Paxton As WAAF Auxiliary Transmitter Site

[Laurence Glavin]

There was a posting to the New York Radio Message Board (not the radio-info.com NYC Board) to the effect that the Paxton site for WAAF would function as the station's auxiliary transmitter location. I don't know if it's a rule, but shouldn't an AUXILIARY transmitter site match the main site as much as possible? It's been posted here that WAAF is now weaker in the Springfield area and parts of neighboring Vermont and Connecticut. It seems to me that some enterprising broadcaster could take advantage of this and request a CP to move to 107.1 or 107.5 let's say in Brattleboro, VT or Enfield, CT. WAAF's signal from Boylston would seem to make this feasible, while the signaL eminating from Asnebumskit Hill would e too strong. If a drop-in were to appear where 107.3 USED to be strong, wouldn't WAAF be forced to alter its auxiliary transmitter to reduce its coverage to the west?

 

[pqgeorge]

>>If a drop-in were to appear where 107.3 USED to be strong, wouldn't WAAF be forced to alter its auxiliary transmitter to reduce its coverage to the west?<<

That is a definite possibility. I can tell you that the 107.3 signal from Boylston really PALES, as compared the old Paxton site. The Asnesbumskit signal was more robust in Downtown Boston compared to the current site. I honestly don't know WHY they wanted to downgrade what was probably one of the best coverage areas in New England (except for Mt. Washington) for what they now have, a very p**s weak signal. It's lousy. Now that 'AAF has the full-powered repeater on Great Blue Hill on 97.7, I don't know why they would want to stick with the weaker signal of 107.3 from Boylston. Paxton is frankly the better of the two. But as you pointed out, somebody actual could try to drop-in a new co-channel station or some adjacent channel, since WAAF basically threw away the Western portion of its' coverage area. If that is the case, 'AAF would have to power down and directionalize the Paxton site in order to stay within the guidelines of the main coverage area which is licensed to the Boylston site. I hope they go back to Paxton for keeps, otherwise... 'AAF will permanantly sacrifice a lot of real estate and potential advertisers in New Hampshire, Western Mass., Connecticut and Rhode Island.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

I hope they go back to Paxton for keeps, otherwise... 'AAF will permanantly sacrifice a lot of real estate and potential advertisers in New Hampshire, Western Mass., Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Since they don't appear to be interested in pursuing advertisers in any of those areas, what good would it do them? Their goals appear to be acquiring more Boston market advertisers, and beating WBCN by the widest margin possible in the Boston market ratings.

 

[HHH]

But Eli...

They are getting Boston proper and the coast via 97.7

Paxton or Boylston does not make any difference to the Boston strategy.

So why not stay at Paxton since the whole idea of moving to Boylston was to get a better signal into Boston on 107.3, which didn't work!
The whole reason for the Boylston move is a double moot point: a) Boylston actually was WORSE in most of the city of Boston than Paxton; b) They don't need to worry about 107.3 in Boston anymore, so why not stay at Paxton and have--by far--better overall New England coverage than any of their Boston competition? Seems to me they are throwing away a great marketing advantage. And don't kid yourself.....even if they don't sell to those other regions...no station in their right mind REDUCES coverage, except to directionalize to a key area. But again, 97.7 takes care of that.

Someone before hit something that is probably true: Somebody within Entercom HAS to follow through on Boylston whatever the result since they probably spent a ton of dough on that site, and it never got into Boston as well as they predicted. Now, they can sidestep the whole thing with 97.7.

A shame, though. Paxton + Blue Hills is a killer combination, with practically no dead spots from the Berkshires to the ocean.

 

[vibe]

If one goes by the premise that a good receiving location would make a good transmitting location, then there are few places (other than Mt. Wash) that are better in New England. Back in the 80's I lived a few miles away from thePaxton site (and not the highest place in town). before getting cable, a mistake, we received all of Boston and providence (as expected) but also got 8-9-11- 21-31-50 from New hamp, 41- from Vermont 19- from Mt. greylock, 51- Pittsfield, 3-8-20-24-30 out of Ct, Hyannis on 58, all Springfield etc. In the early AM we would get WCBS 2 out of N.Y. w/ consistency (about 150 mi) There were other stations but they were too many to remember. Getting 2 8's were no big deal because we already had 4 ABC's. It was fun to watch different 11PM news shows. The point is that Paxton was an unusually good site and someone made a huge mistake w/ AAF, they have a smaller audience than before which makes no sense at all. There are lots of people upset w/ the move, particularly those who got a strong signal in Conn and now receive NO signal whatsoever.

 

[Laurence Glavin]

Regardless of whether they might or might not be able to generate sales from west of Woostah, for people traversing the Mass Pike, WBCN disappears as you head west due to the 104.1 in Waterbury...for a station aiming at the same demo, reliable coverage on 107.3 alone from Weston to Westfield can't hurt.

 

[raccoonradio]

from Scott Fybush's column today

http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html

"...while the move there ("Stiles Hill in Boylston") from WAAF's original site on Mount Asnebumskit in Paxton has been criticized for reducing the station's renowned reach into western New England, we're hearing that there are no plans to rethink the move and return to Paxton. (The coverage lost as a result of the move from Paxton to Boylston was, after all, well outside the Boston market, where WAAF makes all its money.)"

(WAAF=We Added Another Frequency)

 

[vibe]

I put this on another blog last night but I was amazed to find AAF's translator on 97.7 to be coming in stronger on the car radio in Sutton and Northbridge (I could get them on seek) than AAF from their new location. There were places where the radio scanned from 106.7 to 107.9 w/o hitting 107.3 (which came in just fine manually tuning it). By contrast WHOM 94.9 was coming in on seek in Sutton (not Northbridge). THAT was an eye opener.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

I put this on another blog last night but I was amazed to find AAF's translator on 97.7 to be coming in stronger on the car radio in Sutton and Northbridge (I could get them on seek) than AAF from their new location. There were places where the radio scanned from 106.7 to 107.9 w/o hitting 107.3 (which came in just fine manually tuning it). By contrast WHOM 94.9 was coming in on seek in Sutton (not Northbridge). THAT was an eye opener.

You may have been in the "null"...

 

[Ozman]

used to listen to both 104.1 in pomfret CT near pomfret/rectory school on the hill 97.7 doesn't make it their but all other boston station did jamn 94.5, Kiss 108 ETC. as for AAF I used to listen to them from New Haven all the way to Mt Snow VT and not need to change the dial. I can't really get them anywhere except a bit in mass at all anymore. I as well listen to them and so did the staff in the base lodge @ mt snow VT. can't get it their either! this is the dumbest move ever! hell I used to clock AAF all the way from westport CT! not anymore... why not paxton. Is entercom maketing Lazy to get Worchester? hell they could get providence and springfield mass and blow 99.3/Wccc 106.9 and 102.1 in the water if they wanted to insted of just WBCN. why the hell not? if they were on paxton they would have at least 100,000 more listeners listening on the I-91 area coridor and the major surrounding citys

-Oz

Regardless of whether they might or might not be able to generate sales from west of Woostah, for people traversing the Mass Pike, WBCN disappears as you head west due to the 104.1 in Waterbury...for a station aiming at the same demo, reliable coverage on 107.3 alone from Weston to Westfield can't hurt.

 

[vibe]

Today, I was at the Dunkin Donuts on Rt 122 in Paxton-about 1-2 mi from the old AAF site. On seek I received strong signals in all 4 compass directions incl. Providence, New Bedford, Boston, Lawrence, Amherst, Springfield, (no big deal) plus strong reception (not on seek) of Hamden CT (101.3) Hartford (96.5, 102.9) and Manchester NH (101.1) Mt. Wash (94.9), and Mt. Greylock (90.3), But AAF was not available on "seek". It is still strong enough as a preset but it's ironic that I'm finding so many nulls for WAAF even in areas where signals are strong in all directions AND so close to the Boylston transmitter.

 

[JustinT]

By contrast WHOM 94.9 was coming in on seek in Sutton (not Northbridge). THAT was an eye opener.

94.9 is a killer signal. Several weeks ago, I got 94.9 on seek on I-91 just south of Hartford, so clear that it sounded like one of the Avon Mountain FMs; knowing that there's no 94.9 in Hartford, I'd thought at first that it was someone's XM/Sirius radio. I recall that years ago someone claimed that while WHOM is a class C, Mt. Washington gives the station coverage equivalent to a station running nearly 300,000-400,000 watts.

 

[vibe]

Someone did a calculation that indicated that based on Mt. Washington's HAAT, WHOM should have a ERP of 768 watts or something like that. Did you get WAAF in your area before the switch in transmitting sites? Do you get it now?

 

[Smoke]

>>If a drop-in were to appear where 107.3 USED to be strong, wouldn't WAAF be forced to alter its auxiliary transmitter to reduce its coverage to the west?<<

That is a definite possibility. I can tell you that the 107.3 signal from Boylston really PALES, as compared the old Paxton site. The Asnesbumskit signal was more robust in Downtown Boston compared to the current site. I honestly don't know WHY they wanted to downgrade what was probably one of the best coverage areas in New England (except for Mt. Washington) for what they now have, a very p**s weak signal. It's lousy. Now that 'AAF has the full-powered repeater on Great Blue Hill on 97.7, I don't know why they would want to stick with the weaker signal of 107.3 from Boylston. Paxton is frankly the better of the two. But as you pointed out, somebody actual could try to drop-in a new co-channel station or some adjacent channel, since WAAF basically threw away the Western portion of its' coverage area. If that is the case, 'AAF would have to power down and directionalize the Paxton site in order to stay within the guidelines of the main coverage area which is licensed to the Boylston site. I hope they go back to Paxton for keeps, otherwise... 'AAF will permanantly sacrifice a lot of real estate and potential advertisers in New Hampshire, Western Mass., Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Quoted for emphasis.

 

[JustinT]

Someone did a calculation that indicated that based on Mt. Washington's HAAT, WHOM should have a ERP of 768 watts or something like that. Did you get WAAF in your area before the switch in transmitting sites? Do you get it now?

Hadn't heard that WHOM calculation before, but it makes sense. As for me and WAAF, here in Framingham, the signal comes in from the Boylston site with the same quality as it did from Paxton. I've had trouble locking in the HD signal from Boylston though, although that may be an issue with my antenna.

 

[Ozman]

is AAF directional now? according to the fcc website the Bolston AAF (spelling) primary transmitter is directional! why in gods name would they do this?

 

[Eli Polonsky]

is AAF directional now? according to the fcc website the Bolston AAF (spelling) primary transmitter is directional! why in gods name would they do this?

As I understand it, moving the transmitter about twelve miles eastward from Paxton to W. Boylston would have caused adjacent channel interference beyond the legal level within the protected contour of 50,000 watt WFCC 107.5 in Chatham (Cape Cod) had they not gone directional.

There may have been issues requiring them to protect other adjacent or co-channel stations as well. (Someone like Dan Strassberg would probably have all that info).

 

[vibe]

this may explain why there are small holes in AAF's signal so near the Boylston Towers- holes that may not show up on a preset, but when using seek. Didn't know they went directional as well.

 

[webcastboy]

IIRC, the null to the southeast is to protect Class A WFHN on 107.1 from Fairhaven more than it is to protect 107.5 on the Cape. It's also part of the reason why so many people think the new WAAF site "sucks"...that null puts a LOT less signal along metrowest's southern side and into the South Coast area. WAAF penetration along the North Shore is definitely better now than it was in Paxton; I was working and living along the northern side of 128 at the time. Hence why 97.7 is a great compliment to the new 107.3 site.

BTW, I heard on the grapevine that the original problems with the new site weren't because of the site...there was a problem with the antenna array itself; factory defect or something or other. I don't know the details, but that's why they went back to Paxton for a little while before permanently moving.

As for WHOM's "correct" ERP, the FCC's FMpower calculations state that their "correct" ERP should be about 24000 watts for their HAAT of 1161 meters. They are grandfathered in at 48000 watts, of course, but that's only a +3dB improvement. As always with FM, it's not about the wattage...it's about the height. That extra 561m of HAAT over the reference height (600m for Class C) makes a big difference.

 

[Ozman]

why the hell would any station let alone AAF give up a non directional signal to go to a directional tower ESPECIALLY WITH 97.7 NOW!
Us CT residents need AAF to compete with WCCC. without AAF it gives WCCC as well as 99.3 (lazer) and 94.1 (providence) to become a little more "lazy" leading to less special weekends/special shows that stations do. Wouldn't you think so as well? I could name several things that CCC used to do when they were competing with WMRQ 104.1. It as well seems as CCC is getting a little more lazy in the last couple of months because they do not have to worry about competing as much anymore with AAF on their East side of their listening audience.

this is just my opinion so you can disagree with me feel free to discuss this

IIRC, the null to the southeast is to protect Class A WFHN on 107.1 from Fairhaven more than it is to protect 107.5 on the Cape. It's also part of the reason why so many people think the new WAAF site "sucks"...that null puts a LOT less signal along metrowest's southern side and into the South Coast area. WAAF penetration along the North Shore is definitely better now than it was in Paxton; I was working and living along the northern side of 128 at the time. Hence why 97.7 is a great compliment to the new 107.3 site.

BTW, I heard on the grapevine that the original problems with the new site weren't because of the site...there was a problem with the antenna array itself; factory defect or something or other. I don't know the details, but that's why they went back to Paxton for a little while before permanently moving.

As for WHOM's "correct" ERP, the FCC's FMpower calculations state that their "correct" ERP should be about 24000 watts for their HAAT of 1161 meters. They are grandfathered in at 48000 watts, of course, but that's only a +3dB improvement. As always with FM, it's not about the wattage...it's about the height. That extra 561m of HAAT over the reference height (600m for Class C) makes a big difference.