A few days ago, WBOT, COL Brockton, Mass moved its transmitter to the summit of Great Blue Hill in Canton, Mass. I thought that this wouldn't be possible until WOQL 87.7 COL Winchendon, Mass. completed its move to NH south of Keene. Does anyone know if this has occurred yet. I live a little under 30 miles due north of Boston, and WOQL is still dominant on 97.7. I thought that by moving farther away and going directional, they would fade out and WBOT would come in...hasn't happened.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is WOQL Transmitting From NH
- Thread starter Shellanswerman
- Start date
T
TXengineer
Guest
> A few days ago, WBOT, COL Brockton, Mass moved its
> transmitter to the summit of Great Blue Hill in Canton,
> Mass. I thought that this wouldn't be possible until WOQL
> 87.7 COL Winchendon, Mass. completed its move to NH south of
> Keene. Does anyone know if this has occurred yet. I live a
> little under 30 miles due north of Boston, and WOQL is still
> dominant on 97.7. I thought that by moving farther away and
> going directional, they would fade out and WBOT would come
> in...hasn't happened.
>
Yes, WOQL has been transmitting for several months from Fitzwilliam.
Ira Wilner fired that baby up as soon as they could.
> transmitter to the summit of Great Blue Hill in Canton,
> Mass. I thought that this wouldn't be possible until WOQL
> 87.7 COL Winchendon, Mass. completed its move to NH south of
> Keene. Does anyone know if this has occurred yet. I live a
> little under 30 miles due north of Boston, and WOQL is still
> dominant on 97.7. I thought that by moving farther away and
> going directional, they would fade out and WBOT would come
> in...hasn't happened.
>
Yes, WOQL has been transmitting for several months from Fitzwilliam.
Ira Wilner fired that baby up as soon as they could.
> > A few days ago, WBOT, COL Brockton, Mass moved its
> > transmitter to the summit of Great Blue Hill in Canton,
> > Mass. I thought that this wouldn't be possible until WOQL
>
> > 87.7 COL Winchendon, Mass. completed its move to NH south
> of
> > Keene. Does anyone know if this has occurred yet. I live
> a
> > little under 30 miles due north of Boston, and WOQL is
> still
> > dominant on 97.7. I thought that by moving farther away
> and
> > going directional, they would fade out and WBOT would come
>
> > in...hasn't happened.
> >
>
> Yes, WOQL has been transmitting for several months from
> Fitzwilliam.
> Ira Wilner fired that baby up as soon as they could.
>
Funny that this should come up, as I was checking out the 97.7 situation on Friday. The WBOT signal does seem to be a little better in fringe areas north of Boston on 495 (Chelmsford, Westford) - but only a little. You can listen to a good signal of WBOT in some areas now, but go over the wrong hill and its WOQL that cuts in. And, it is still the Fitzwilliam signal that is dominant anyplace north of the NH border - Nashua, Salem, etc.
Frankly, I am disappointed as WBOT still does not provide enough of a signal to the area to overcome WOQL. I was hoping to be able to set a preset to 97.7 after the move to Blue Hill - but there's still not enough signal northwest of Boston for it to be listenable.
On the other hand, WOQL - as a Class A - seems awfully strong. About as strong in the Merrimack Valley as WKNE, in fact. If WBOT were off the air, it would be a clear signal in much of souther NH and better than WKNE. Doesn't seem right...
> > transmitter to the summit of Great Blue Hill in Canton,
> > Mass. I thought that this wouldn't be possible until WOQL
>
> > 87.7 COL Winchendon, Mass. completed its move to NH south
> of
> > Keene. Does anyone know if this has occurred yet. I live
> a
> > little under 30 miles due north of Boston, and WOQL is
> still
> > dominant on 97.7. I thought that by moving farther away
> and
> > going directional, they would fade out and WBOT would come
>
> > in...hasn't happened.
> >
>
> Yes, WOQL has been transmitting for several months from
> Fitzwilliam.
> Ira Wilner fired that baby up as soon as they could.
>
Funny that this should come up, as I was checking out the 97.7 situation on Friday. The WBOT signal does seem to be a little better in fringe areas north of Boston on 495 (Chelmsford, Westford) - but only a little. You can listen to a good signal of WBOT in some areas now, but go over the wrong hill and its WOQL that cuts in. And, it is still the Fitzwilliam signal that is dominant anyplace north of the NH border - Nashua, Salem, etc.
Frankly, I am disappointed as WBOT still does not provide enough of a signal to the area to overcome WOQL. I was hoping to be able to set a preset to 97.7 after the move to Blue Hill - but there's still not enough signal northwest of Boston for it to be listenable.
On the other hand, WOQL - as a Class A - seems awfully strong. About as strong in the Merrimack Valley as WKNE, in fact. If WBOT were off the air, it would be a clear signal in much of souther NH and better than WKNE. Doesn't seem right...
T
TXengineer
Guest
> On the other hand, WOQL - as a Class A - seems awfully
> strong. About as strong in the Merrimack Valley as WKNE, in
> fact. If WBOT were off the air, it would be a clear signal
> in much of souther NH and better than WKNE. Doesn't seem
> right...
It is strong that way and up north. But try listening to it Southwest of the site, it is basically non existant in Athol. But the main focus is in Keene where the signal is "much improved".
And to compare the strength to WKNE, one must remember that WKNE is located about 7 miles north of Keene, so the signal for WKNE does travel further.
WOQL is feeding 5.4 kW into a 2 bay ERI antenna to get the 6kW out. They are using a BE FM-10S transmitter.
> strong. About as strong in the Merrimack Valley as WKNE, in
> fact. If WBOT were off the air, it would be a clear signal
> in much of souther NH and better than WKNE. Doesn't seem
> right...
It is strong that way and up north. But try listening to it Southwest of the site, it is basically non existant in Athol. But the main focus is in Keene where the signal is "much improved".
And to compare the strength to WKNE, one must remember that WKNE is located about 7 miles north of Keene, so the signal for WKNE does travel further.
WOQL is feeding 5.4 kW into a 2 bay ERI antenna to get the 6kW out. They are using a BE FM-10S transmitter.
> It is strong that way and up north. But try listening to it
> Southwest of the site, it is basically non existant in
> Athol. But the main focus is in Keene where the signal is
> "much improved".
>
> And to compare the strength to WKNE, one must remember that
> WKNE is located about 7 miles north of Keene, so the signal
> for WKNE does travel further.
>
> WOQL is feeding 5.4 kW into a 2 bay ERI antenna to get the
> 6kW out. They are using a BE FM-10S transmitter.
>
Thanks for the info. They do a good (too good) job of getting the signal out there, to the extent that it is even dominant in certain Boston suburbs. Once west of route 3 in Chelmsford this am, for example, it was Kool oldies that were on 97.7 and not Doug Banks.
I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional to protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the east and northeast. So my initial comparison was not really fair.
> Southwest of the site, it is basically non existant in
> Athol. But the main focus is in Keene where the signal is
> "much improved".
>
> And to compare the strength to WKNE, one must remember that
> WKNE is located about 7 miles north of Keene, so the signal
> for WKNE does travel further.
>
> WOQL is feeding 5.4 kW into a 2 bay ERI antenna to get the
> 6kW out. They are using a BE FM-10S transmitter.
>
Thanks for the info. They do a good (too good) job of getting the signal out there, to the extent that it is even dominant in certain Boston suburbs. Once west of route 3 in Chelmsford this am, for example, it was Kool oldies that were on 97.7 and not Doug Banks.
I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional to protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the east and northeast. So my initial comparison was not really fair.
'KNE-FM DA?
Ahhh ... (off topic, but ...) it's not LICENSED as such, and therefore doesn't HAVE to be, and since the tower and antenna were replaced last year, don't assume that it is.
> I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional to
> protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the east
> and northeast.
Ahhh ... (off topic, but ...) it's not LICENSED as such, and therefore doesn't HAVE to be, and since the tower and antenna were replaced last year, don't assume that it is.
> I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional to
> protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the east
> and northeast.
Re: 'KNE-FM DA?
> > I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional to
> > protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the east
>
> > and northeast.
> WKNE is Non Directional. WPKQ is directional. WKNE was around long before WPKQ(WZPK)>.
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=36834
> > I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional to
> > protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the east
>
> > and northeast.
> WKNE is Non Directional. WPKQ is directional. WKNE was around long before WPKQ(WZPK)>.
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=36834
T
TXengineer
Guest
Re: 'KNE-FM DA?
> > > I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional
> to
> > > protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the
> east
> >
> > > and northeast.
>
> > WKNE is Non Directional. WPKQ is directional. WKNE was
> around long before WPKQ(WZPK)>.
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=36834
>
Ah but WKNE-FM is licensed non directional, but for years they used a directional antenna. The old two bay ERI was a directional antenna, complete with Horizontal and Vertical paristics (whatever happened to that old antenna anyways?). The new antenna, a Shively two bay, while not having any directional equipment, is made somewhat directional by the tower. However the antenna bays are on the East side of the tower, so the signal limitations are towards the west.
> > > I should have also remembered that WKNE is directional
> to
> > > protect WPKQ - which limits their signal a bit to the
> east
> >
> > > and northeast.
>
> > WKNE is Non Directional. WPKQ is directional. WKNE was
> around long before WPKQ(WZPK)>.
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?list=0&facid=36834
>
Ah but WKNE-FM is licensed non directional, but for years they used a directional antenna. The old two bay ERI was a directional antenna, complete with Horizontal and Vertical paristics (whatever happened to that old antenna anyways?). The new antenna, a Shively two bay, while not having any directional equipment, is made somewhat directional by the tower. However the antenna bays are on the East side of the tower, so the signal limitations are towards the west.
Re: 'KNE-FM DA?
> Ah but WKNE-FM is licensed non directional, but for years
> they used a directional antenna. The old two bay ERI was a
> directional antenna, complete with Horizontal and Vertical
> paristics (whatever happened to that old antenna anyways?).
> The new antenna, a Shively two bay, while not having any
> directional equipment, is made somewhat directional by the
> tower. However the antenna bays are on the East side of the
> tower, so the signal limitations are towards the west.
>
And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ does constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east. Topography doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage despite that issue.
> Ah but WKNE-FM is licensed non directional, but for years
> they used a directional antenna. The old two bay ERI was a
> directional antenna, complete with Horizontal and Vertical
> paristics (whatever happened to that old antenna anyways?).
> The new antenna, a Shively two bay, while not having any
> directional equipment, is made somewhat directional by the
> tower. However the antenna bays are on the East side of the
> tower, so the signal limitations are towards the west.
>
And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ does constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east. Topography doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage despite that issue.
T
TXengineer
Guest
Too Close
> And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ does
> constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east. Topography
> doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage
> despite that issue.
I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so close to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever go to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of both stations.
WOQL is south-east of Keene, in a completley different topographic area. So the signal from WOQL is much different. (WOQL for instance comes in very well up in Peterborough and Rindge).
> And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ does
> constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east. Topography
> doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage
> despite that issue.
I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so close to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever go to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of both stations.
WOQL is south-east of Keene, in a completley different topographic area. So the signal from WOQL is much different. (WOQL for instance comes in very well up in Peterborough and Rindge).
How About 103.5?
> > And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ does
>
> > constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east. Topography
>
> > doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage
> > despite that issue.
>
> I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been
> allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to
> place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so close
> to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever go
> to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of
> both stations.
>
> WOQL is south-east of Keene, in a completley different
> topographic area. So the signal from WOQL is much different.
> (WOQL for instance comes in very well up in Peterborough and
> Rindge).
>
Would it be out of the question for WKNE-FM to move to 103.5?
> > And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ does
>
> > constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east. Topography
>
> > doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage
> > despite that issue.
>
> I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been
> allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to
> place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so close
> to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever go
> to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of
> both stations.
>
> WOQL is south-east of Keene, in a completley different
> topographic area. So the signal from WOQL is much different.
> (WOQL for instance comes in very well up in Peterborough and
> Rindge).
>
Would it be out of the question for WKNE-FM to move to 103.5?
Re: Too Close
> I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been
> allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to
> place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so close
> to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever go
> to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of
> both stations.
I agree! Bad Bad decision on the part of the fcc. and now WPKQ has a CP with a non-directional antenna. I would assume this would make things worse. I agree with the poster below that 103.5 would be better, but WODS would probably have a problem with that. I don't think it would bother WODS's signal that much though. WKNE could even notch their signal a bit to the SE. It would still give them more coverage. I don't think the spacing is enough according to Fcc guidelines. The thing that gets me though, I now live in the south. Most stations are 100kw in the south and many are very close together. I'll give some examples if you ask me, but my point is, the fcc seems much stricter in the NE>
I remember growing up in Belmont, Nh listening to "103KNE." They were CHR and I loved them! The only CHR I could get at that time. One day in 88 or 89, WMOU fired up on Mt Washington and blasted away at their signal. I was so upset...until of course WMOU evolved into CHR "The Peak." That was short lived though. They went back and forth from Hot AC, to Modern AC to CHR, back to Hot AC. It was ridiculous!
> I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been
> allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to
> place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so close
> to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever go
> to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of
> both stations.
I agree! Bad Bad decision on the part of the fcc. and now WPKQ has a CP with a non-directional antenna. I would assume this would make things worse. I agree with the poster below that 103.5 would be better, but WODS would probably have a problem with that. I don't think it would bother WODS's signal that much though. WKNE could even notch their signal a bit to the SE. It would still give them more coverage. I don't think the spacing is enough according to Fcc guidelines. The thing that gets me though, I now live in the south. Most stations are 100kw in the south and many are very close together. I'll give some examples if you ask me, but my point is, the fcc seems much stricter in the NE>
I remember growing up in Belmont, Nh listening to "103KNE." They were CHR and I loved them! The only CHR I could get at that time. One day in 88 or 89, WMOU fired up on Mt Washington and blasted away at their signal. I was so upset...until of course WMOU evolved into CHR "The Peak." That was short lived though. They went back and forth from Hot AC, to Modern AC to CHR, back to Hot AC. It was ridiculous!
L
lesabre
Guest
Re: How About 103.5?
> > > And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ
> does
> >
> > > constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east.
> Topography
> >
> > > doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage
> > > despite that issue.
> >
> > I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been
> > allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to
> > place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so
> close
> > to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever
> go
> > to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of
>
> > both stations.
> >
> > WOQL is south-east of Keene, in a completley different
> > topographic area. So the signal from WOQL is much
> different.
> > (WOQL for instance comes in very well up in Peterborough
> and
> > Rindge).
> >
> Would it be out of the question for WKNE-FM to move to
> 103.5?
>
Would that create a problem with 103.5 WQBJ in Cobleskill NY, which I believe is 50kw. Ever travel up I-89, that's a total mess with both 103.7's. Neither one has any signal in the Lebanon area. KNE-FM has an great signal into Vermont and even into to very eastern NY state.
> > > And, though far from scientific, the presence of WPKQ
> does
> >
> > > constrict WKNE's signal to the northeast/east.
> Topography
> >
> > > doesn't help them either - though WOQL does seem manage
> > > despite that issue.
> >
> > I agree. There is no way that WPKQ should have ever been
> > allowed (back when they were , what WZPK or WMOU-FM?) to
> > place a class C station on the top of Mt Washington so
> close
> > to WKNE-FM. It was a really bad decision by the FCC. Ever
> go
> > to Peterborough, only 10 miles away, you get a mix-mosh of
>
> > both stations.
> >
> > WOQL is south-east of Keene, in a completley different
> > topographic area. So the signal from WOQL is much
> different.
> > (WOQL for instance comes in very well up in Peterborough
> and
> > Rindge).
> >
> Would it be out of the question for WKNE-FM to move to
> 103.5?
>
Would that create a problem with 103.5 WQBJ in Cobleskill NY, which I believe is 50kw. Ever travel up I-89, that's a total mess with both 103.7's. Neither one has any signal in the Lebanon area. KNE-FM has an great signal into Vermont and even into to very eastern NY state.
T
TXengineer
Guest
Re: How About 103.5?
<<35 lines of previous text deleted>>
> Would that create a problem with 103.5 WQBJ in Cobleskill
> NY, which I believe is 50kw.
Yup. B to B , co channel, requires a minimum of 241kM in distance, WKNE to WQBJ is 173kM.
WKNE to WPKQ is close, they are 162kM apart, and the rule requires 274kM.
However WPKQ's CP is merely issued to cover the COL change from Berlin to North Conway, they are in fact not removing the directional antenna.
When the FCC Form 301 was filed, all the directional portions were filled in, however "non directional" was checked, so the antenna information was lost...
WPKQ can not legally operate ND.
<<35 lines of previous text deleted>>
> Would that create a problem with 103.5 WQBJ in Cobleskill
> NY, which I believe is 50kw.
Yup. B to B , co channel, requires a minimum of 241kM in distance, WKNE to WQBJ is 173kM.
WKNE to WPKQ is close, they are 162kM apart, and the rule requires 274kM.
However WPKQ's CP is merely issued to cover the COL change from Berlin to North Conway, they are in fact not removing the directional antenna.
When the FCC Form 301 was filed, all the directional portions were filled in, however "non directional" was checked, so the antenna information was lost...
WPKQ can not legally operate ND.
T
TXengineer
Guest
Re: How About 103.5?
> Interestingly, that would be the only 103.5 in New England
> were that to happen. It's the only commercial frequency in
> the region not to have a tenant.
You mean aside from WCCH 103.5 in Holyoke, MA right?
> Interestingly, that would be the only 103.5 in New England
> were that to happen. It's the only commercial frequency in
> the region not to have a tenant.
You mean aside from WCCH 103.5 in Holyoke, MA right?
L
lesabre
Guest
Re: How About 103.5?
> > Would that create a problem with 103.5 WQBJ in Cobleskill
> > NY, which I believe is 50kw.
>
> Yup. B to B , co channel, requires a minimum of 241kM in
> distance, WKNE to WQBJ is 173kM.
>
> WKNE to WPKQ is close, they are 162kM apart, and the rule
> requires 274kM.
> However WPKQ's CP is merely issued to cover the COL change
> from Berlin to North Conway, they are in fact not removing
> the directional antenna.
> When the FCC Form 301 was filed, all the directional
> portions were filled in, however "non directional" was
> checked, so the antenna information was lost...
>
> WPKQ can not legally operate ND.
Isn't PKQ also directional towards Montreal to protect a low power 103.7 there ? I know you could pick up WHOM in Montreal before RadioCanada went from 690 AM to 95.1 FM.
>
> > Would that create a problem with 103.5 WQBJ in Cobleskill
> > NY, which I believe is 50kw.
>
> Yup. B to B , co channel, requires a minimum of 241kM in
> distance, WKNE to WQBJ is 173kM.
>
> WKNE to WPKQ is close, they are 162kM apart, and the rule
> requires 274kM.
> However WPKQ's CP is merely issued to cover the COL change
> from Berlin to North Conway, they are in fact not removing
> the directional antenna.
> When the FCC Form 301 was filed, all the directional
> portions were filled in, however "non directional" was
> checked, so the antenna information was lost...
>
> WPKQ can not legally operate ND.
Isn't PKQ also directional towards Montreal to protect a low power 103.7 there ? I know you could pick up WHOM in Montreal before RadioCanada went from 690 AM to 95.1 FM.
>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.