• 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

One World Trade Center Antenna Site

B

Barry

The home page of Radio-Info.com has an article quoting an official of the buiding's developer: "Our expectations would be to become the premiere boradcast facility in New York City." According to the news item, the building is planned to reach 1776 feet, and the projected completion is in late 2013. It is not clear from the article whether the antenna area would be ready at that time.
Anyone know whether any radio stations have already indicated they intend to transfer their transmission facilities there? Can a significant change in their signals be expected? As I recall, there were relatively few radio stations using the original World Trade Center, compared with the Empire State building.
 
I think most of the TV stations were on the original WTC site. Perhaps Scott Fybush can shed a little light.
 
I think they'll stay on Empire. 1776 feet will require them to reduce their power, decreasing building penetration. The most densely populated part of Manhattan is midtown, so having the transmitters at Empire will maximize the signal there. But some might move since the Empire master antenna is overcrowded, and cheaper rent (and electric bills) may entice a few to move.
 
I would be surprised to see any of the fully-licensed Empire FMs moving to 1WTC. Many of them have spacing issues that would prevent a move south, and there are still a lot of bad memories of the multipath issues that afflicted the old 101.9 and 103.5 signals from WTC.

WPAT-FM is almost certain to make the move, since it's never been able to be fully licensed at Empire because of spacing issues in that direction. WKCR has indicated it would like to go back to WTC as well.

The bigger question will be whether the TV stations want to invest in moving back. Before 9/11, WTC had the analog facilities of all seven Vs plus channels 31 and 47. The former Vs are all pretty well settled in at Empire, and any coverage increase they'd get by returning to WTC may well be moot in this heavily-cabled era.
 
Scott Fybush said:
The former Vs are all pretty well settled in at Empire, and any coverage increase they'd get by returning to WTC may well be moot in this heavily-cabled era.
Click to expand...

The question would be if the TVs see much of a future in non-cable broadcast digital TV.

About a year ago, the owners of WTC said they wanted $1 million per station as a set-up fee, plus rent and utilities. All of the NY stations said no to that. I haven't heard any update about the cost, but I imagine they had to lower it if they wanted to fill that tower.
 
From this morning's issue of RAMP:

>>While many of the market's radio stations were unaffected by the 9/11 tragedy because most operate off the Empire State Building, there were a handful of radio stations that went off-air for a while because they had been housed on the original World Trade Center's North Tower, including Clear Channel's WKTU, SBS' WPAT-FM, Columbia University's WKCR and NPR affiliate WNYC -- as well as almost all of the city's TV stations.<<
 
One wild card, that could throw a monkey wrench into both the TV and FM signals currently coming from the Empire State Building is the new skyscraper planned for construction just West of the ESB. I haven't heard about any engineering studies but from the architect's plans it will be about as tall, and slightly wider than the ESB. It could block the signals in one direction and act like a big out of phase signal mirror in the other causing multi-path problems through Queens and Long Island.

Plans for construction were announced a couple of years ago, and I haven't heard or read anything about it since, so I assume the plans are on hold until the economy improves.
 
TheBigA said:
Scott Fybush said:
The former Vs are all pretty well settled in at Empire, and any coverage increase they'd get by returning to WTC may well be moot in this heavily-cabled era.
Click to expand...

The question would be if the TVs see much of a future in non-cable broadcast digital TV.
Click to expand...

I know this sounds contrary to what what the cable companies and cable over internet phone companies what you to hear but, some folks are dropping their cable service, (cost$) and using rabbit ears. Many are getting a "better" picture OTA than on cable. and using steaming over "naked" internet connection. I suspect the OTA's will figure out which will give them the most users. After all it is hard to beat "free" price wise.
 
I watch all of my "network" TV off the log periodic antenna on the roof. I have a mast mounted amp. For an investment of $115 total, about a month of cable, I have an excellent HD picture I can watch. Everything else comes from Hulu or Netflix. Which is $16 a month total. Much better than the $130 month for cable.
 
WNTIRadio said:
I watch all of my "network" TV off the log periodic antenna on the roof. I have a mast mounted amp. For an investment of $115 total, about a month of cable, I have an excellent HD picture I can watch. Everything else comes from Hulu or Netflix. Which is $16 a month total. Much better than the $130 month for cable.
Click to expand...

This will work as long as you're not a big sports fan. Aside from the NFL and some national weekend baseball and basketball, you're out of luck.
 
ansky212 said:
This will work as long as you're not a big sports fan. Aside from the NFL and some national weekend baseball and basketball, you're out of luck.
Click to expand...

Two words: ESPN 3. aka WatchESPN
 
TheBigA said:
ansky212 said:
This will work as long as you're not a big sports fan. Aside from the NFL and some national weekend baseball and basketball, you're out of luck.
Click to expand...

Two words: ESPN 3. aka WatchESPN
Click to expand...

He's talking about watching your local team. ESPN3 doesn't help you with Knicks or Yankees ( or Sox/Celtics for me.). Of course, there's always radio...
 
reelyreal said:
He's talking about watching your local team. ESPN3 doesn't help you with Knicks or Yankees ( or Sox/Celtics for me.).
Click to expand...

A-ha. For me, I suscribe to a lot of the league channels, like MLB.com. It's much cheaper than Extra Innings.
 
Still get the NFL games, and I've been jobbed out of Yankee games for so long now that I'm used to it. Mostly put up with Sterling and listen to the games.

That's one reason I would get DirecTV.
 
ansky212 said:
WNTIRadio said:
I watch all of my "network" TV off the log periodic antenna on the roof. I have a mast mounted amp. For an investment of $115 total, about a month of cable, I have an excellent HD picture I can watch. Everything else comes from Hulu or Netflix. Which is $16 a month total. Much better than the $130 month for cable.
Click to expand...

This will work as long as you're not a big sports fan. Aside from the NFL and some national weekend baseball and basketball, you're out of luck.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, I was able to watch the blacked out Buccaneer games from an antenna I have aimed toward Ft. Myers. And I was able to watch it in the car via my slingbox attached to a digital tuner at home from the same antenna.

Jeff in Sa-ra-so-ta!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom