T
Tilden
Guest
The Globe is always ready to investigate what it thinks is its competition.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Globe is always ready to investigate what it thinks is its competition.
This thread reminds me of the ooooold radio joke:
Salesperson to PD: We're off the air. Can't you do something?
PD: We were hit with lightening and it will take a while...
Salesperson: then tell the DJ to go on and announce that we will be off the air for a while!
The joke is funny because most of us have had similar real incidents.
Salesperson to PD: We're off the air. Can't you do something?
PD: We were hit with lightening and it will take a while...
Salesperson: then tell the DJ to go on and announce that we will be off the air for a while!
The joke is funny because most of us have had similar real incidents.
That's OK. Nearly nobody reads it or any newspaper anymore anyway.
And painting a tower is not a story anyone cares about.
245,572 daily. That's nobody?
Compared with the over 800,000 circulation two or three decades ago, it is.
The 1990 circulation was down to 521,000 and the early 2016 circulation is 264,000. It's probably off another 25,000 so far this year. WBZ's cume is about three times that.
This is sort of like a bird attacking a shotgun.
And who reads every page in a newspaper, anyway?
Well, there is still the question of whether or not they dumped IBOC for good, are waiting for a software update, or just keeping it off for the remainder of this “extended maintenance period”.
BTW, isnʼt it “In Band On Channel”, not carrier?
Don't usually jump too far out of my area (Seattle), but this is too crazy to pass up.
In our area, every major commercial FM, and most mediocre ones have at least a second site. A few have more than that. None of the alternates performs a well as the main, which I suppose was the whole point of building those sites in the first place.
We have a couple of AMs here that have separate night sites, mainly to position DAs where the additional towers could not be located at the daytime site.
A couple of our majors are running 27,000 watt transmitters on rotary phase converters, because of the cost to run a 3rd line up the mountain. Those converters have to be shut down a couple of times a year for capacitor replacement and other maintenance. Never do those stations mention they're not on their main transmitters, even though their alternate signals are far inferior. Matter of fact, their engineering is contracted and few at the stations have any idea what transmitter they're on at any given time. In the case of one of these, which simulcasts a 50kW AM with a full-power FM, you would never hear the announcers mention that one side or the other wasn't running at 100%.
What's probably more common these days, is power reduction or temporary site changes, caused by work being done on shared towers, as has finally been determined in this case. Tower companies are generally well informed as to where they can go and for how long. Radio stations know they have to cooperate when workers are on the towers. I've never had a station gripe about when they're reduced or moved to an alternate. It's life for a shared facility and everyone knows the only way to avoid it is to build their own stick on their own private plot of land.
In any case, all of this is part of life as a broadcaster. The notion that this might somehow be "news" or competitive fodder is interesting, but unlikely. I doubt a newspaper would tell their readers if one of their presses broke down and they had to contract with an alternate company to get their papers out.
One might also consider stations that run for long periods of time on STAs, due to variance from licensed parameters. I know of a couple that have been running 1/4 power for years, due to major tower issues. They don't make that fact part of their day, and its not part of any sales discussion I've ever been around. As noted, you're only looking at a 50% reduction in coverage, which probably pulls the fringes in somewhat, but not a lot more than that.
In our area, every major commercial FM, and most mediocre ones have at least a second site. A few have more than that. None of the alternates performs a well as the main, which I suppose was the whole point of building those sites in the first place.
We have a couple of AMs here that have separate night sites, mainly to position DAs where the additional towers could not be located at the daytime site.
A couple of our majors are running 27,000 watt transmitters on rotary phase converters, because of the cost to run a 3rd line up the mountain. Those converters have to be shut down a couple of times a year for capacitor replacement and other maintenance. Never do those stations mention they're not on their main transmitters, even though their alternate signals are far inferior. Matter of fact, their engineering is contracted and few at the stations have any idea what transmitter they're on at any given time. In the case of one of these, which simulcasts a 50kW AM with a full-power FM, you would never hear the announcers mention that one side or the other wasn't running at 100%.
What's probably more common these days, is power reduction or temporary site changes, caused by work being done on shared towers, as has finally been determined in this case. Tower companies are generally well informed as to where they can go and for how long. Radio stations know they have to cooperate when workers are on the towers. I've never had a station gripe about when they're reduced or moved to an alternate. It's life for a shared facility and everyone knows the only way to avoid it is to build their own stick on their own private plot of land.
In any case, all of this is part of life as a broadcaster. The notion that this might somehow be "news" or competitive fodder is interesting, but unlikely. I doubt a newspaper would tell their readers if one of their presses broke down and they had to contract with an alternate company to get their papers out.
One might also consider stations that run for long periods of time on STAs, due to variance from licensed parameters. I know of a couple that have been running 1/4 power for years, due to major tower issues. They don't make that fact part of their day, and its not part of any sales discussion I've ever been around. As noted, you're only looking at a 50% reduction in coverage, which probably pulls the fringes in somewhat, but not a lot more than that.
Last edited:
Still a lot of people....about the cume of WRKO....
Who listens to a station all day, anyway? <???>
I agree, when 1200 switched to 50 kW from Newton instead of 10 kW from Framingham, the signal became much noisier where I live. The only place I had trouble with WKOX at 10 kW was in passing Haggett's Pond, because there apparently is an NDB there (HAGET) on 402 kHZ. The 10 kW signal from WBZ is not something I would want to listen to for more than the traffic report.
According to Nielsen the last trend covers July 14- August 10th
Yes, my bad.
As others have mentioned, tower work is a fact of life for radio and TV stations. Many stations have backup facilities....many do not. (Probably MOST do not---thinking of all of the tiny AMs and tiny FMs that are all over the place.
10kW is better than 0 kW. Any day of the week, I would pick 10kW vs 0kW. What would be your choice?
10kW is better than 0 kW. Any day of the week, I would pick 10kW vs 0kW. What would be your choice?
T
Tilden
Guest
Talked to some people at BZ today and they hope the work will soon be completed. Noticed they went back to full power. According to the BZ people all the work being done was required by the FCC.
Well that is a pretty broad statement.
I know a friend of mine installed new fencing down there not too long ago....
The FCC is BIG on tower site security (fences), lighting, painting, and the registration number being posted where it can be seen.
Since I have not seen a N.A.L. for a tower violation, I would say this is all maintenance work to prevent a N.A.L., and that would be F.C.C. and F.A.A. required, but not at the direction of either entity.
I have never had the pleasure of flying near their towers, it is pretty heavily controlled airspace and I avoid it rather than deal with Boston Center so I don't know what they look like from the left seat
As MRBI said, there is a difference between being "written up" for a violation and thus required to make repairs and making routine repairs and scheduling preventative maintenance before a broadcast station becomes in violation of any FCC or other regulatory agency's regulation.
What appears to have happened with WBZ is that more extensive than usual preventative maintenance was needed at the main AM site. This is likely due to aging, changes in materials, etc. The prudent thing to do is to get ahead of maintenance problems not just to be compliant with FCC rules but to avoid costly failures of systems.
The FCC requires all stations to maintain their towers and antenna systems according to strict standards. What the WBZ "people" told you is that they were simply keeping the operation in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations.
Isn't that what Tilden said? You felt a need to restate it?
Itʼs Baaaaack!!!
Well, as of 9:13am this morning, IBOC is baaaaack!
This means two things:
Well, as of 9:13am this morning, IBOC is baaaaack!
This means two things:
- They were either waiting for a software update or keeping it off just for the remainder of the musical antennas;
- They are done with the Hull antenna work.
No, what he seemed to indicate was that WBZ was ordered to do the work when in fact they just did it as part of routine maintenance which is as much to keep the towers from falling as it is to be in compliance with regulations.
Well, as of 9:13am this morning, IBOC is baaaaack!
I heard it earlier than that, for the first time in quite a while now..... I want to say I was in the car before 8 AM and it kicked in.... a pleasant surprise
I didn't take it that way. He said the work was required...and staying within compliance is required. Tower lights, faded paint, missing fencing, etc.
Last edited:
- Status