-
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
KLSD-AM at 50,000 watts
- Thread starter SDRadio
- Start date
Coverage maps
http://tinyurl.com/9xbmw <-- gives the proposed daytime coverage. Most of the power over the Pacific Ocean, just like KSDO. (Which makes sense, so is KSDO's 10,000 watts!)
check FCCInfo.com<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
http://tinyurl.com/9xbmw <-- gives the proposed daytime coverage. Most of the power over the Pacific Ocean, just like KSDO. (Which makes sense, so is KSDO's 10,000 watts!)
check FCCInfo.com<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
KSDO towers
> Did you mean "1130 KSDO's antennas in Santee"?
Yep. CCU owns the property in Santee. Which makes it a real nice move for them.
I still, by the way, miss KPOP's programming. 690 doesn't have the San Diego feel .... KPOP had.<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
> Did you mean "1130 KSDO's antennas in Santee"?
Yep. CCU owns the property in Santee. Which makes it a real nice move for them.
I still, by the way, miss KPOP's programming. 690 doesn't have the San Diego feel .... KPOP had.<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
C
collinsradio
Guest
Re: KSDO towers
Interesting, all those years that KGB-AM was dominant with
that barely adequate signal (even in the late 60's). I always
wondered why KGB didn't upgrade years ago. Obviously the FCC
has loosened the rules, but I wonder how much actual improvement
will occur if the get the upgrade. KCBQ- actually lost coverage
when they went to 50 K, they would have been much better off to
be 10 KW from their old site near the old College Drive-In. (Way
before my time).
Interesting, all those years that KGB-AM was dominant with
that barely adequate signal (even in the late 60's). I always
wondered why KGB didn't upgrade years ago. Obviously the FCC
has loosened the rules, but I wonder how much actual improvement
will occur if the get the upgrade. KCBQ- actually lost coverage
when they went to 50 K, they would have been much better off to
be 10 KW from their old site near the old College Drive-In. (Way
before my time).
A
awj223
Guest
This is a bit ridiculous. The fishies in the Pacific don't listen to radio, and don't get counted by Arbitron. All this is going to do is pollute the central Pacific with RF. Okay, they want a stronger signal at the coast, but at some point you can be heard on the bottom level of the 3 story parking garage. You don't need to pump out even more energy so you can be heard in bomb shelters.
KTCT 1050 in San Mateo does this. The station is so directional that at night, you have trouble hearing it in Sacramento but it booms into Hawaii. KFMB sends a lot of power over the ocean as well, but they don't even get a Hawaiian audience -- KGU kills their signal.
> Clear Channel has filed to raise KLSD-AM's day and night
> power to 50,000 watts. The station would have to protect
> 1360 from Arizona.
>
> The proposed tower is 1130 KLSD's antennas in Santee.
>
KTCT 1050 in San Mateo does this. The station is so directional that at night, you have trouble hearing it in Sacramento but it booms into Hawaii. KFMB sends a lot of power over the ocean as well, but they don't even get a Hawaiian audience -- KGU kills their signal.
> Clear Channel has filed to raise KLSD-AM's day and night
> power to 50,000 watts. The station would have to protect
> 1360 from Arizona.
>
> The proposed tower is 1130 KLSD's antennas in Santee.
>
Re: KSDO towers
> Interesting, all those years that KGB-AM was dominant with
> that barely adequate signal (even in the late 60's).
Even in the late 60's, there was a helluva lot less random RFI everywhere than there is now.
There's no doubt that a weaker signal, no matter the content, loses to a stronger signal in the presence of RFI.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
> Interesting, all those years that KGB-AM was dominant with
> that barely adequate signal (even in the late 60's).
Even in the late 60's, there was a helluva lot less random RFI everywhere than there is now.
There's no doubt that a weaker signal, no matter the content, loses to a stronger signal in the presence of RFI.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>
Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
If they want a 50kW signal with which to cream downtown, put a transmitter at Pt Loma, Coronado, or Silver Strand, and directionalize to the east, not in Santee directionalizing to the west/southwest!
Oh, there IS that station in Phoenix they need to protect.
I suppose, then, that they could either use less than 50kW, or go ahead and get the 50kW signal and directionalize north from Imperial Beach or Chula Vista or something like that. Just don't send too much signal over water - for example for every microvolt per meter 5 miles west of Point Loma, there should be at least a millivolt per meter at Petco Park.
Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
If they want a 50kW signal with which to cream downtown, put a transmitter at Pt Loma, Coronado, or Silver Strand, and directionalize to the east, not in Santee directionalizing to the west/southwest!
Oh, there IS that station in Phoenix they need to protect.
I suppose, then, that they could either use less than 50kW, or go ahead and get the 50kW signal and directionalize north from Imperial Beach or Chula Vista or something like that. Just don't send too much signal over water - for example for every microvolt per meter 5 miles west of Point Loma, there should be at least a millivolt per meter at Petco Park.
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
Part of it is economics. It's an easier sell to advertisers: "Well, we have this 5,000 watt station ... or we have this 50,000 watt station! ...."
Plus it gives listenership to the vast untapped market of whales, dolphins and the important abacore vote.
Gotta go, hungry for fish tacos ...
Stay Tuned<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
Part of it is economics. It's an easier sell to advertisers: "Well, we have this 5,000 watt station ... or we have this 50,000 watt station! ...."
Plus it gives listenership to the vast untapped market of whales, dolphins and the important abacore vote.
Gotta go, hungry for fish tacos ...
Stay Tuned<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
C
Crusty_Bob
Guest
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
>
> If they want a 50kW signal with which to cream downtown, put
> a transmitter at Pt Loma, Coronado, or Silver Strand, and
> directionalize to the east, not in Santee directionalizing
> to the west/southwest!
>
> Oh, there IS that station in Phoenix they need to protect.
>
> I suppose, then, that they could either use less than 50kW,
> or go ahead and get the 50kW signal and directionalize north
> from Imperial Beach or Chula Vista or something like that.
> Just don't send too much signal over water - for example for
> every microvolt per meter 5 miles west of Point Loma, there
> should be at least a millivolt per meter at Petco Park.
>
Yes, I am concerned about too much RF flattening the swell at Tourmaline
When I did nights the old KUDE AM 1320 Oceanside (now the Palomar College station) we could barely reach into Vista, the next town to the east, but we routinely got letters from folks who picked us up in Australia.
And we did have regular listeners at sea. Nixon was president at the time and whenever he stayed at the so-called Western White House in San Clemente I would get request calls from guys on the Coast Guard boats that had to stay on patrol in the ocean off San Clemente.
Maybe the stations with strong directional signals to the west could start some special programming for fishermen and surfers headed to the Cortes Banks.
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
>
> If they want a 50kW signal with which to cream downtown, put
> a transmitter at Pt Loma, Coronado, or Silver Strand, and
> directionalize to the east, not in Santee directionalizing
> to the west/southwest!
>
> Oh, there IS that station in Phoenix they need to protect.
>
> I suppose, then, that they could either use less than 50kW,
> or go ahead and get the 50kW signal and directionalize north
> from Imperial Beach or Chula Vista or something like that.
> Just don't send too much signal over water - for example for
> every microvolt per meter 5 miles west of Point Loma, there
> should be at least a millivolt per meter at Petco Park.
>
Yes, I am concerned about too much RF flattening the swell at Tourmaline
When I did nights the old KUDE AM 1320 Oceanside (now the Palomar College station) we could barely reach into Vista, the next town to the east, but we routinely got letters from folks who picked us up in Australia.
And we did have regular listeners at sea. Nixon was president at the time and whenever he stayed at the so-called Western White House in San Clemente I would get request calls from guys on the Coast Guard boats that had to stay on patrol in the ocean off San Clemente.
Maybe the stations with strong directional signals to the west could start some special programming for fishermen and surfers headed to the Cortes Banks.
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
They do this to put a high field strength over the populated area. Coastal stations do this because they want higher power and can not send any more signal inland on any frequency due to protection.
>
> If they want a 50kW signal with which to cream downtown, put
> a transmitter at Pt Loma, Coronado, or Silver Strand, and
> directionalize to the east, not in Santee directionalizing
> to the west/southwest!
They would interfere withthe co and adjacent channels.
>
> Oh, there IS that station in Phoenix they need to protect.
And many others on 1360, 1370 and 1350.
>
> I suppose, then, that they could either use less than 50kW,
> or go ahead and get the 50kW signal and directionalize north
> from Imperial Beach or Chula Vista or something like that.
> Just don't send too much signal over water - for example for
> every microvolt per meter 5 miles west of Point Loma, there
> should be at least a millivolt per meter at Petco Park.
Can't do this do to protection. Like 1370 in Corona. Or 1350 in Riverside. What they want is high field strength in the city, to overcome noise levels. This is not an effort to increase coverage by much, but to increase signal strength where there is coverage.
>
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
They do this to put a high field strength over the populated area. Coastal stations do this because they want higher power and can not send any more signal inland on any frequency due to protection.
>
> If they want a 50kW signal with which to cream downtown, put
> a transmitter at Pt Loma, Coronado, or Silver Strand, and
> directionalize to the east, not in Santee directionalizing
> to the west/southwest!
They would interfere withthe co and adjacent channels.
>
> Oh, there IS that station in Phoenix they need to protect.
And many others on 1360, 1370 and 1350.
>
> I suppose, then, that they could either use less than 50kW,
> or go ahead and get the 50kW signal and directionalize north
> from Imperial Beach or Chula Vista or something like that.
> Just don't send too much signal over water - for example for
> every microvolt per meter 5 miles west of Point Loma, there
> should be at least a millivolt per meter at Petco Park.
Can't do this do to protection. Like 1370 in Corona. Or 1350 in Riverside. What they want is high field strength in the city, to overcome noise levels. This is not an effort to increase coverage by much, but to increase signal strength where there is coverage.
>
A
awj223
Guest
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
> They do this to put a high field strength over the populated
> area. Coastal stations do this because they want higher
> power and can not send any more signal inland on any
> frequency due to protection.
If anything, this is evidence that mediumwave is way too crowded and the non-flamethrower signals only intended to be locals should be moved to a new broadcast band at higher frequencies suitable for local coverage, without 10 different skywave signals clobbering the station at night.
> Can't do this do to protection. Like 1370 in Corona. Or 1350
> in Riverside. What they want is high field strength in the
> city, to overcome noise levels. This is not an effort to
> increase coverage by much, but to increase signal strength
> where there is coverage.
Hey, I understand why this is done, but my point was that there's adequate (city grade..5 mV/m?), more than adequate but desirable (up to 15 mV/m), and ridiculous. If you're putting more than 15 mV/m to the coastline and not intending to serve Hawaii with skywave, you're polluting the band.
At some point, everyone who's interested in hearing you will hear you, even on the cheapest radio in a noisy environment. More power than that is unnecessary.
> They do this to put a high field strength over the populated
> area. Coastal stations do this because they want higher
> power and can not send any more signal inland on any
> frequency due to protection.
If anything, this is evidence that mediumwave is way too crowded and the non-flamethrower signals only intended to be locals should be moved to a new broadcast band at higher frequencies suitable for local coverage, without 10 different skywave signals clobbering the station at night.
> Can't do this do to protection. Like 1370 in Corona. Or 1350
> in Riverside. What they want is high field strength in the
> city, to overcome noise levels. This is not an effort to
> increase coverage by much, but to increase signal strength
> where there is coverage.
Hey, I understand why this is done, but my point was that there's adequate (city grade..5 mV/m?), more than adequate but desirable (up to 15 mV/m), and ridiculous. If you're putting more than 15 mV/m to the coastline and not intending to serve Hawaii with skywave, you're polluting the band.
At some point, everyone who's interested in hearing you will hear you, even on the cheapest radio in a noisy environment. More power than that is unnecessary.
Re: Coverage maps
> http://tinyurl.com/9xbmw
>
That's not a coverage map. It's a pattern map. And having seen the actual coverage maps, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, I can tell you that it doesn't look anything like that, particularly in a coastal area such as San Diego.
The goal here, as David Eduardo accurately observes, is to bring the field strength up to par in several areas, especially North County, that don't get the signal level from 1360 that they do from other SD blowtorches like 600 and 760. These are areas that didn't matter when KGB was blasting the hits in the sixties, but they do now, and I can testify from personal experience that the KLSD signal could stand some improvement in Solana Beach. East County will benefit, too, and there will be a distinct improvement down in Chula Vista and National City. (David's also correct in noting that the real limitations on the move were 1370 Corona and 1350 San Bernardino, and that the Phoenix station is a minor concern at best.)
Yes, in an ideal world, KLSD might have done even better if it could have built a new directional array somewhere other than Santee. But in 2005, when there are NIMBYs everywhere, you go to war with the army you have, so to speak, and CC has the distinct advantage of already owning a nice six-tower array in a reasonably good location.
That the ocean ends up getting a nice signal, too, is just a side effect. (Apologies to the lucrative Tuna 25-54 demo out there...)
s<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
> http://tinyurl.com/9xbmw
>
That's not a coverage map. It's a pattern map. And having seen the actual coverage maps, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were, I can tell you that it doesn't look anything like that, particularly in a coastal area such as San Diego.
The goal here, as David Eduardo accurately observes, is to bring the field strength up to par in several areas, especially North County, that don't get the signal level from 1360 that they do from other SD blowtorches like 600 and 760. These are areas that didn't matter when KGB was blasting the hits in the sixties, but they do now, and I can testify from personal experience that the KLSD signal could stand some improvement in Solana Beach. East County will benefit, too, and there will be a distinct improvement down in Chula Vista and National City. (David's also correct in noting that the real limitations on the move were 1370 Corona and 1350 San Bernardino, and that the Phoenix station is a minor concern at best.)
Yes, in an ideal world, KLSD might have done even better if it could have built a new directional array somewhere other than Santee. But in 2005, when there are NIMBYs everywhere, you go to war with the army you have, so to speak, and CC has the distinct advantage of already owning a nice six-tower array in a reasonably good location.
That the ocean ends up getting a nice signal, too, is just a side effect. (Apologies to the lucrative Tuna 25-54 demo out there...)
s<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
>
> Hey, I understand why this is done, but my point was that
> there's adequate (city grade..5 mV/m?), more than adequate
> but desirable (up to 15 mV/m), and ridiculous. If you're
> putting more than 15 mV/m to the coastline and not intending
> to serve Hawaii with skywave, you're polluting the band.
My experience while PD of KTNQ is that we got essentially no diary returns where we had less than a 15 mv/m signal, and most were in even higher areas. This is almost a requirement to get listening with no noise on AM these days in big cities.
>
> At some point, everyone who's interested in hearing you will
> hear you, even on the cheapest radio in a noisy environment.
> More power than that is unnecessary.
It has gotten to the point that 50 kw is not enough tocover some metros well. I was in one the construction of a new AM in a large market (17 million) about 6 years ago. We ended up with a 100 kw non directional licence and we had to directionalize to the east to get a big enough signal to cover the very noisy downtown where several million live in codos and apartments. Only when we put the equivalent of nearly 200 kw over the area were we satisfied.
>
> Hey, I understand why this is done, but my point was that
> there's adequate (city grade..5 mV/m?), more than adequate
> but desirable (up to 15 mV/m), and ridiculous. If you're
> putting more than 15 mV/m to the coastline and not intending
> to serve Hawaii with skywave, you're polluting the band.
My experience while PD of KTNQ is that we got essentially no diary returns where we had less than a 15 mv/m signal, and most were in even higher areas. This is almost a requirement to get listening with no noise on AM these days in big cities.
>
> At some point, everyone who's interested in hearing you will
> hear you, even on the cheapest radio in a noisy environment.
> More power than that is unnecessary.
It has gotten to the point that 50 kw is not enough tocover some metros well. I was in one the construction of a new AM in a large market (17 million) about 6 years ago. We ended up with a 100 kw non directional licence and we had to directionalize to the east to get a big enough signal to cover the very noisy downtown where several million live in codos and apartments. Only when we put the equivalent of nearly 200 kw over the area were we satisfied.
I
ibezdechi
Guest
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
A classic post.
> > Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
>
>
> Part of it is economics. It's an easier sell to advertisers:
> "Well, we have this 5,000 watt station ... or we have this
> 50,000 watt station! ...."
>
> Plus it gives listenership to the vast untapped market of
> whales, dolphins and the important abacore vote.
>
> Gotta go, hungry for fish tacos ...
>
> Stay Tuned
>
A classic post.
> > Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
>
>
> Part of it is economics. It's an easier sell to advertisers:
> "Well, we have this 5,000 watt station ... or we have this
> 50,000 watt station! ...."
>
> Plus it gives listenership to the vast untapped market of
> whales, dolphins and the important abacore vote.
>
> Gotta go, hungry for fish tacos ...
>
> Stay Tuned
>
Re: Coverage maps
> > http://tinyurl.com/9xbmw
> >
Thanks Scott ... never argue with a Fybush .... ;-)<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
> > http://tinyurl.com/9xbmw
> >
Thanks Scott ... never argue with a Fybush .... ;-)<P ID="signature">______________
+--
Chris
SDRadio.net</P>
Z
zumahans1
Guest
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
Yes, all those electrons drowning in the ocean is a terrible thing.
Can't they be recycled or donated to some deserving underpowered station in a foreign country?
I'm sure there are radio-starved Botswanans somewhere who could put those watts to good use.
> Sending so much signal over water IMHO is a WASTE!
Yes, all those electrons drowning in the ocean is a terrible thing.
Can't they be recycled or donated to some deserving underpowered station in a foreign country?
I'm sure there are radio-starved Botswanans somewhere who could put those watts to good use.
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
> > They do this to put a high field strength over the
> populated
> > area. Coastal stations do this because they want higher
> > power and can not send any more signal inland on any
> > frequency due to protection.
>
> If anything, this is evidence that mediumwave is way too
> crowded and the non-flamethrower signals only intended to be
> locals should be moved to a new broadcast band at higher
> frequencies suitable for local coverage, without 10
> different skywave signals clobbering the station at night.
Yea, I agree. One idea I've had is to do away with TV channels 5 and 6, and move all the class C stations to the 76 to 88 mHz band, and also move all the other small AMs (all the ones for which you won't lose any fringe coverage distance by going to FM, for example). Then, the AM band should be mainly reserved for wide area coverage, part 15, and licensed LPAM. Wide area AM should basically have most of the band, and licensed LPAM might have a few dedicated slots, like maybe in the upper 500khz to lower 600kHz range, the mid 900kHz range, and the upper 1200s to somewhere in the 1400s or so. Part 15 should stay permitted throughout the band, with, for example, 1 watt with a 15 meter antenna allowed throughout, except for some of the frequencies shared by LPAM, and the 1600s kHz range, where the limit might be something like 5 watts with a 1/10 wavelength antenna.
>
> > Can't do this do to protection. Like 1370 in Corona. Or
> 1350
> > in Riverside. What they want is high field strength in the
>
> > city, to overcome noise levels. This is not an effort to
> > increase coverage by much, but to increase signal strength
>
> > where there is coverage.
>
> Hey, I understand why this is done, but my point was that
> there's adequate (city grade..5 mV/m?), more than adequate
> but desirable (up to 15 mV/m), and ridiculous. If you're
> putting more than 15 mV/m to the coastline and not intending
> to serve Hawaii with skywave, you're polluting the band.
>
> At some point, everyone who's interested in hearing you will
> hear you, even on the cheapest radio in a noisy environment.
> More power than that is unnecessary.
>
I was even thinking 10mV/m at the coastline would be sufficient, but if you want 15, that's probably ok, too.
Unless a significant portion of your intended audience is on / over the ocean, I would prefer that stations not have more than about 0.025uV/m at 10 miles from the coastline (with exceptions for stations from San Diego serving Santa Barbara, for example, because the coastline curves). Basically, if the signal goes over water to get to some land, but you can also get from the transmitting location to the receiving location entirely on land (San Diego to Santa Barbara, for example), it's ok, but to go from Los Angeles to Tokyo is unacceptable, unless your intended audience is there.
> > They do this to put a high field strength over the
> populated
> > area. Coastal stations do this because they want higher
> > power and can not send any more signal inland on any
> > frequency due to protection.
>
> If anything, this is evidence that mediumwave is way too
> crowded and the non-flamethrower signals only intended to be
> locals should be moved to a new broadcast band at higher
> frequencies suitable for local coverage, without 10
> different skywave signals clobbering the station at night.
Yea, I agree. One idea I've had is to do away with TV channels 5 and 6, and move all the class C stations to the 76 to 88 mHz band, and also move all the other small AMs (all the ones for which you won't lose any fringe coverage distance by going to FM, for example). Then, the AM band should be mainly reserved for wide area coverage, part 15, and licensed LPAM. Wide area AM should basically have most of the band, and licensed LPAM might have a few dedicated slots, like maybe in the upper 500khz to lower 600kHz range, the mid 900kHz range, and the upper 1200s to somewhere in the 1400s or so. Part 15 should stay permitted throughout the band, with, for example, 1 watt with a 15 meter antenna allowed throughout, except for some of the frequencies shared by LPAM, and the 1600s kHz range, where the limit might be something like 5 watts with a 1/10 wavelength antenna.
>
> > Can't do this do to protection. Like 1370 in Corona. Or
> 1350
> > in Riverside. What they want is high field strength in the
>
> > city, to overcome noise levels. This is not an effort to
> > increase coverage by much, but to increase signal strength
>
> > where there is coverage.
>
> Hey, I understand why this is done, but my point was that
> there's adequate (city grade..5 mV/m?), more than adequate
> but desirable (up to 15 mV/m), and ridiculous. If you're
> putting more than 15 mV/m to the coastline and not intending
> to serve Hawaii with skywave, you're polluting the band.
>
> At some point, everyone who's interested in hearing you will
> hear you, even on the cheapest radio in a noisy environment.
> More power than that is unnecessary.
>
I was even thinking 10mV/m at the coastline would be sufficient, but if you want 15, that's probably ok, too.
Unless a significant portion of your intended audience is on / over the ocean, I would prefer that stations not have more than about 0.025uV/m at 10 miles from the coastline (with exceptions for stations from San Diego serving Santa Barbara, for example, because the coastline curves). Basically, if the signal goes over water to get to some land, but you can also get from the transmitting location to the receiving location entirely on land (San Diego to Santa Barbara, for example), it's ok, but to go from Los Angeles to Tokyo is unacceptable, unless your intended audience is there.
O
oldiesfan
Guest
Re: Coverage maps
> That the ocean ends up getting a nice signal, too,
> is just a side effect. (Apologies to the lucrative
> Tuna 25-54 demo out there...)
I thought Charlie was in the 55-64 demo by now.
> That the ocean ends up getting a nice signal, too,
> is just a side effect. (Apologies to the lucrative
> Tuna 25-54 demo out there...)
I thought Charlie was in the 55-64 demo by now.
O
oldiesfan
Guest
Re: Stations should STOP sending more signal over water than over land.
Hans, your reply is a ROFLMAO classic!
Hans, your reply is a ROFLMAO classic!
- Status