And vice-versa.

Correct. This is one of the problems afflicting certain highly directional arrays.

The sad reality of this system is that many stations aren't going to be able to meet it's requirements technically and financially.

Lino