Radio 2010

[dhoule]

Radio 2010

92.9 Spanish CHR (WBOS)
93.7 Urban (new calls)
94.5 Today's Hit Music/Rythmic Leaning (WJMN)
96.9 Talk (WTTK)
98.5 First Decade Music (2000-2010) (WBMX)
99.5 Country--80s, 90s, and First Decade Country
100.7 Classic Rock (1985-2000) (WZLX)
101.7 Spanish AC (New Calls)
102.5 Classical (WCRB)
103.3 Big Hits of the 70s and 80s (New Calls)
104.1 Classic Rock (1970=-1985)(WBCN)
105.7 New Rock (New Calls)
106.7 Light Rock of the 80s,90s, and First Decade (WMJX)
107.9 Today's Hit Music (WXKS)

590 Religious
680 Business Talk
850 Sports
1030 News
1200 Talk
1430 Talk
1510 Relgious

 

[neanderpol]

> Radio 2010
>
> 92.9 Spanish CHR (WBOS)
> 93.7 Urban (new calls)
> 94.5 Today's Hit Music/Rythmic Leaning (WJMN)
> 96.9 Talk (WTTK)
> 98.5 First Decade Music (2000-2010) (WBMX)
> 99.5 Country--80s, 90s, and First Decade Country
> 100.7 Classic Rock (1985-2000) (WZLX)
> 101.7 Spanish AC (New Calls)
> 102.5 Classical (WCRB)
> 103.3 Big Hits of the 70s and 80s (New Calls)
> 104.1 Classic Rock (1970=-1985)(WBCN)
> 105.7 New Rock (New Calls)
> 106.7 Light Rock of the 80s,90s, and First Decade (WMJX)
> 107.9 Today's Hit Music (WXKS)
>
> 590 Religious
> 680 Business Talk
> 850 Sports
> 1030 News
> 1200 Talk
> 1430 Talk
> 1510 Relgious


Pssst...107.3 over here...c'mon!

 

[pqgeorge]

> > Radio 2010
> >
> > 92.9 Spanish CHR (WBOS)
> > 93.7 Urban (new calls)
> > 94.5 Today's Hit Music/Rythmic Leaning (WJMN)
> > 96.9 Talk (WTTK)
> > 98.5 First Decade Music (2000-2010) (WBMX)
> > 99.5 Country--80s, 90s, and First Decade Country
> > 100.7 Classic Rock (1985-2000) (WZLX)
> > 101.7 Spanish AC (New Calls)
> > 102.5 Classical (WCRB)
> > 103.3 Big Hits of the 70s and 80s (New Calls)
> > 104.1 Classic Rock (1970=-1985)(WBCN)
> > 105.7 New Rock (New Calls)
> > 106.7 Light Rock of the 80s,90s, and First Decade (WMJX)
> > 107.9 Today's Hit Music (WXKS)
> >
> > 590 Religious
> > 680 Business Talk
> > 850 Sports
> > 1030 News
> > 1200 Talk
> > 1430 Talk
> > 1510 Relgious
>
>
> Pssst...107.3 over here...c'mon!

Nah, 107.3 is still a Worm-town area station (no matter how much they try to be a Boston station), in spite of their Boston studio. But nonetheless, don't expect any changes to that station.
> <P ID="signature">______________
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts</P>

 

[neanderpol]

OK, I HAVE to know why...

Why is WAAF is "Worcester station"?

What about it makes it a "Worcester" station?

It's located in Boston.
It programs to Boston.
It typically outperforms Boston's other rock stations in it's target demos.
It draws Boston advertising dollars.
It's far more promotional in the Boston area than outside it.
It's reportedly responsible for more rock product selling in Boston than the other guys.
It's Programming, Sales, and Airstaff are all locally born n' bred.

So...Can someone explain to me why it's a Worcester station?

And I know...my chops are being busted, but let's assume I don't work there, and I'm just asking what defines station's market?

Because WAAF is more the Rock of Boston than the other guys...

 

[Smoke]

Which city is the transmitter closer to? (no txt)

Which city is the transmitter closer to?

 

[neanderpol]

Re: Which city is the transmitter closer to? (no txt)

> Which city is the transmitter closer to?

What difference does it make?

That means:

WXRV is a Portsmouth NH station, and WROR is a Worcester station

And the Boston Bruins are owned by a Buffalo business, so that must make them a Buffalo team right? And any station licensed to any city BUT Boston is not really a Boston station.

Flawed logic, but I suppose it's what you choose to use.

 

[pqgeorge]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

107.3 is originally a Worcester allocation. WAAF was originally located on Mechanic Street in Downtown Worcester. Their transmitter is still on Ashnebumskit Hill in Paxton, right outside of Worcester. WAAF does NOT have a City Grade signal in Boston. It is a suburban station. It is now licensed to Westborough, a suburb of Worcester. They are trying to be all Boston, but no matter what they do, it will never be a "Boston" station.

> Why is WAAF is "Worcester station"?
>
> What about it makes it a "Worcester" station?
>
> It's located in Boston.
> It programs to Boston.
> It typically outperforms Boston's other rock stations in
> it's target demos.
> It draws Boston advertising dollars.
> It's far more promotional in the Boston area than outside
> it.
> It's reportedly responsible for more rock product selling in
> Boston than the other guys.
> It's Programming, Sales, and Airstaff are all locally born
> n' bred.
>
> So...Can someone explain to me why it's a Worcester station?
>
>
> And I know...my chops are being busted, but let's assume I
> don't work there, and I'm just asking what defines station's
> market?
>
> Because WAAF is more the Rock of Boston than the other
> guys...
> <P ID="signature">______________
Peter Q. George (K1XRB)
Whitman, Massachusetts</P>

 

[JustinT]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> 107.3 is originally a Worcester allocation. WAAF was
> originally located on Mechanic Street in Downtown Worcester.
> Their transmitter is still on Ashnebumskit Hill in Paxton,
> right outside of Worcester. WAAF does NOT have a City Grade
> signal in Boston. It is a suburban station. It is now
> licensed to Westborough, a suburb of Worcester. They are
> trying to be all Boston, but no matter what they do, it will
> never be a "Boston" station.
>

I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst set of allocations of any major city. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty close) have a great setup that gives a ton of frequencies.

Example: Boston has a 106.7. So do all of the above. All of the above also have a 107.5 city-grade signal, and some have 107.1 and 107.9 rimshots. Instead, we have a 107.9 city-grade signal and a 107.3 rimshot. This cancels out the possibility of one rimshot in the 107's. Looking further, Boston does not have a single city-grade signal in the 101's, while the above can claim 101.1 both 101.9. Even with the close markets nearby; you can give 107.1, 105.5, 104.7, etc. to Providence.

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, and 107.5 is 20 city-grade potential commercial frequencies.

92.9, 94.5, 95.3, 96.9, 98.5, 100.7, 102.5, 103.3, 104.1, 105.7, 106.7, 107.9 is only 12. Add the rimshots of 92.5, 93.7, 97.7, 99.1, 99.5, 101.7, and 107.3 to get a total of 19 signals targetting Boston.

So, we actually have a smaller total of rimshots and city-grade signals than city-grade signals alone in the cities above. You'd have to add one of the worst rimshots, like 104.9 or 95.9, which don't even attempt to serve Boston, to get a total of 20.

 

[raccoonradio]

No, prob. still general talk like what they have now. Business news? They might as well run all Matthew Lesko commercials instead!

> 680 Business Talk

 

[neanderpol]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> 107.3 is originally a Worcester allocation. WAAF was
> originally located on Mechanic Street in Downtown Worcester.
> Their transmitter is still on Ashnebumskit Hill in Paxton,
> right outside of Worcester. WAAF does NOT have a City Grade
> signal in Boston. It is a suburban station. It is now
> licensed to Westborough, a suburb of Worcester. They are
> trying to be all Boston, but no matter what they do, it will
> never be a "Boston" station.

If you say so.

 

[HHH]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst set of
> allocations of any major city. New York, Los Angeles,
> Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty close)
> have a great setup that gives a ton of frequencies.


I'll bet that part of the problem is that, unlike those other cities, Boston has a full-up, stand-alone TV and radio market only 42 miles away (Providence).
The closest similar situation among the cities which you mentioned is Philadelphia, which is 90 miles from New York City, and many NY and Philly FMs actually share the same frequency (like 101.1). This gives each station about a 45 mile coverage area against each other. This is lousy, but tolerable...at least each city gets a full load of stations. No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency Providence. Add to that Worcester and Manchester, Lowell/Lawrence/Haverill, Brockton and Plymouth (many potential Boston frequencies) and it can't be done.
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by HHH on 08/08/05 02:45 AM.</FONT></P>

 

[JustinT]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> > I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst set of
> > allocations of any major city. New York, Los Angeles,
> > Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty close)
> > have a great setup that gives a ton of frequencies.
>
>
> I'll bet that part of the problem is that, unlike those
> other cities, Boston has a full-up, stand-alone TV and radio
> market only 42 miles away (Providence).
> The closest similar situation among the cities which you
> mentioned is Philadelphia, which is 90 miles from New York
> City, and many NY and Philly FMs actually share the same
> frequency (like 101.1). This gives each station about a 45
> mile coverage area against each other. This is lousy, but
> tolerable...at least each city gets a full load of stations.
> No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> Providence. Add to that Worcester and Manchester,
> Lowell/Lawrence/Haverill, Brockton and Plymouth (many
> potential Boston frequencies) and it can't be done.
>

Funny you say...

> No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> Providence.

For first-adjacent, 101.5 WWBB and 101.7 WFNX. And it's terrible.

But here's the thing. Give Boston the Chicago lineup of city-grade signals. Then, allocate enough of the stations like 93.5 and 94.3 to these other markets. In Chicago, the COL of the 103.1 rimshot (Highland Park, IL) is 28.3 miles from Chicago. If Providence is 40 miles or so, then you could certainly use second adjacents.

I'm jealous of Philly because they're getting those 107.9 and 97.5 move-ins. We kind-of got one move-in (WBOT), but it's not like Philly, Denver or Phoenix, etc. How about this (modeled after Chicago)...

92.3 - WBOS
92.7 - WXRV
93.1 - WMKK
93.5 - WSNE
93.9 - WJMN
94.3 - WHJY
94.7 - WHRB
95.1 - WBRU
95.5 - WTKK
95.9 - WJFD
96.3 - WBOT
96.7 - WCTK
97.1 - WBMX
97.5 - WKKB
97.9 - WPLM
98.3 - WWBB
98.7 - WKLB
99.1 - WEEI
99.5 - WZLX
99.9 - WWLI
100.3 - WFNX
100.7 - WWKX
101.1 - WCRB
101.5 - WZID
101.9 - WODS
102.3 - WATD
102.7 - WBCN
103.1 - WBOQ
103.5 - WROR
103.9 - WSRS
104.3 - WMJX
104.7 - WHEB
105.1 - WAAF
105.5 - WMLL
105.9 - WXKS
106.3 - free rimshot signal
106.7 - free city-grade signal
107.1 - free rimshot signal
107.5 - free city-grade signal
107.9 - free rimshot signal

I probably skipped a few, but here I'm putting all Boston stations on city-grade signals (including WHRB, WBOT, WFNX), and you could probably first adjacent some stations on Cape Cod, etc.

It will never happen, but wouldn't this be a much better plan than what we have now? Plus, by my count, you get 2 city-grade signals and 3 free rimshots. Use them for whatever, K-Love, La Kalle, the long awaited WILD-FM...

 

[jlehmann]

Re: Which city is the transmitter closer to? (no txt)

> > Which city is the transmitter closer to?
>
> What difference does it make?
>
> That means:
>
> WXRV is a Portsmouth NH station, and WROR is a Worcester
> station
>
> And the Boston Bruins are owned by a Buffalo business, so
> that must make them a Buffalo team right? And any station
> licensed to any city BUT Boston is not really a Boston
> station.
>
> Flawed logic, but I suppose it's what you choose to use.
>

Umm, WROR's transmitter is in Boston.

 

[jjkktj]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> > > I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst set
> of
> > > allocations of any major city. New York, Los Angeles,
> > > Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty
> close)
> > > have a great setup that gives a ton of frequencies.
> >
> >
> > I'll bet that part of the problem is that, unlike those
> > other cities, Boston has a full-up, stand-alone TV and
> radio
> > market only 42 miles away (Providence).
> > The closest similar situation among the cities which you
> > mentioned is Philadelphia, which is 90 miles from New York
>
> > City, and many NY and Philly FMs actually share the same
> > frequency (like 101.1). This gives each station about a
> 45
> > mile coverage area against each other. This is lousy, but
>
> > tolerable...at least each city gets a full load of
> stations.
> > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> > Providence. Add to that Worcester and Manchester,
> > Lowell/Lawrence/Haverill, Brockton and Plymouth (many
> > potential Boston frequencies) and it can't be done.
> >
>
> Funny you say...
>
> > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> > Providence.
>
> For first-adjacent, 101.5 WWBB and 101.7 WFNX. And it's
> terrible.
>
> But here's the thing. Give Boston the Chicago lineup of
> city-grade signals. Then, allocate enough of the stations
> like 93.5 and 94.3 to these other markets. In Chicago, the
> COL of the 103.1 rimshot (Highland Park, IL) is 28.3 miles
> from Chicago. If Providence is 40 miles or so, then you
> could certainly use second adjacents.
>
> I'm jealous of Philly because they're getting those 107.9
> and 97.5 move-ins. We kind-of got one move-in (WBOT), but
> it's not like Philly, Denver or Phoenix, etc. How about this
> (modeled after Chicago)...
>
> 92.3 - WBOS
> 92.7 - WXRV
> 93.1 - WMKK
> 93.5 - WSNE
> 93.9 - WJMN
> 94.3 - WHJY
> 94.7 - WHRB
> 95.1 - WBRU
> 95.5 - WTKK
> 95.9 - WJFD
> 96.3 - WBOT
> 96.7 - WCTK
> 97.1 - WBMX
> 97.5 - WKKB
> 97.9 - WPLM
> 98.3 - WWBB
> 98.7 - WKLB
> 99.1 - WEEI
> 99.5 - WZLX
> 99.9 - WWLI
> 100.3 - WFNX
> 100.7 - WWKX
> 101.1 - WCRB
> 101.5 - WZID
> 101.9 - WODS
> 102.3 - WATD
> 102.7 - WBCN
> 103.1 - WBOQ
> 103.5 - WROR
> 103.9 - WSRS
> 104.3 - WMJX
> 104.7 - WHEB
> 105.1 - WAAF
> 105.5 - WMLL
> 105.9 - WXKS
> 106.3 - free rimshot signal
> 106.7 - free city-grade signal
> 107.1 - free rimshot signal
> 107.5 - free city-grade signal
> 107.9 - free rimshot signal
>
> I probably skipped a few, but here I'm putting all Boston
> stations on city-grade signals (including WHRB, WBOT, WFNX),
> and you could probably first adjacent some stations on Cape
> Cod, etc.
>
> It will never happen, but wouldn't this be a much better
> plan than what we have now? Plus, by my count, you get 2
> city-grade signals and 3 free rimshots. Use them for
> whatever, K-Love, La Kalle, the long awaited WILD-FM...
>
So you think Southern NH should only have one FM signal?? Is that very fair?

 

[neanderpol]

Re: Which city is the transmitter closer to? (no txt)

> > > Which city is the transmitter closer to?
> >
> > What difference does it make?
> >
> > That means:
> >
> > WXRV is a Portsmouth NH station, and WROR is a Worcester
> > station
> >
> > And the Boston Bruins are owned by a Buffalo business, so
> > that must make them a Buffalo team right? And any station
> > licensed to any city BUT Boston is not really a Boston
> > station.
> >
> > Flawed logic, but I suppose it's what you choose to use.
> >
>
> Umm, WROR's transmitter is in Boston.
>

According to Boston radio.org Licensed to Framingham.

 

[JustinT]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> > > > I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst set
>
> > of
> > > > allocations of any major city. New York, Los Angeles,
> > > > Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty
> > close)
> > > > have a great setup that gives a ton of frequencies.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll bet that part of the problem is that, unlike those
> > > other cities, Boston has a full-up, stand-alone TV and
> > radio
> > > market only 42 miles away (Providence).
> > > The closest similar situation among the cities which you
>
> > > mentioned is Philadelphia, which is 90 miles from New
> York
> >
> > > City, and many NY and Philly FMs actually share the same
>
> > > frequency (like 101.1). This gives each station about a
>
> > 45
> > > mile coverage area against each other. This is lousy,
> but
> >
> > > tolerable...at least each city gets a full load of
> > stations.
> > > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> > > Providence. Add to that Worcester and Manchester,
> > > Lowell/Lawrence/Haverill, Brockton and Plymouth (many
> > > potential Boston frequencies) and it can't be done.
> > >
> >
> > Funny you say...
> >
> > > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> > > Providence.
> >
> > For first-adjacent, 101.5 WWBB and 101.7 WFNX. And it's
> > terrible.
> >
> > But here's the thing. Give Boston the Chicago lineup of
> > city-grade signals. Then, allocate enough of the stations
> > like 93.5 and 94.3 to these other markets. In Chicago, the
>
> > COL of the 103.1 rimshot (Highland Park, IL) is 28.3 miles
>
> > from Chicago. If Providence is 40 miles or so, then you
> > could certainly use second adjacents.
> >
> > I'm jealous of Philly because they're getting those 107.9
> > and 97.5 move-ins. We kind-of got one move-in (WBOT), but
> > it's not like Philly, Denver or Phoenix, etc. How about
> this
> > (modeled after Chicago)...
> >
> > 92.3 - WBOS
> > 92.7 - WXRV
> > 93.1 - WMKK
> > 93.5 - WSNE
> > 93.9 - WJMN
> > 94.3 - WHJY
> > 94.7 - WHRB
> > 95.1 - WBRU
> > 95.5 - WTKK
> > 95.9 - WJFD
> > 96.3 - WBOT
> > 96.7 - WCTK
> > 97.1 - WBMX
> > 97.5 - WKKB
> > 97.9 - WPLM
> > 98.3 - WWBB
> > 98.7 - WKLB
> > 99.1 - WEEI
> > 99.5 - WZLX
> > 99.9 - WWLI
> > 100.3 - WFNX
> > 100.7 - WWKX
> > 101.1 - WCRB
> > 101.5 - WZID
> > 101.9 - WODS
> > 102.3 - WATD
> > 102.7 - WBCN
> > 103.1 - WBOQ
> > 103.5 - WROR
> > 103.9 - WSRS
> > 104.3 - WMJX
> > 104.7 - WHEB
> > 105.1 - WAAF
> > 105.5 - WMLL
> > 105.9 - WXKS
> > 106.3 - free rimshot signal
> > 106.7 - free city-grade signal
> > 107.1 - free rimshot signal
> > 107.5 - free city-grade signal
> > 107.9 - free rimshot signal

> So you think Southern NH should only have one FM signal??
> Is that very fair?

No, so in my "plan" I gave them WZID, WMLL and WHEB, as those are the three signals from NH most audible in the Boston area. You could co-channel some of the Cape Cod stations for more local frequencies (WNHW, etc.)

 

[JustinT]

Re: Which city is the transmitter closer to? (no txt)

> > Umm, WROR's transmitter is in Boston.
> >
>
> According to Boston radio.org Licensed to Framingham.
>

Framingham to Boston - 21.7 miles
Framingham to Worcester - 25.1 miles

Framingham is far more associated with Boston (and in particular, MetroWest) despite being one town away from Worcester County.

Somewhat similarly, Haverhill is 29.6 miles from Portsmouth, and 36.3 miles from Boston.

However you look at it, Worcester is 42.9 miles from Boston, and Paxton is 50.7 miles from Boston. Even if WAAF were a Class C, it would be impossible to say that the station is not a rimshot. It's a very good rimshot in the western suburbs, but unlike "The Rock of Boston", 107.3 certainly has some signal problems downtown.

And speaking of that city-grade station, anyone see their new logo? Seems kinda modern.

 

[jjkktj]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> > > > > I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst
> set
> >
> > > of
> > > > > allocations of any major city. New York, Los
> Angeles,
> > > > > Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty
> > > close)
> > > > > have a great setup that gives a ton of frequencies.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll bet that part of the problem is that, unlike
> those
> > > > other cities, Boston has a full-up, stand-alone TV and
>
> > > radio
> > > > market only 42 miles away (Providence).
> > > > The closest similar situation among the cities which
> you
> >
> > > > mentioned is Philadelphia, which is 90 miles from New
> > York
> > >
> > > > City, and many NY and Philly FMs actually share the
> same
> >
> > > > frequency (like 101.1). This gives each station about
> a
> >
> > > 45
> > > > mile coverage area against each other. This is lousy,
>
> > but
> > >
> > > > tolerable...at least each city gets a full load of
> > > stations.
> > > > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> > > > Providence. Add to that Worcester and Manchester,
> > > > Lowell/Lawrence/Haverill, Brockton and Plymouth (many
> > > > potential Boston frequencies) and it can't be done.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny you say...
> > >
> > > > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
> > > > Providence.
> > >
> > > For first-adjacent, 101.5 WWBB and 101.7 WFNX. And it's
> > > terrible.
> > >
> > > But here's the thing. Give Boston the Chicago lineup of
> > > city-grade signals. Then, allocate enough of the
> stations
> > > like 93.5 and 94.3 to these other markets. In Chicago,
> the
> >
> > > COL of the 103.1 rimshot (Highland Park, IL) is 28.3
> miles
> >
> > > from Chicago. If Providence is 40 miles or so, then you
> > > could certainly use second adjacents.
> > >
> > > I'm jealous of Philly because they're getting those
> 107.9
> > > and 97.5 move-ins. We kind-of got one move-in (WBOT),
> but
> > > it's not like Philly, Denver or Phoenix, etc. How about
> > this
> > > (modeled after Chicago)...
> > >
> > > 92.3 - WBOS
> > > 92.7 - WXRV
> > > 93.1 - WMKK
> > > 93.5 - WSNE
> > > 93.9 - WJMN
> > > 94.3 - WHJY
> > > 94.7 - WHRB
> > > 95.1 - WBRU
> > > 95.5 - WTKK
> > > 95.9 - WJFD
> > > 96.3 - WBOT
> > > 96.7 - WCTK
> > > 97.1 - WBMX
> > > 97.5 - WKKB
> > > 97.9 - WPLM
> > > 98.3 - WWBB
> > > 98.7 - WKLB
> > > 99.1 - WEEI
> > > 99.5 - WZLX
> > > 99.9 - WWLI
> > > 100.3 - WFNX
> > > 100.7 - WWKX
> > > 101.1 - WCRB
> > > 101.5 - WZID
> > > 101.9 - WODS
> > > 102.3 - WATD
> > > 102.7 - WBCN
> > > 103.1 - WBOQ
> > > 103.5 - WROR
> > > 103.9 - WSRS
> > > 104.3 - WMJX
> > > 104.7 - WHEB
> > > 105.1 - WAAF
> > > 105.5 - WMLL
> > > 105.9 - WXKS
> > > 106.3 - free rimshot signal
> > > 106.7 - free city-grade signal
> > > 107.1 - free rimshot signal
> > > 107.5 - free city-grade signal
> > > 107.9 - free rimshot signal
>
> > So you think Southern NH should only have one FM signal??
>
> > Is that very fair?
>
> No, so in my "plan" I gave them WZID, WMLL and WHEB, as
> those are the three signals from NH most audible in the
> Boston area. You could co-channel some of the Cape Cod
> stations for more local frequencies (WNHW, etc.)
>
Only problem with WMLL is 105.5 is currently assigned to Concord (WJYY).
I don't see a place for WOKQ. They should have at least a Class B frequency. Maybe stations like WFNQ, WERZ, can co-channel with the Cape and Providence however WOKQ is number 1 in the Seacoast and in Concord/Laconia.

 

[JustinT]

Re: OK, I HAVE to know why...

> > > > > > I'm said it before, but Boston must have the worst
>
> > set
> > >
> > > > of
> > > > > > allocations of any major city. New York, Los
> > Angeles,
> > > > > > Chicago, Miami, and a few others (Denver is pretty
>
> > > > close)
> > > > > > have a great setup that gives a ton of
> frequencies.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll bet that part of the problem is that, unlike
> > those
> > > > > other cities, Boston has a full-up, stand-alone TV
> and
> >
> > > > radio
> > > > > market only 42 miles away (Providence).
> > > > > The closest similar situation among the cities which
>
> > you
> > >
> > > > > mentioned is Philadelphia, which is 90 miles from
> New
> > > York
> > > >
> > > > > City, and many NY and Philly FMs actually share the
> > same
> > >
> > > > > frequency (like 101.1). This gives each station
> about
> > a
> > >
> > > > 45
> > > > > mile coverage area against each other. This is
> lousy,
> >
> > > but
> > > >
> > > > > tolerable...at least each city gets a full load of
> > > > stations.
> > > > > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
>
> > > > > Providence. Add to that Worcester and Manchester,
> > > > > Lowell/Lawrence/Haverill, Brockton and Plymouth
> (many
> > > > > potential Boston frequencies) and it can't be done.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Funny you say...
> > > >
> > > > > No way can you same-channel or even first adjacency
>
> > > > > Providence.
> > > >
> > > > For first-adjacent, 101.5 WWBB and 101.7 WFNX. And
> it's
> > > > terrible.
> > > >
> > > > But here's the thing. Give Boston the Chicago lineup
> of
> > > > city-grade signals. Then, allocate enough of the
> > stations
> > > > like 93.5 and 94.3 to these other markets. In Chicago,
>
> > the
> > >
> > > > COL of the 103.1 rimshot (Highland Park, IL) is 28.3
> > miles
> > >
> > > > from Chicago. If Providence is 40 miles or so, then
> you
> > > > could certainly use second adjacents.
> > > >
> > > > I'm jealous of Philly because they're getting those
> > 107.9
> > > > and 97.5 move-ins. We kind-of got one move-in (WBOT),
> > but
> > > > it's not like Philly, Denver or Phoenix, etc. How
> about
> > > this
> > > > (modeled after Chicago)...
> > > >
> > > > 92.3 - WBOS
> > > > 92.7 - WXRV
> > > > 93.1 - WMKK
> > > > 93.5 - WSNE
> > > > 93.9 - WJMN
> > > > 94.3 - WHJY
> > > > 94.7 - WHRB
> > > > 95.1 - WBRU
> > > > 95.5 - WTKK
> > > > 95.9 - WJFD
> > > > 96.3 - WBOT
> > > > 96.7 - WCTK
> > > > 97.1 - WBMX
> > > > 97.5 - WKKB
> > > > 97.9 - WPLM
> > > > 98.3 - WWBB
> > > > 98.7 - WKLB
> > > > 99.1 - WEEI
> > > > 99.5 - WZLX
> > > > 99.9 - WWLI
> > > > 100.3 - WFNX
> > > > 100.7 - WWKX
> > > > 101.1 - WCRB
> > > > 101.5 - WZID
> > > > 101.9 - WODS
> > > > 102.3 - WATD
> > > > 102.7 - WBCN
> > > > 103.1 - WBOQ
> > > > 103.5 - WROR
> > > > 103.9 - WSRS
> > > > 104.3 - WMJX
> > > > 104.7 - WHEB
> > > > 105.1 - WAAF
> > > > 105.5 - WMLL
> > > > 105.9 - WXKS
> > > > 106.3 - free rimshot signal
> > > > 106.7 - free city-grade signal
> > > > 107.1 - free rimshot signal
> > > > 107.5 - free city-grade signal
> > > > 107.9 - free rimshot signal
> >
> > > So you think Southern NH should only have one FM
> signal??
> >
> > > Is that very fair?
> >
> > No, so in my "plan" I gave them WZID, WMLL and WHEB, as
> > those are the three signals from NH most audible in the
> > Boston area. You could co-channel some of the Cape Cod
> > stations for more local frequencies (WNHW, etc.)
> >
> Only problem with WMLL is 105.5 is currently assigned to
> Concord (WJYY).
> I don't see a place for WOKQ. They should have at least a
> Class B frequency. Maybe stations like WFNQ, WERZ, can
> co-channel with the Cape and Providence however WOKQ is
> number 1 in the Seacoast and in Concord/Laconia.

WMLL can have 107.9, and give 105.5 to WOKQ. I could care less about what stations are on what frequencies, I just put them in as I thought of them.

But my point is just about how poorly the Boston frequencies were allocated. I'll go back to Chicago; they don't have Market #34 in Joliet, DeKalb or Lake County, but they do use many of the second adjacents for other markets. Meanwhile, some of them (like 107.9 Aurora) have remarkably good signals for rimshots.

If the FCC could go in and change all of the allocations, we'd really have a much better system of stations. I'm upset over holes like 102.9. There's a huge hole for a station at 102.9, but market #9 is treated to DXing stations in Maine, Hartford and Cape Cod instead. Rather than having a rimshot in the western suburbs at 106.3, it's interference from WFNQ in the north and WWKX in the south.

Unfortunately, I think it's probably too late to rebuild the frequencies, with satellite radio, iPods, etc. It's a shame.

 

[rapking]

Radio
In 2008
92.9 (WBOS) GARBAGE
93.7 Worse than GARBAGE
94.5 Today's Hit Music/Rythmic Leaning (WJMN) AVG
96.9 Talk (WTTK) GARBAGE
98.5 Below AVG
99.5 Better than that old Bull Riding S--t Junk ,that was here
100.7 Classic Rock JUNK
101.7 JUNK
102.5 There That Bull Riding S--t Music JUNK
103.3 Avg
104.1 Station Suck , But The Pats are here = AVG
105.7 JUNK
106.7 AVG
107.9 AVG

590 JUNK
680 JUNK
850 OUTSTANDING , THE SPORTS LEGEND !
1030 AVG
1200 JUNK
1430 JUNK
1510 TRASH