WAAF Back to Worcester?

[Andy Taylor]

Check out this link to the FCC website.It appears to say" Change of Community of License from WESTBOROUGH, MA to WORCESTER, MA"Am I reading this right?
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?call=WAAF#10001

 

[mgpt6]

looks like polar plot protects Fun 107 in Fairhaven. could be a move back to Paxton; and Entercomm may have other ideas for 97.7

 

[NHRadio]

I wonder how long it will take before a certain someone starts in about 97.7 needing to be Urban AC.

looks like polar plot protects Fun 107 in Fairhaven. could be a move back to Paxton; and Entercomm may have other ideas for 97.7

 

[Eli Polonsky]

looks like polar plot protects Fun 107 in Fairhaven. could be a move back to Paxton

The coordinates and the maps are showing the W. Boylston transmitter location, not Paxton. I don't know why they changed the COL from Westborough back to Worcester.

 

[vibe]

The FCC service contour map shows the old Paxton location listed first.

 

[jlehmann]

I believe it's just some kind of mistake in the FCC database. They're still IDing as Westborough.

 

[rapking]

I wonder how long it will take before a certain someone starts in about 97.7 needing to be Urban AC.

looks like polar plot protects Fun 107 in Fairhaven. could be a move back to Paxton; and Entercomm may have other ideas for 97.7

You Called me ? BOSTON NEEDS A URBAN A/C ! ;D

 

[NHRadio]

Tell Entercom, not us. We've heard it more times that the top 5 on Radio Disney.

I wonder how long it will take before a certain someone starts in about 97.7 needing to be Urban AC.

looks like polar plot protects Fun 107 in Fairhaven. could be a move back to Paxton; and Entercomm may have other ideas for 97.7

You Called me ? BOSTON NEEDS A URBAN A/C ! ;D

 

[JustinT]

looks like polar plot protects Fun 107 in Fairhaven. could be a move back to Paxton; and Entercomm may have other ideas for 97.7

Though I would be a huge supporter of a return of urban AC, or really anything new to the market, on 97.7, it's sort of a no-brainer that 97.7 would become an FM simulcast of WEEI. Not what I'd personally like to see, but realistically that would be a very wise move on their part.

 

[BRNout]

The truly wise move for Entercom is to move WAAF's transmitter back to Paxton. Compared with West Boylston, it's a win-win. Do that and keeping 97.7 as a repeater makes a little more sense - for sales purposes.

The folly of moving WAAF to West Boylston is well documented. I have yet to travel anywhere in the market where WAAF comes in better than before, yet I go lots of places where the signal is not as good as it once was. For example, the W. Boylston tower should (theoretically) provide a superior signal into southern New Hampshire. It does not. All it did was weaken the signal enough to enable me to null out WAAF enough to get a fringe signal from WERZ in Nashua. That's something that wasn't possible there before.

If W. Boylston isn't better in S. New Hampshire, isn't noticeably better in Boston, isn't better in SE Mass, and hobbles the signal badly in central MA and elsewhere - then what good is it? Shut it off and move back to Paxton, which is an awesome stick. Besides, 97.7 covers you in those weak spots from Boston southward anyhow. This is a no-brainer.

 

[Ozman]

haha, I'll probably be one of the 1st to let you guys know when its back on Paxton because it will Boom through Most of CT and all of the I-91 corridor to exit 5 in Vt which I have to drive to get back to VT from the NYC metro Up to college in the NEK VT P.S. Paxtons signal transmits non directional plus it puts out twice the amount of power.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

I don't understand why the Worcester application shows the transmitter to be in W. Boylston (where it's currently transmitting from although they ID as Westborough), and the Westborough application shows the transmitter to be in Paxton.

Wouldn't you think they should be the other way around?

 

[DanStrassberg]

I don't understand why the Worcester application shows the transmitter to be in W. Boylston (where it's currently transmitting from although they ID as Westborough), and the Westborough application shows the transmitter to be in Paxton.

Wouldn't you think they should be the other way around?

There's a good reason why the Westborough application showed the transmitter in Paxton: that was where it WAS when the application was originally filed (how many years ago?) The idea was to change the CoL to a community closer to Boston than Worcester was but to which the Paxton signal provided CoL-grade coverage (70 dBu?). That allowed a subsequent move of the transmitter closer to Boston without another CoL change. I believe that, in the biz, this dance was called the FCC two-step(!) I think the rules about what can be done as a minor change have been loosened since then. However, I have a feeling that, although WAAF may be able to move its Tx location back to Paxton, moving its CoL back to Worcester might present a big problem. Moving the CoL FROM Worcester was not a problem because Worcester has a bunch of stations (AM as well as FM): WTAG, WCRN, WVEI, WSRS, WICN. AFAIK, WAAF became the only station licensed to Westborough. The FCC almost never grants applications for CoL changes that deprive a community of its only licensed audio broadcast service. And it makes no difference how many stations that are licensed to other communities deliver CoL-grade coverage to the community that would lose its only licensed audio broadcast service. Somewhere at the Portals, somebody must believe that this stupid rule makes sense.

 

[pqgeorge]

The current signal from WAAF from Stiles Hill is a big disappointment all around. While attending college in Western Mass. back in the late 70's, 'AAF was THE rock station for the college crowd, especially in Springfield, Westfield and Amherst. They had a signal to match! You could drive from Boston to the Berkshires and never lose it.

NOW.......Fast forward to today..... I was out in Amherst yesterday dropping a few items off for my daughter at college. I tried WAAF in the car. Man, it's really in the mud, compared to WSRS (from Asnebumskit) which still has a killer signal in that area. 'AAF was really weak. It sure wasn't like that back in the 70's and 80's. 'AAF made a big mistake in leaving Paxton.

 

[DG02816]

Need to agree with Peter here. I can remember WAAF slamming into RI with a near local-like strength. That signal from Paxton was why WOTB moved fron 107.1 to 100.3. Not sure just how deep a null the cureent 107.1 in Fairhave, WFHN, needs to throw....

 

[BRNout]

And, when I was at UConn back in the 80s - WAAF was one of the most popular rockers there too. It came in about as well as WCCC, which means 'practically a local.'

My cousins in Harwinton, CT (NW part of the state) used to listen to 'AAF religiously back then, along with I-95, WHCN and WPLR. It was the ONLY station remotely near Boston that they could pick up out there.

On the other hand, I was in Springfield this past winter and could hardly get WAAF at all. It was absolutely buried. What a difference! Now, one could make the argument that Entercom isn't interested in serving places like CT and western MA. And, if the loss of signal was in exchange for better Boston coverage - they'd be right. But, the new coverage around Boston is crappy too. So, all around it's been a loser.

This may go down as one of the dumbest moves in Boston radio history.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Moving the CoL FROM Worcester was not a problem because Worcester has a bunch of stations (AM as well as FM): WTAG, WCRN, WVEI, WSRS, WICN.

Also WNEB, WORC (AM), WCHC, WCUW, WBPR, W235AV (Licensed to Tatnuck which is part of Worcester).

 

[vibe]

On I 84 between East Hartford andManchester CT I tuned to 107.3 on the car radio with a good tuner. A very weak AAF. They are definitely not transmitting from Paxton. Before the move, you could get this station on seek/scan in this location. Now crappe..

 

[Ozman]

have you guys compared the difference in the 2 for coverage in strength its amazing.

one thing I want to mention the obvious is the terrain for paxton clears the foothills for the CT river Valley from New haven to almost Bellows falls VT. i don't think the FCC coverage factors this in. This allows a lot more of CT, VT, MA to get WAAF since it will bounce off the bigger hills a lot further east allowing many major suburbs and cites to get AAF while on Paxton. ( if you could count how many more potential listeners its gotta be up there towards the hundreds of thousands to maybe more than a million. although no hit to local advertising, if you tell the national advertisers that couldn't that rake in a lot more $$$?

currently in use
westburo: Directional showing marginal more coverage to boston barely touches CT,NH,RI
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM628274.html

The one we dream of them using
(Paxton transmitter)
goes far into CT NH, RI hits major citys like Springfield, Providence and many major suburbs
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM970555.html

did the FCC mix up the Locations at all for Westburo and WORCESTER? because it looks like its should be the opposite should it?

I think we should contact WAAF by e-mail and tell em how their signal has been. I have already and mistress Carrie took a note of it a while back. however, one responce will only go so far. Several responces will go a long way

 

[Ozman]

I forgot to mention:
somehow I am getting WBCN 104.1 and WJMN 94.5 here in saint Johnsbury Vt just south of Lyndonville over 150 miles away at my apartment (trailer home) the only guess I have is because of the terrain to the north and east of me two 500 ft vertical hills I don;t know however if it is DX relaited tho.

(I am a little bit south of coles corner)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...911&spn=0.032568,0.039911&t=p&z=14&iwloc=addr