H
-
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
K
KMRichards
Guest
Boy, talk about a bonehead move.
"Dear FCC: We know you have nothing to do with format decisions and that leases for transmitter sites don't involve you, but we want you to get us out of this mess. Love, SBS."
Do they really expect to be taken seriously? And will Emmis use this misguided tactic against SBS in court?
As Chris Carmichael would say ... Stay tuned.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
"Dear FCC: We know you have nothing to do with format decisions and that leases for transmitter sites don't involve you, but we want you to get us out of this mess. Love, SBS."
Do they really expect to be taken seriously? And will Emmis use this misguided tactic against SBS in court?
As Chris Carmichael would say ... Stay tuned.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Boy, talk about a bonehead move.
>
> "Dear FCC: We know you have nothing to do with format
> decisions and that leases for transmitter sites don't
> involve you, but we want you to get us out of this mess.
> Love, SBS."
>
> Do they really expect to be taken seriously? And will Emmis
> use this misguided tactic against SBS in court?
>
> As Chris Carmichael would say ... Stay tuned.
>
CalGuy said in the K-Earth thread
"I have been frusterated by some of the comments of others posting that are so negative of late, and I suppose that I've started to let that bother me enough to come down to a level that I don't ordinarly operate at."
That's kind of how I feel sometimes. The spirit of the other boards is much better. While they don't always agree with something - they try and say things tactfully - and when people who don't necessarily attack the person.
When WCBS-FM flipped, no one got assaulted for what they say.
What bothers me the most is the sarcasm. I, however, don't want to sink down to that level.
On K.M's comment, I don't know that this will help SBS.
I'm also a big believer in free enterprise ... and that to me, is what needs to be protected.
But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will likely have to decide.
>
> "Dear FCC: We know you have nothing to do with format
> decisions and that leases for transmitter sites don't
> involve you, but we want you to get us out of this mess.
> Love, SBS."
>
> Do they really expect to be taken seriously? And will Emmis
> use this misguided tactic against SBS in court?
>
> As Chris Carmichael would say ... Stay tuned.
>
CalGuy said in the K-Earth thread
"I have been frusterated by some of the comments of others posting that are so negative of late, and I suppose that I've started to let that bother me enough to come down to a level that I don't ordinarly operate at."
That's kind of how I feel sometimes. The spirit of the other boards is much better. While they don't always agree with something - they try and say things tactfully - and when people who don't necessarily attack the person.
When WCBS-FM flipped, no one got assaulted for what they say.
What bothers me the most is the sarcasm. I, however, don't want to sink down to that level.
On K.M's comment, I don't know that this will help SBS.
I'm also a big believer in free enterprise ... and that to me, is what needs to be protected.
But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will likely have to decide.
K
KMRichards
Guest
> CalGuy said in the K-Earth thread
>
> "I have been frusterated by some of the comments of others
> posting that are so negative of late, and I suppose that
> I've started to let that bother me enough to come down to a
> level that I don't ordinarly operate at."
>
> That's kind of how I feel sometimes. The spirit of the other
> boards is much better. While they don't always agree with
> something - they try and say things tactfully - and when
> people who don't necessarily attack the person.
Your remarks belong in the thread in which the comments you are replying to originated. This portion of your post amounts to thread hijacking.
> When WCBS-FM flipped, no one got assaulted for what they
> say.
This is not the NYC board. Comment is off-topic here.
> What bothers me the most is the sarcasm. I, however, don't
> want to sink down to that level.
No, you just want to hijack the thread and make comments not pertaining to the topic of this one. That's almost as low, tactics-wise.
> On K.M's comment, I don't know that this will help SBS.
Oh, good ... you ARE going to include something relevant to this thread!
> I'm also a big believer in free enterprise ... and that to
> me, is what needs to be protected.
You missed a point here. SBS was free to sign or not sign the lease with Emmis. In negotiating that lease, SBS agreed to terms that involved not having programming on KXOL that competed with Emmis. They agreed to that of their own free will. Free enterprise means they didn't have to sign. All of their claims thus far point to a philosophy of "we signed it, now we want to get out of the part of the deal we no longer want to adhere to".
If you believe SBS should be "protected" in this case under your vision of free enterprise, how about if Toyota sells you a car, then decides later that the warranty terms in the sales contract are something they no longer want to honor? Same idea.
> But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will
> likely have to decide.
True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
>
> "I have been frusterated by some of the comments of others
> posting that are so negative of late, and I suppose that
> I've started to let that bother me enough to come down to a
> level that I don't ordinarly operate at."
>
> That's kind of how I feel sometimes. The spirit of the other
> boards is much better. While they don't always agree with
> something - they try and say things tactfully - and when
> people who don't necessarily attack the person.
Your remarks belong in the thread in which the comments you are replying to originated. This portion of your post amounts to thread hijacking.
> When WCBS-FM flipped, no one got assaulted for what they
> say.
This is not the NYC board. Comment is off-topic here.
> What bothers me the most is the sarcasm. I, however, don't
> want to sink down to that level.
No, you just want to hijack the thread and make comments not pertaining to the topic of this one. That's almost as low, tactics-wise.
> On K.M's comment, I don't know that this will help SBS.
Oh, good ... you ARE going to include something relevant to this thread!
> I'm also a big believer in free enterprise ... and that to
> me, is what needs to be protected.
You missed a point here. SBS was free to sign or not sign the lease with Emmis. In negotiating that lease, SBS agreed to terms that involved not having programming on KXOL that competed with Emmis. They agreed to that of their own free will. Free enterprise means they didn't have to sign. All of their claims thus far point to a philosophy of "we signed it, now we want to get out of the part of the deal we no longer want to adhere to".
If you believe SBS should be "protected" in this case under your vision of free enterprise, how about if Toyota sells you a car, then decides later that the warranty terms in the sales contract are something they no longer want to honor? Same idea.
> But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will
> likely have to decide.
True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
> > But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will
>
> > likely have to decide.
>
> True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better
> than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics
> of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
Hey, hey, I think you, David Eduardo and I and maybe a couple of others have understood this from the beginning...
SBS is acting like a bunch of cry babies going to the FCC. There is no way the FCC is going to touch a contract law dispute. The heart of this contract dispute has nothing to do with nor does it pertain to any FCC regulations (even though it's about the transmitter site). As far as "free enterprise", Emmis and SBS entered into a lawful, valid contract under United States law. SBS now needs to learn the consequences of violating that contract
>
> > likely have to decide.
>
> True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better
> than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics
> of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
Hey, hey, I think you, David Eduardo and I and maybe a couple of others have understood this from the beginning...
SBS is acting like a bunch of cry babies going to the FCC. There is no way the FCC is going to touch a contract law dispute. The heart of this contract dispute has nothing to do with nor does it pertain to any FCC regulations (even though it's about the transmitter site). As far as "free enterprise", Emmis and SBS entered into a lawful, valid contract under United States law. SBS now needs to learn the consequences of violating that contract
> > CalGuy said in the K-Earth thread
> >
> > "I have been frusterated by some of the comments of others
>
> > posting that are so negative of late, and I suppose that
> > I've started to let that bother me enough to come down to
> a
> > level that I don't ordinarly operate at."
> >
> > That's kind of how I feel sometimes. The spirit of the
> other
> > boards is much better. While they don't always agree with
> > something - they try and say things tactfully - and when
> > people who don't necessarily attack the person.
>
> Your remarks belong in the thread in which the comments you
> are replying to originated. This portion of your post
> amounts to thread hijacking.
I was trying to make things a bit friendlier here - but that didn't seem to help before I made the comment. Next time, I will make sure I respond in the appropriate thread - and not attach to this one.
>
> > When WCBS-FM flipped, no one got assaulted for what they
> > say.
>
> This is not the NYC board. Comment is off-topic here.
>
> > What bothers me the most is the sarcasm. I, however, don't
>
> > want to sink down to that level.
>
> No, you just want to hijack the thread and make comments not
> pertaining to the topic of this one. That's almost as low,
> tactics-wise.
>
> > On K.M's comment, I don't know that this will help SBS.
>
> Oh, good ... you ARE going to include something relevant to
> this thread!
>
> > I'm also a big believer in free enterprise ... and that to
>
> > me, is what needs to be protected.
>
> You missed a point here. SBS was free to sign or not sign
> the lease with Emmis. In negotiating that lease, SBS agreed
> to terms that involved not having programming on KXOL that
> competed with Emmis. They agreed to that of their own free
> will. Free enterprise means they didn't have to sign. All
> of their claims thus far point to a philosophy of "we signed
> it, now we want to get out of the part of the deal we no
> longer want to adhere to".
>
> If you believe SBS should be "protected" in this case under
> your vision of free enterprise, how about if Toyota sells
> you a car, then decides later that the warranty terms in the
> sales contract are something they no longer want to honor?
> Same idea.
>
> > But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will
>
> > likely have to decide.
>
> True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better
> than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics
> of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
> >
> > "I have been frusterated by some of the comments of others
>
> > posting that are so negative of late, and I suppose that
> > I've started to let that bother me enough to come down to
> a
> > level that I don't ordinarly operate at."
> >
> > That's kind of how I feel sometimes. The spirit of the
> other
> > boards is much better. While they don't always agree with
> > something - they try and say things tactfully - and when
> > people who don't necessarily attack the person.
>
> Your remarks belong in the thread in which the comments you
> are replying to originated. This portion of your post
> amounts to thread hijacking.
I was trying to make things a bit friendlier here - but that didn't seem to help before I made the comment. Next time, I will make sure I respond in the appropriate thread - and not attach to this one.
>
> > When WCBS-FM flipped, no one got assaulted for what they
> > say.
>
> This is not the NYC board. Comment is off-topic here.
>
> > What bothers me the most is the sarcasm. I, however, don't
>
> > want to sink down to that level.
>
> No, you just want to hijack the thread and make comments not
> pertaining to the topic of this one. That's almost as low,
> tactics-wise.
>
> > On K.M's comment, I don't know that this will help SBS.
>
> Oh, good ... you ARE going to include something relevant to
> this thread!
>
> > I'm also a big believer in free enterprise ... and that to
>
> > me, is what needs to be protected.
>
> You missed a point here. SBS was free to sign or not sign
> the lease with Emmis. In negotiating that lease, SBS agreed
> to terms that involved not having programming on KXOL that
> competed with Emmis. They agreed to that of their own free
> will. Free enterprise means they didn't have to sign. All
> of their claims thus far point to a philosophy of "we signed
> it, now we want to get out of the part of the deal we no
> longer want to adhere to".
>
> If you believe SBS should be "protected" in this case under
> your vision of free enterprise, how about if Toyota sells
> you a car, then decides later that the warranty terms in the
> sales contract are something they no longer want to honor?
> Same idea.
>
> > But, it doesn't matter what any of us think - a judge will
>
> > likely have to decide.
>
> True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better
> than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics
> of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
J
John_U
Guest
Maybe this is all moot
Hi,
By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
John
Hi,
By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
John
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
SBS Files for New Transmitter Site for Latino 96.3?
Per InsideRadio.com this morning.
But is the story correct? As it says the filing is for a tower site in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale. That is where they are now ----> Flint Peak.
Per InsideRadio.com this morning.
But is the story correct? As it says the filing is for a tower site in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale. That is where they are now ----> Flint Peak.
Re: SBS Files for New Transmitter Site for Latino 96.3?
> Per InsideRadio.com this morning.
>
> But is the story correct? As it says the filing is for a
> tower site in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale. That is where
> they are now ----> Flint Peak.
>
Verdugo Hills is the range where KROQ is... between the 134 t th esough, the 2 to the east and the 5 to th west.
> Per InsideRadio.com this morning.
>
> But is the story correct? As it says the filing is for a
> tower site in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale. That is where
> they are now ----> Flint Peak.
>
Verdugo Hills is the range where KROQ is... between the 134 t th esough, the 2 to the east and the 5 to th west.
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
Re: Maybe this is all moot
> Hi,
>
> By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
>
> See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
>
> John
>
> Hi,
>
> By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
>
> See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
>
> John
>
This will strengthen Emmis case. More evidence that SBS has willfully broken their contract.
Now lets see if Emmis to make a filing to object (against SBS getting approval to move) or go to court and get an injunction (from moving).
> Hi,
>
> By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
>
> See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
>
> John
>
> Hi,
>
> By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
>
> See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
>
> John
>
This will strengthen Emmis case. More evidence that SBS has willfully broken their contract.
Now lets see if Emmis to make a filing to object (against SBS getting approval to move) or go to court and get an injunction (from moving).
Re: Maybe this is all moot
> > Hi,
> >
> > By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> > antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
> >
> > See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
> >
> > John
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> > antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
> >
> > See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
> >
> > John
> >
>
> This will strengthen Emmis case. More evidence that SBS has
> willfully broken their contract.
>
> Now lets see if Emmis to make a filing to object (against
> SBS getting approval to move) or go to court and get an
> injunction (from moving).
>
One would assume Infinity and KROQ do not want KXOL's current format to go away. This would shake up the market and likely negatively affect KPWR and KIIS - yet helping KROQ... It appears that this location is where Infinity has two sites.
> > Hi,
> >
> > By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> > antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
> >
> > See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
> >
> > John
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > By the tine this comes to court or a judge decides, the
> > antnenna may be moved. Or maybe this is just a tactic.
> >
> > See FCC filing BMPH-20050601BWT dated 08 June 2005.
> >
> > John
> >
>
> This will strengthen Emmis case. More evidence that SBS has
> willfully broken their contract.
>
> Now lets see if Emmis to make a filing to object (against
> SBS getting approval to move) or go to court and get an
> injunction (from moving).
>
One would assume Infinity and KROQ do not want KXOL's current format to go away. This would shake up the market and likely negatively affect KPWR and KIIS - yet helping KROQ... It appears that this location is where Infinity has two sites.
K
KMRichards
Guest
Let me rephrase that
> > True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better
> > than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics
> > of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
>
> Hey, hey, I think you, David Eduardo and I and maybe a
> couple of others have understood this from the beginning...
I agonized over how to phrase my last statement without sounding hostile. I meant it to include those who fail to understand, without including those of us who do. Sorry my final choice of words wasn't clear; I am perfectly aware that this is the rare issue where you (Glenn), David, and I all agree.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> > True, and I hope the judge understands contract law better
> > than everyone here who have failed to understand the basics
> > of the Emmis/SBS dispute.
>
> Hey, hey, I think you, David Eduardo and I and maybe a
> couple of others have understood this from the beginning...
I agonized over how to phrase my last statement without sounding hostile. I meant it to include those who fail to understand, without including those of us who do. Sorry my final choice of words wasn't clear; I am perfectly aware that this is the rare issue where you (Glenn), David, and I all agree.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Maybe this is all moot
> One would assume Infinity and KROQ do not want KXOL's
> current format to go away. This would shake up the market
> and likely negatively affect KPWR and KIIS - yet helping
> KROQ... It appears that this location is where Infinity has
> two sites.
Plus Infinity has a stake in SBS as a result of the recent deal in S.F.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> One would assume Infinity and KROQ do not want KXOL's
> current format to go away. This would shake up the market
> and likely negatively affect KPWR and KIIS - yet helping
> KROQ... It appears that this location is where Infinity has
> two sites.
Plus Infinity has a stake in SBS as a result of the recent deal in S.F.
<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
So what's your prediction KM, David, Glenn?
Assuming the legal dispute eventually is resolved resulting in Latino 96-3 keeping the format, what is their chance of success, ratings and revenue-wise?? Is this a format that stays... Seems like the right demos in this area
Assuming the legal dispute eventually is resolved resulting in Latino 96-3 keeping the format, what is their chance of success, ratings and revenue-wise?? Is this a format that stays... Seems like the right demos in this area
H
heywhatsupglenn
Guest
Re: So what's your prediction
> Assuming the legal dispute eventually is resolved resulting
> in Latino 96-3 keeping the format, what is their chance of
> success, ratings and revenue-wise?? Is this a format that
> stays... Seems like the right demos in this area
>
I can't speak for them but I think we've all agreed that when it comes to contract law, we come down on Emmis side.
Personally, having had a few contract disputes in court, I would expect Emmis to get most of what it is asking for. And since they are asking for a jury trial, watch out SBS. This could drag on for a couple of years or slightly more the way the courts go.
I'm more interested in seeing if they can get a judge to give them some immediate relief.
No doubt Latino 96.3 will hurt Power and probably KIIS. Even if it gets just a 3 or 4 share 18-34, that is going to suck millions from each station. Even low-rated 93.5 KDAY is costing Power some revenue.
> Assuming the legal dispute eventually is resolved resulting
> in Latino 96-3 keeping the format, what is their chance of
> success, ratings and revenue-wise?? Is this a format that
> stays... Seems like the right demos in this area
>
I can't speak for them but I think we've all agreed that when it comes to contract law, we come down on Emmis side.
Personally, having had a few contract disputes in court, I would expect Emmis to get most of what it is asking for. And since they are asking for a jury trial, watch out SBS. This could drag on for a couple of years or slightly more the way the courts go.
I'm more interested in seeing if they can get a judge to give them some immediate relief.
No doubt Latino 96.3 will hurt Power and probably KIIS. Even if it gets just a 3 or 4 share 18-34, that is going to suck millions from each station. Even low-rated 93.5 KDAY is costing Power some revenue.
Re: SBS Files for New Transmitter Site for Latino 96.3?
> Per InsideRadio.com this morning.
>
> But is the story correct? As it says the filing is for a
> tower site in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale. That is where
> they are now ----> Flint Peak.
>
They filed to move to Verdugo Hills.
On a site that houses KROQ and the aux for KRTH.
They will have to power down to 7kw to do this. That will actually lower their coverage area slightly.
> Per InsideRadio.com this morning.
>
> But is the story correct? As it says the filing is for a
> tower site in the Verdugo Hills of Glendale. That is where
> they are now ----> Flint Peak.
>
They filed to move to Verdugo Hills.
On a site that houses KROQ and the aux for KRTH.
They will have to power down to 7kw to do this. That will actually lower their coverage area slightly.
Re: So what's your prediction
> > Assuming the legal dispute eventually is resolved
> resulting
> > in Latino 96-3 keeping the format, what is their chance of
>
> > success, ratings and revenue-wise?? Is this a format that
> > stays... Seems like the right demos in this area
> >
>
> I can't speak for them but I think we've all agreed that
> when it comes to contract law, we come down on Emmis side.
>
> Personally, having had a few contract disputes in court, I
> would expect Emmis to get most of what it is asking for. And
> since they are asking for a jury trial, watch out SBS. This
> could drag on for a couple of years or slightly more the way
> the courts go.
> I'm more interested in seeing if they can get a judge to
> give them some immediate relief.
>
> No doubt Latino 96.3 will hurt Power and probably KIIS. Even
> if it gets just a 3 or 4 share 18-34, that is going to suck
> millions from each station. Even low-rated 93.5 KDAY is
> costing Power some revenue.
>
Since every tenth of a point in L.A. is generally worth well over $1 million/year in revenue, anything that 96.3 gets can hurt Power and KIIS - and possibly a few other stations. Although, as David has stated, in Houston, KLOL has taken numbers more from KRBE and KPTY (Pop and Rhythmic respectively). But every market is different - and if you look at KLOL's music - it is different from KXOL.
> > Assuming the legal dispute eventually is resolved
> resulting
> > in Latino 96-3 keeping the format, what is their chance of
>
> > success, ratings and revenue-wise?? Is this a format that
> > stays... Seems like the right demos in this area
> >
>
> I can't speak for them but I think we've all agreed that
> when it comes to contract law, we come down on Emmis side.
>
> Personally, having had a few contract disputes in court, I
> would expect Emmis to get most of what it is asking for. And
> since they are asking for a jury trial, watch out SBS. This
> could drag on for a couple of years or slightly more the way
> the courts go.
> I'm more interested in seeing if they can get a judge to
> give them some immediate relief.
>
> No doubt Latino 96.3 will hurt Power and probably KIIS. Even
> if it gets just a 3 or 4 share 18-34, that is going to suck
> millions from each station. Even low-rated 93.5 KDAY is
> costing Power some revenue.
>
Since every tenth of a point in L.A. is generally worth well over $1 million/year in revenue, anything that 96.3 gets can hurt Power and KIIS - and possibly a few other stations. Although, as David has stated, in Houston, KLOL has taken numbers more from KRBE and KPTY (Pop and Rhythmic respectively). But every market is different - and if you look at KLOL's music - it is different from KXOL.
M
myopic
Guest
Re: SBS Files for New Transmitter Site for Latino 96.3?
How do you determine that they will need to power down? Could you explain this to a novice?
I had originally asked David if they could use this site, and I believe David already stated at that time that they would be required to power down.
Very interesting, to say the least. I grew up in La Crescenta and since most of that area is shadowed to Wilson, KROQ was the only radio station I could get. I actually used to get KPWR well too (before the Wilson move).
Now, I'm in Santa Clarita where it's even worse then there -- and two out of the three stations I can get clearly (on my Sony boombox) are KROQ and KXOL!
How do you determine that they will need to power down? Could you explain this to a novice?
I had originally asked David if they could use this site, and I believe David already stated at that time that they would be required to power down.
Very interesting, to say the least. I grew up in La Crescenta and since most of that area is shadowed to Wilson, KROQ was the only radio station I could get. I actually used to get KPWR well too (before the Wilson move).
Now, I'm in Santa Clarita where it's even worse then there -- and two out of the three stations I can get clearly (on my Sony boombox) are KROQ and KXOL!
Re: SBS Files for New Transmitter Site for Latino 96.3?
> How do you determine that they will need to power down?
> Could you explain this to a novice?
They are short spaced to Bakersfield at that site, so reduction of power and directionalization are the alternatives.
>
> Now, I'm in Santa Clarita where it's even worse then there
> -- and two out of the three stations I can get clearly (on
> my Sony boombox) are KROQ and KXOL!
And probably 97.9 with is also on Flint Peak.
>
> How do you determine that they will need to power down?
> Could you explain this to a novice?
They are short spaced to Bakersfield at that site, so reduction of power and directionalization are the alternatives.
>
> Now, I'm in Santa Clarita where it's even worse then there
> -- and two out of the three stations I can get clearly (on
> my Sony boombox) are KROQ and KXOL!
And probably 97.9 with is also on Flint Peak.
>
Re: So what's your prediction
>
> Since every tenth of a point in L.A. is generally worth well
> over $1 million/year in revenue, anything that 96.3 gets can
> hurt Power and KIIS - and possibly a few other stations.
> Although, as David has stated, in Houston, KLOL has taken
> numbers more from KRBE and KPTY (Pop and Rhythmic
> respectively). But every market is different - and if you
> look at KLOL's music - it is different from KXOL.
The music is a different mix to some extent. KLOL includes a bit of Spanish pop, while KXOL does not. On the other hand, KXOL plays more English hip hop than KLOL. Otherwise, they are identical as being reggaetón based. Same format, different mix. The KXOL mix is likely to hit KPWR harder than KIIS, while the Houston one hits KRBE more thaan the Box and Party.
>
> Since every tenth of a point in L.A. is generally worth well
> over $1 million/year in revenue, anything that 96.3 gets can
> hurt Power and KIIS - and possibly a few other stations.
> Although, as David has stated, in Houston, KLOL has taken
> numbers more from KRBE and KPTY (Pop and Rhythmic
> respectively). But every market is different - and if you
> look at KLOL's music - it is different from KXOL.
The music is a different mix to some extent. KLOL includes a bit of Spanish pop, while KXOL does not. On the other hand, KXOL plays more English hip hop than KLOL. Otherwise, they are identical as being reggaetón based. Same format, different mix. The KXOL mix is likely to hit KPWR harder than KIIS, while the Houston one hits KRBE more thaan the Box and Party.
- Status