stations that sell their transmitter site & move it, stations that were protecting that station that sold

[alok]

When a station sells their transmitter site land and moves say to a shared site and goes from a good signal - say on 550 khz - 5kw DA-2 to a less powerful NON-DA signal ( 1kw day & 150 watts night ) . . . can stations say 100-125 miles away on the same frequency ( 550 ) or even on an adjacent frequency, can they now apply to increase power in a null that was protecting the station that downgraded it facilities?
Maybe that null is now in a built-up area and it would benefit them.

Before you jump in and say nobody will do that - AM is dead . . . let's say the station that wants to do this has its transmitter in a swamp / wetland area that no developer would ever want to buy and the station does very well in the ratings, locals love it.
They would like to open up a null that they had to protect the station that is now operating at much lower power and non-directional.

I would think that the station that downgraded has to re-license their facility to the new operating parameters.

So that would mean that other stations if they can afford to do it and are doing well can now make their signal better, say in a null they had to protect the now downgraded facility.

 

[Kelly A]

When a station sells their transmitter site land and moves say to a shared site and goes from a good signal - say on 550 khz - 5kw DA-2 to a less powerful NON-DA signal ( 1kw day & 150 watts night ) . . . can stations say 100-125 miles away on the same frequency ( 550 ) or even on an adjacent frequency, can they now apply to increase power in a null that was protecting the station that downgraded it facilities?
Maybe that null is now in a built-up area and it would benefit them.

Before you jump in and say nobody will do that - AM is dead . . . let's say the station that wants to do this has its transmitter in a swamp / wetland area that no developer would ever want to buy and the station does very well in the ratings, locals love it.
They would like to open up a null that they had to protect the station that is now operating at much lower power and non-directional.

I would think that the station that downgraded has to re-license their facility to the new operating parameters.

So that would mean that other stations if they can afford to do it and are doing well can now make their signal better, say in a null they had to protect the now downgraded facility.

There are a lot more variables to consider, but technically? Sure.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Yes. Stations only have to protect facilities that are still licensed or permitted.

However, a station downgrading from Class B to Class D is relatively unlikely to open up a lot of possibilities for co-channel stations.

Let's look at 1070, where KNX is the dominant station. There are a number of 1070s in the east, all either directional away from L.A., or daytimers.

1070 in Indianapolis sold their tower land in 2021. But their license still indicates that 6 tower facility along I-65. They have been operating with Special Temporary Authority for over a year. Because that is still the licensed antenna, no one can adjust their facilities.

Even if WFNI turned in its license altogether, that probably would not result in a scramble for upgrades. 1070 WTSO/Madison WI has co-channel protections for Indianapolis, Hannibal, MO, Sarnia, ON, Verndale, MN and Esterville, IA. You could imagine they might want to improve their coverage of the southern suburbs of Madison, but it's not clear that they could do it without affecting their interference with one of the other co-channel stations, especially Hannibal.

But the real question is the cost-benefit analysis. How much money does WTSO make, and would they really make that much more if their coverage area included New Glarus, WI 24/7?

 

[Greg Strickland]

alok-

If the station licensee would like to do this, I recommend encouraging the licensee to discuss this with a professional consulting engineer ASAP. They should do this because the circumstances may indeed permit them to improve their signal.

It is not in the best interest of the station to provide any more information about its identity here.

 

[boiseengineer]

I know of a couple cases where stations could dramatically improve their night time signal but have not.
Return on investment isn't there.

 

[Kelly A]

I know of a couple cases where stations could dramatically improve their night time signal but have not.
Return on investment isn't there.

And that's exactly right. You're lucky if you can get away with adjustments of modifying a phasor to let out a null, but you still have all the consulting cost, and hours of work. If major equipment costs are involved like replacement of a transmitter or phasor, you could be looking at a bill that exceeds the value of the station. That's assuming one can amortize the costs over the upcoming ten years.
Many AM's don't see enough future, let alone revenue potential to justify the expense.

 

[RadioGuy1864]

I know of a couple cases where stations could dramatically improve their night time signal but have not.
Return on investment isn't there.

In fact, many AM stations are doing the opposite, downgrading from multiple towers to one tower.