Not Enough FM Channels For Boston Proper & Close-in Suburbs

[Laurence Glavin]

This is an observation of mine for years, and I may not be alone. Not long after the FM spectrum was moved to the 88.1 to 107.9 dial positions, it seems the FCC decided to set up some channel assignments for very large markets, just like TV. Thus NYC, Chicago and L.A. got full-power (20K @500' in the northeast anyway) assignments 92.3; 93.1; 93.9; 94.7; 95.5; 96.3; 97.1; 97.9; 98.7; 99.5; 100.3; 101.1; 101.9; 102.7; 103.5; 104.3; 105.1; 105.9; 106.7 & 107.5...20 in all, none of them the old Class-A's which early on were limited to 1,000 watts @250 or 300 feet, even in the west. Philadelphia and San Francisco got assignments one dial-click up starting at 92.5 and proceeding at .8 megacycle (as they were called then) increments with no Class-A's. Some of the assignments went to close-in suburbs, which is why some northern NJ outlets transmitted even then from Manhattan skyscrapers for example. Stations licensed to nearby Chicago suburbs as Evanston and Des Plaines (made famous by the TV show "Fantasy Island) IL and Hammond, IN were on some of these frequencies. Now if the FCC decided that Boston and nearby cities and towns could operate on the 92.3, 93.1 sequence, there would be 20 channels available, with FM's in Worcester, Providence or the Merrimack Valley on .4 separations, just as WAWZ-FM operates on 99.1 not far from NYC or the 97.5 on Long Island, NY. Instead, Boston got a more haphazard cluster of channels: 92.9; 94.5; 96.9 (WHRB was on 107.1 in the early days with even less power than typical Class A's and may have been operating on that frequency for a while after WBZ-FM showed up on 106.7); 98.5; 100.7; 102.5 (Waltham being a close-in suburb); 103.3; 104.1; 105.7 (originally started on Mt. Wayte Avenue in Framingham, luckily able to move in to Boston itself); 106.7 & 107.9, only 11 full-power assignment. So when people suggest that Entercom put WEEI-AM sports radio on an FM, they have to choose from among a Merrimack Valley-assigned channel, 93.7 (now pretty close to downtown, but still out there) or FMs assigned to Brockton , 97.7 or Westborough/Worcester, 107.7. So any shifts of formats from even powerful AM's to FM would be circumscribed (I said CIRCUMSCRIBED) by this state of affairs.

 

[WLYNWAZNgm]

This is more of a case of semantics, as there are
overlapping "markets" - Boston, Manchester, Worcester,
Providence, etc. - in close proximity to each other.
It is very different in other parts of the
country, where one can drive for many miles before
you come across anyplace that is inhabited at all...

 

[JustinT]

That's been an observation of mine for a very long time. Houston is another market where the channels are particularly poorly aligned.... there, nothing north of 105.7 is a full-market signal (and in fact, 105.7 is a non-commercial FM, so 104.1 is the last commercial FM with a full-market signal).

This is more of a case of semantics, as there are
overlapping "markets" - Boston, Manchester, Worcester,
Providence, etc. - in close proximity to each other.

The problem, as I see it, is that those markets were assigned numerous Class B stations, rather than Class As. Ignoring recent drop-ins, if WHJY and WSNE were Class A signals (and 93.3 were licensed somewhere in Rhode Island), couldn't 93.7 be a full Class B from the Pru?

Houston and Philadelphia benefited from "move-in" stations in a way that Boston never will. Stations moved into Houston from Beaumont, and into Philadelphia from South Jersey. Nobody is going to give up prime coverage of a top-50 market like Providence to become a Boston rimshot. Of all of the Class Bs surrounding Boston, 104.5 strikes me as the only FM, in terms of signal and revenue that would be lost, that could serve as a "Boston" station.

 

[e-dawg]

There is one signal that can be easily squeeze into Boston from Worchester is 96.1 WSRS. If Clear Channel can find a way to move 95.9 WATD Marshfield to 96.5 or 95.7. How about 104.9 WBOQ move from Northern Suburbs of Boston into downtown.

 

[necrat123]

There is one signal that can be easily squeeze into Boston from Worchester is 96.1 WSRS. If Clear Channel can find a way to move 95.9 WATD Marshfield to 96.5 or 95.7. How about 104.9 WBOQ move from Northern Suburbs of Boston into downtown.

That would be tough. 95.7 is completley out of the question, due to WBRU 95.5B right on the doorstep, and 96.5 would probably be too short spaced to 96.3 on the cape and would definatley be too short to the 96.9 in Boston. Remember when spacing you need to account for 3rd adjacent. +/- 600KHz in each direction. And IF spacing +/- 10.7, whichever falls in the FM band too.

Encarta said

Of all of the Class Bs surrounding Boston, 104.5 strikes me as the only FM, in terms of signal and revenue that would be lost, that could serve as a "Boston" station.

The last BIAfn in-depth market survey I saw, had WXLO counting as a Boston market station instead of a Worcester one. For some odd reason, 99.9 in also Athol counts as a Boston market station too.

 

[Deleted User]

There is one signal that can be easily squeeze into Boston from Worchester is 96.1 WSRS. If Clear Channel can find a way to move 95.9 WATD Marshfield to 96.5 or 95.7. How about 104.9 WBOQ move from Northern Suburbs of Boston into downtown.

WBOQ has to protect 104.9 WRBB (?) Northeastern University on that freq. How are they going to move into Boston when they have to protect a station licensed to Boston ( BOQ is licensed to Gloucester, google Simon Geller) Northeastern has noplace to go as the band is full, so they are not moving anytime soon.

As for Ed Perry moving off 95.9 for Clear Channels benefit, hell will freeze first.

 

[reelyreal]

Clear Channel makes a freakin' killing in Worcester with WSRS anyways, I doubt they'd want to move. Asnebumskit is a killer site for FM ('AAF is nuts for moving off) so they've got incredible coverage. They own the Worcester market and every medical office within 60 miles. 'XLO can't even come close to touching them in Worcester, and I think they're happy being on top. Sometimes it's nice to be a big fish in a small pond.

 

[LA_Guy]

93.3 could have moved as close to Boston as Weymouth at one time, but the tower would have had to be near the old Weymouth Naval Air Station, which was still active at the time.

What happened in LA and NYC also was that most or all of the surburban stations are class As and grandfathered short spaced in between the class Bs. look at them 92.7, 93.5, 94.3, and on and on. Also, look again-there is a big non com in LA and NYC every 800 kHz too (91.5, 90.7, etc.).

Boston has several suburban class B stations such as 92.9, 93.7, 102.5, 105.7, 99.1, 99.5 and 107.9. Boston proper got very few stations actually.

If you think that Boston got short shrift, look at Manchester-a whopping TWO class Bs there. or Hartford, Springfield or Providence-all of which got short changed.

Worcester too-the second largest city in the state winds up with only 2 class B stations (now down to one)...yet New Bedford (a much smaller city) also gets 2 class Bs.

 

[DanStrassberg]

If I hadn't emptied the message body, this would be a double posting.

 

[DanStrassberg]

So when people suggest that Entercom put WEEI-AM sports radio on an FM, they have to choose from among a Merrimack Valley-assigned channel, 93.7 (now pretty close to downtown, but still out there) or FMs assigned to Brockton , 97.7 or Westborough/Worcester, 107.7. So any shifts of formats from even powerful AM's to FM would be circumscribed (I said CIRCUMSCRIBED) by this state of affairs.

I think you mean 107.3, not 107.7. I have no idea of the location of the closest 107.7 to Boston. Also, I believe it has been shown that 99.5 could move to the WRKO (AM) site to get closer to Boston. But to do so, it would have to downgrade from a full Class B to a Class B1. Also, with the WRKO towers being only about 400' AGL, I have no idea what kind of terrain problems the signal would run into on its way from Burlington to the Back Bay.

 

[fmradio1]

The closest 107.7's to Boston would be WBQI/Bar Harbor, ME and WWRX/Pawcatuck, CT. The Medford station might have something to do with the distance....

 

[NHRadio]

You forgot 107.7 WTPL Hillsborough NH.

 

[JustinT]

There is one signal that can be easily squeeze into Boston from Worchester is 96.1 WSRS. If Clear Channel can find a way to move 95.9 WATD Marshfield to 96.5 or 95.7.

Like reelyreel said, 96.1 WSRS undeniably owns the Worcester market. If Clear Channel wanted to target a dud FM from another market as a Boston station, 93.3 WSNE would be the much better choice.

WBOQ has to protect 104.9 WRBB (?) Northeastern University on that freq. How are they going to move into Boston when they have to protect a station licensed to Boston ( BOQ is licensed to Gloucester, google Simon Geller) Northeastern has noplace to go as the band is full, so they are not moving anytime soon.

I don't think WRBB would create any problems to a WBOQ move-in, since the station is licensed as a Class D. If WBOQ wanted to move closer to Boston, it's my understanding that WRBB would have to sacrifice its license. The real problem with moving WBOQ closer to Boston would be 105.1 WWLI's big signal, which does a nice job of covering the south and west suburbs.

 

[Uncle Kaimbridge]

There is one signal that can be easily squeeze into Boston from Worchester is 96.1 WSRS. If Clear Channel can find a way to move 95.9 WATD Marshfield to 96.5 or 95.7.

That would be tough. 95.7 is completley out of the question, due to WBRU 95.5B right on the doorstep,

Forget about adjacent 'BRU——what about co-channel WZID?

 

[Laurence Glavin]

Yeah, at the end of a long post I wrote 107.7 instead of 107.3. And the title of the post mentions close-in suburbs, so 92.9 COL Brookline and 102.5 COL Waltham count as Boston stations with the former transmitting from the Pru. The post as a whole was a rumination on why some formats may not be on stations IN Boston, or why it's practically impossible to port an AM station's format to FM in Boston. Around the country some FM's have moved closer to metropolitan centers, bu the FM dial is too crowded around here for that.

 

[4CX1000A]

Around the country some FM's have moved closer to metropolitan centers, bu the FM dial is too crowded around here for that.

Or as Yogi Berra might have put it, nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded.

The last thing we need is more stations. The advertising pie is sliced too thinly as it is.

 

[LA_Guy]

In Europe and Canada, FM stations using the same transmitter site are put on FM channels just 400 kHz apart (for example, 92.1 and 92.5). Unfortunately the USA, being MUCH less enlightened then others still situates FM channels 800 kHz apart (92.1 and 92.9). This spacing is a hold over from the 1940s, when FM was in its infancy and FM receiver circuits were still rudimentry vacuum tube designs.

We also require fully spaced sites for FM allotments, believe that FM signals easily cross over mountains (they don't!), believe that interference over water (where no one lives) is a bad thing and also have very antiquated ideas over using directional FM antennas (like the maximum null can't exceed 15 db).

For whatever reason (likely political), the U.S. rules have never come in step with the other countries or the realities of physics and computers. If they did, we could probably put most of the AMs onto FM and shut down the AM band (as Canada is in the process of doing now).

Our FCC is simply PATHETIC!

 

[carmen]

Unfortunately the USA, being MUCH less enlightened then others still situates FM channels 800 kHz apart (92.1 and 92.9).
the U.S. rules have never come in step with the other countries or the realities of physics

say we used an outdated mode like AM, and 15khz wide audio like FM. and left 5khz on either side of it for filter rolloff (like the 5khz between WBZ's audio and IBOC sidebands). this would be one station every 40khz, or 20 times as many stations. say we switched to a mode that didnt duplicate sidebands, and fit this in 20khz of space.. 40 times as many stations. or how about DRM at 10khz per station... 80 times as many stations. then say say we used 64 to 88 MHz, putting us around 200 times as many stations as now

im not going to theorize on protecting an oligopolistic business model or anything. at least the FCC balances this karma by taking at most one pirate off the airwaves per decade

 

[NHRadio]

We also require fully spaced sites for FM allotments, believe that FM signals easily cross over mountains (they don't!),
For whatever reason (likely political), the U.S. rules have never come in step with the other countries or the realities of physics and computers. If they did, we could probably put most of the AMs onto FM and shut down the AM band (as Canada is in the process of doing now).

Our FCC is simply PATHETIC!

The FCC will accept a short space due to terrain or other issues under Part 73.215, which allows "contour protection" grants.
The rest of your post is spot on, IMHO.

 

[necrat123]

And he is dead on accurate about the 800khz spacing.

Look at "fairly close" spaced 400khz stations, and even on cheaper radios made within the last three decade, there are no issues.

My 1984 vintage Radio Shack crap after market stereo had no issue picking up the much weaker WSPK on 104.7 while in Great Barrington despite the much much stronger 105.1, and this stereo as junk!

With 400khz, you could still do IBOC too, with the adjacent channels hitting together on the one "in-between" channel, if you wanted to.