WAAF Transmitter move

[BRNout]

Re: WRKO take notice

> Eli, This IS great information.
> But it only explains the science of skywaves and it doesn't
>
> answer the question as to why the reception is OK during the
> day the and lousy
> in metro west at night.
> To find out the answer you can go a very good sight:
> www.radio-locator.com then type in the call letters, then
> click on (i) menu and scroll down to the day and night
> patterns of said station/s.
> The day and night patterns are deliberately different to
> protect the co channels
> in distant cities from WRKO's skywave, butthe issue of" why
> can't WRKO WEEI and WWZN satisfy
> the Requirements and still serve the entire Boston area?"
> You touched on the reason. When WLAW 680 from Lawrence moved
> to Boston in 1938
> They broadcasted more or less from their present site west
> of Boston with the same signal pattern.
> The size of the market was very different then, and the
> night time signal was adequate for the market.
> The growth took place to the west and south of Boston, and
> while listerners in these areas want to hear the stations,
> we are the same ones who block the movement of the towers
> west.
> Add to the NIMBY attitude, are the complacency of the
> stations to try to make things better.
> IN WBZ's case they are no more powerful signal wise than
> WRKO WEEI and WWZN but the tower is at the end of Nantasket
> Beach in Hull and the signal is trong to the west, and as
> luck and timing would have it, they are grandfathered with a
> lock on that frequency at night, and whenever the AM tower
> is near water such WBZ's case Boston harbor, the signal is
> more voluminous.
> it would perfect if WRKO WEEI and WWZN ccould move further
> west and send their signals east through some wetlands
>
There just aren't a lot of good transmitter locations (with respect to ground conductivity) to the west and southwest of boston, where these stations would need to be. Also, they would need to be somewhere in the 128 belt for the necessary proximity to Boston (COL).

Not to mention that real estate prices in the aforementioned zone are stratospheric. And, the (everpresent in New England) NIMBYs.

So, it just not gonna happen for any of the three stations.

About WRKO, the closest big station that they need to protect directly westward is 680 News from Toronto. It's why the lobe can't just protect southwestward, but it also has to protect northwestward. So, no decent WRKO signal in Fitchburg or Groton either.

 

[channelsurf]

Re: WRKO take notice

> The day and night patterns are deliberately different to
> protect the co channels
> in distant cities from WRKO's skywave, butthe issue of" why
> can't WRKO WEEI and WWZN satisfy
> the Requirements and still serve the entire Boston area?"
> You touched on the reason. When WLAW 680 from Lawrence moved
> to Boston in 1938
> They broadcasted more or less from their present site west
> of Boston with the same signal pattern.

Actually WLAW/WNAC used what is now, the WRKO night pattern, full time. I can remember WNAC and the early months of WRKO, in 1967, being completely inaudible
in the Fitchburg/Leominster area, day or night. In late '67, WRKO began using a new day pattern, that sent a good signal out West, not only into that area, but one that was, and still is audible during the day, into Eastern New York State.


> The size of the market was very different then, and the
> night time signal was adequate for the market.
> The growth took place to the west and south of Boston, and
> while listerners in these areas want to hear the stations,
> we are the same ones who block the movement of the towers
> west.
> Add to the NIMBY attitude, are the complacency of the
> stations to try to make things better.
> IN WBZ's case they are no more powerful signal wise than
> WRKO WEEI and WWZN but the tower is at the end of Nantasket
> Beach in Hull and the signal is trong to the west, and as
> luck and timing would have it, they are grandfathered with a
> lock on that frequency at night, and whenever the AM tower
> is near water such WBZ's case Boston harbor, the signal is
> more voluminous.
> it would perfect if WRKO WEEI and WWZN ccould move further
> west and send their signals east through some wetlands
>
>
> I'm getting decent reception on WAAF from the 495 RI/MA
> > > border.
> > >
> > > Hopefully WRKO will follow suit and do something about
> > their
> > > transmitter. If WBZ broadcasts to almost 40 US states,
> > why
> > > can't I get WRKO after dinnertime if I'm more than 10
> > miles
> > > from Boston?
> >
> > As you probably know, AM signals can skip much farther
> > distances at night after the sun goes down than they
> > normally reach in the daytime. The electrical charge of
> the
> > ionospheric layer changes when the sun is no longer
> shining
> > through it, and it reflects signals back to Earth in
> farther
> > locations. These nightime skip signals are called
> "skywaves"
> > because they're reflected back from the sky.
> >
> > Because of this, many AM stations, including WRKO, are
> > required by the FCC to either lower their power or change
> > their directional pattern after sunset, in order to avoid
> > their nighttime "skywave" skip signals from interfering
> with
> > one another (some other stations must sign off
> completely).
> >
> > WBZ's dial position was designated a "clear channel" (not
> > the company, but the frequency) station on 1030 AM at
> night
> > for the eastern half of the U.S. many decades ago. That
> > means that they can beam their 50,000 watt signal inland
> > west (and also north/south) from their transmitter on the
> > coast in Hull day and night. They're authorized to cover
> the
> > huge portion of the country that they reach at night.
> >
> > Though there has been some deregulation of "clear channel"
>
> > frequencies and the 1030 frequency is no longer completely
>
> > clear of other stations everywhere in the eastern U.S. at
> > night, that has not changed WBZ's authority to send their
> > full power inland both day and night.
> >
> > The station at 680 that eventually became WRKO (WLAW,
> > WNAC...) came on to their frequency with 50,000 watts
> later
> > on, and was never designated by the FCC as a "clear
> channel"
> > frequency like WBZ. WRKO has to change their directional
> > pattern at sunset and is not allowed to beam southwest or
> > west at night because it has to "protect" a number of
> other
> > stations in other states from their nighttime "skywave"
> skip
> > signal. It's not a matter of them "doing something about
> > their transmitter". Unlike WBZ, WRKO is not authorized by
> > the FCC to beam much power inland at night. You know they
> > would if they were allowed to.
> >
>

 

[Eli Polonsky]

> > Did AAF begin testing the new transmitter recently?
> > Reception has gone extremely downhill in the last 2 days.
>
> There appears to be a VERY slight improvement in WAAF's
> signal in Boston's north and west suburbs and Boston proper.
> A barely noticeable change from before.

Actually, as of this past weekend, I take that back. I listened in the car in Somerville on Saturday afternoon, and in Cambridge and Brighton on Sunday morning. The WAAF signal sounded terrible, much weaker than before, and it was getting all cut up by Pru intermod much worse than usual.

I hope they're still tweaking stuff, and that this isn't the final "upgrade". If it is, they were sold a lemon.

 

[chevling]

I agree, I can get the signal on my home reciever, but it will go from sounding excellent to sounding like someone else is on the frequency about every 15-20 seconds.

Car can't even pick it up, I drove into webster over the weekend and it wasnt worth even trying to listen.

I really hope this isn't permanant, it will most likely kill AAF. They may be trying to reach the bigger audience of boston, but boston already has competition whereas other area's don't. So is the Boston market really that appealing to shed most of thier loyal listeners?

> > > Did AAF begin testing the new transmitter recently?
> > > Reception has gone extremely downhill in the last 2
> days.
> >
> > There appears to be a VERY slight improvement in WAAF's
> > signal in Boston's north and west suburbs and Boston
> proper.
> > A barely noticeable change from before.
>
> Actually, as of this past weekend, I take that back. I
> listened in the car in Somerville on Saturday afternoon, and
> in Cambridge and Brighton on Sunday morning. The WAAF signal
> sounded terrible, much weaker than before, and it was
> getting all cut up by Pru intermod much worse than usual.
>
> I hope they're still tweaking stuff, and that this isn't the
> final "upgrade". If it is, they were sold a lemon.
>

 

[Eli Polonsky]

> I agree, I can get the signal on my home reciever, but it
> will go from sounding excellent to sounding like someone
> else is on the frequency about every 15-20 seconds.

I heard something like that too. I'm near Boston so I assumed it was intermodulation interference from all the powerful FM stations on the Prudential building, but maybe not? It sounded like some other station co-channel on 107.3 was trying to come in via troppo or "e-skip", and WAAF was now too weak to block it out.

> I really hope this isn't permanant, it will most likely kill
> AAF. They may be trying to reach the bigger audience of
> boston, but boston already has competition whereas other
> area's don't. So is the Boston market really that appealing
> to shed most of thier loyal listeners?

Where I reported the signal was poor this past weekend IS in the Boston market. I was listening in Somerville, Cambridge and Brighton, all right in metro Boston, a few miles from downtown. It was far worse in this area than before the move, and this is the area they're trying to target. That's why I hope for their sake that they're still working on it, and what we're hearing isn't the final upgrade.