WCRB should become a B1 FM

[JustinT]

I can't imagine that a company with Greater Media's passion for good engineering wouldn't have moved 99.5 if there was a better site. Greater has never been shy about moving stations to optimize their coverage of the market; most recently they moved 102.5 from the FM128 tower to that of WBZ-TV. If there were a better place to put 99.5, I suspect it would be there today.

Agreed. But while 99.5's tower is in a great location for what its format was under Greater Media ownership, if there could be a small power trade-off to gain strong coverage of downtown Boston under WGBH ownership, it may be worth it. Considering how classical stations have been faring lately, if New York can't support a commercial classical station, I can't imagine the droves are out for it in Southern N.H.

 

[wcozBoston]

How is it possible for WFAS and WCTZ to move closer to New York City given the density of FM stations in that market? Wouldn't WCTZ be interfering with WQHT and WQXR and WFAS be interfering with WKTU and WAXQ respectively the same way WCRB would be interfering with WPLM?

 

[JustinT]

How is it possible for WFAS and WCTZ to move closer to New York City given the density of FM stations in that market? Wouldn't WCTZ be interfering with WQHT and WQXR and WFAS be interfering with WKTU and WAXQ respectively the same way WCRB would be interfering with WPLM?

WFAS and WCTZ are both Class As - and there's no way they're going to have anything close to full-market coverage from their new homes.

 

[HHH]

Wouldn't there be some consideration for WCRB on Zion Hill regarding protection to WPLM based on the fact that there is a natural terrain block (Great Blue Hill) as well as the Boston skyline toward Plymouth?

From what I understand, WJIB (the original on 96.9) moved from Zion Hill (as did Channel 56) because they could never get the lower south shore from there particularly well, especially after the skyline got built up in the late 1960s.

By the way, WXHR (the original 96.9) broadcast classical music from (I think) the 1940s through the 1960s from that tower on Zion Hill. They had studios up there, too. It looks right into downtown Boston.

 

[Don Juan]

I can't imagine that a company with Greater Media's passion for good engineering wouldn't have moved 99.5 if there was a better site. Greater has never been shy about moving stations to optimize their coverage of the market; most recently they moved 102.5 from the FM128 tower to that of WBZ-TV. If there were a better place to put 99.5, I suspect it would be there today.

I agree. Greater Media is known for building out their facilities to the best they can be.

I'm sure Greater Media looked at all that before they committed to revamping the entire Andover site.

New building.....and a new tower too, right?

 

[DanStrassberg]

But while 99.5's tower is in a great location for what its format was under Greater Media ownership, if there could be a small power trade-off to gain strong coverage of downtown Boston under WGBH ownership, it may be worth it.

I agree. Question is, though, would a B1 from any of the proposed sites (and remember, because of short-spacing issues at most of the sites, the WRKO (AM) site is the ONLY site discussed in this thread that would not require an FCC waiver) deliver enough of a signal improvement to the southerly parts of the market compared with the existing Lowell-licensed full B signal? In fact, would a B1 signal from the WRKO site provide ANY signal improvement in the southerly parts of the market? Burlington is pretty far north and what is, in effect, a 4.5X power reduction (from B to B1) isn't chicken feed.

Also, if the WRKO site turned out to be the only one that would fly with the FCC, could WGBH and Entercom come to terms on a lease? Also, because of the ratchet-rule issues related to top-mounting the FM antenna on WRKO's center tower (once the home of WLAW-FM 93.7 Lawrence), would the structural issues related to side mounting on one of the self-supporting end towers be resolved. And what about the covenants in the deed to the site, which sits atop the Town of Burlington's municipal water supply (wells). Those covenants may prevent use of the site by a second station, even if no tower construction is involved.

 

[necrat123]

I agree. Greater Media is known for building out their facilities to the best they can be.

I'm sure Greater Media looked at all that before they committed to revamping the entire Andover site.

New building.....and a new tower too, right?

New building, new TX, new antenna, new tower.... all new...at the time.

 

[necrat123]

Why not just throw WCRB on the 96.3 W242AA translator and be done with it?

 

[Don Juan]

Also, because of the ratchet-rule issues related to top-mounting the FM antenna on WRKO's center tower (once the home of WLAW-FM 93.7 Lawrence)

Not to nitpick. ;-) But I don't think WLAW ever had the calls on FM.

93.7 was WCCM-FM for the longest time.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Why not just throw WCRB on the 96.3 W242AA translator and be done with it?

Have you heard how weak that five watts actually is around Boston? It only serves a very small handful of people in E. Cambridge, Back Bay right across the Charles River, and Beacon Hill, just a couple of miles around the transmitter at MIT in Kendall Square. Anywhere beyond that area (and even within it on some radios) it's clobbered by intermod from the Pru, first-adjacent interference (and IBOC) from WSRS Worcester, and other off-channel interference.

W242AA is not a player in this situation, and certainly not a solution. It goes no farther south in Boston than the buildings in Back Bay, and it's easterly directional signal is barely listenable just a mile west of the transmitter in Cambridge. I heard that repeater was designed specifically for some big donor(s) who complained of multipath distortion on the "wrong" side of Beacon Hill, probably the north or east face, where the 89.7 signal from Great Blue Hill was blocked. That's just about the only tiny area where W242AA is clean. Forget about it!

 

[jlehmann]

They could probably upgrade the 96.3 translator, seeing how the FCC has allowed translators to do major upgrades/moves recently.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

They could probably upgrade the 96.3 translator, seeing how the FCC has allowed translators to do major upgrades/moves recently.

I'm not sure if, or by how much, they could. I know that originally they had to get permission from third-adjacent 96.9 (now WTKK), and maybe also from first-adjacent WSRS despite its distance from Boston, just for that weak directional five-watter.

Also, they may get IF interference issues with the Caribbean or Haitian pirate on 107.1 in the Dorchester/Mattapan area.

 

[carmen]

may get IF interference issues with the Caribbean or Haitian pirate on 107.1 in the Dorchester/Mattapan area.

107.1 is neither haitian, nor caribbean, but Cape Verde'ean Radio Nha Terra

 

[DanStrassberg]

Not to nitpick. ;-) But I don't think WLAW ever had the calls on FM.

I came to Boston in '56. WLAW was long gone. I don't recall whether WCCM-FM had yet gone on the air. 680 was WLAW until 1953 or 54, I believe. Then came the big swap when G-T bought the 680 frequency and moved WNAC (1260) to 680. The 1260 frequency was sold to Vic Diehm (he was from PA). He changed the 1260 calls to WVDA.

WLAW-FM WAS on 93.7 and transmitted from atop the center tower of 680 in Burlington. The FM antenna collapsed in an ice storm, but the collapse, amazingly, did not seriously damage the AM tower. So the remains of the FM antenna were removed, thus shortening the tower. WLAW-FM then surrendered its license and did not return to the air. This had to have happened before 680 was sold to G-T. Since 680 did not move to Burlington (from Andover) until '47, I don't think there was a WLAW-FM at least until '47. WLAW-FM therefore could not have been operating for more than about six years--maybe less--in the late '40s-early/mid '50s.

Nevertheless, although I may not have all of the facts straight, I believe that I am correct and you are wrong. There WAS a WLAW-FM; it DID transmit from Burlington, and it WAS on 93.7. When FM moved to the 88-108-MHz band shortly before World War II, the FCC published a table of FM allocations. 93.7 was allocated to Lawrence. WLAW applied for and was granted the frequency but could not build the station until the war ended. When WLAW-FM went dark, the channel became vacant. A few years later, WCCM applied for and was granted the Lawrence frequency. WMKK is still licensed to Lawrence.

 

[w9wi]

Not to nitpick. ;-) But I don't think WLAW ever had the calls on FM.

...

Nevertheless, although I may not have all of the facts straight, I believe that I am correct and you are wrong. There WAS a WLAW-FM; it DID transmit from Burlington, and it WAS on 93.7. ...

1950 Broadcasting Yearbook lists WLAW-FM on 93.7. It lists a start date of 1948. (nothing more specific)

 

[raccoonradio]

http://bostonradio.org/stations/1919

This page cites a 1948 launch for WLAW-FM and mentions the various call letter and power changes, including
the purchase of the station by Curt Gowdy in 1963 (also got the Lawrence-licensed 800). It says there was a power increase in 1973, which was right around the time I became aware of the station in Nahant (I was 11) and eventually it was re-united with 680 in '94 (studios then moved from Franklin St in Lawrence to downtown Boston, and a yr later they began to construct the tower in Peabody that can be seen from both Rt 1 and Rt 128. Then in '96 they went on
from there with "34 kW at 179 m (587 ft) and a much-improved signal into downtown Boston and the South Shore."

>>WLAW-FM therefore could not have been operating for more than about six years--maybe less--in the late '40s-early/mid '50s.

They were on from '48 to '53, then dark till 1960

 

[DanStrassberg]

Then in '96 they went on
from there with "34 kW at 179 m (587 ft) and a much-improved signal into downtown Boston and the South Shore."

But due to a mixup in the geographic coordinates, WMKK had to get a CP to correct its coordinates (no _actual_ change to anything), which resulted in recalulating the HAAT, which went from 179m to 178m. I think the work (it was all paperwork anyhow) has now been completed. Anyone who says he can notice a change in the signal is nuts, because, as I said, there has been no actual change in anything.

 

[aaronread]

I used to work in 1 Broadway. That's the 20-odd story building in Kendall Square that is ACROSS THE STREET from the building WMBR is on, and also where the 96.3 translator is on. And I couldn't listen to the translator on most radios in that building. That's how weak the signal is.

 

[DanStrassberg]

I used to work in 1 Broadway. That's the 20-odd story building in Kendall Square that is ACROSS THE STREET from the building WMBR is on, and also where the 96.3 translator is on. And I couldn't listen to the translator on most radios in that building. That's how weak the signal is.

I looked up the directional pattern of the 96.3 translator in the TVFMSTNS software. It's a pretty amazing pattern for FM. On AM, a similar pattern would take at least four towers. The RMS power is 200 mW. The radiation maximum (equivalent to 5W! Yup; five whole watts) is almost due east, which strikes me as odd because I thought Beacon Hill was pretty much due south of Kendall Sq. Over at least 270 degrees (that is, except in a roughly 90-degree arc to the east), the equivalent power is WAY less than the 200 mW RMS. Could easily be even less than 10 mW. So if that 20-story building is, say, west of the building where the 96.3 antenna is located, I would not find it at all surprising if the signal were not audible in the 20-story building!

 

[Don Juan]

http://bostonradio.org/stations/1919

This page cites a 1948 launch for WLAW-FM and mentions the various call letter and power changes, including
the purchase of the station by Curt Gowdy in 1963 (also got the Lawrence-licensed 800).

Hmmmm...I don't know if that information is correct. I think the WLAW call letters left the airwaves with the purchase of WLAW 680AM by WNAC.

Maybe there was a 93.7 allotment that never got on the air?