• 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

WDJR files to downgrade signal

A

aViD_FaN

Guest
On Friday WDJR filed an application with the FCC to DOWNGRADE from
a Class C FM (1516 feet HAAT) to a Class C0 FM (1037 feet HAAT).
To facilitate their move to a shorter tower near the same location.
A loss of nearly 500 feet of height.
Still a good signal...but no longer a monster signal.
 
> On Friday WDJR filed an application with the FCC to
> DOWNGRADE from
> a Class C FM (1516 feet HAAT) to a Class C0 FM (1037 feet
> HAAT).
> To facilitate their move to a shorter tower near the same
> location.
> A loss of nearly 500 feet of height.
> Still a good signal...but no longer a monster signal.
>

After looking over the application it doesn't look like WDJR made a deal with someone that would allow them to upgrade while WDJR downgrades.
I wonder why decided to do this but plenty of stations can try to take advantage of this.

Stations like 96.5 in Fort Walton, 97.3 in Bainbridge and 97.1 in Montgomery could make small adjustments. 96.7 Valdosta, 96.9 Fitzgerald GA, 96.7 P:ne Hill AL can possibly make some big signal adjustment now due to this.
 
> > On Friday WDJR filed an application with the FCC to
> > DOWNGRADE from
> > a Class C FM (1516 feet HAAT) to a Class C0 FM (1037 feet
> > HAAT).
> > To facilitate their move to a shorter tower near the same
> > location.
> > A loss of nearly 500 feet of height.
> > Still a good signal...but no longer a monster signal.
> >
>
> After looking over the application it doesn't look like WDJR
> made a deal with someone that would allow them to upgrade
> while WDJR downgrades.
> I wonder why decided to do this but plenty of stations can
> try to take advantage of this.
>
> Stations like 96.5 in Fort Walton, 97.3 in Bainbridge and
> 97.1 in Montgomery could make small adjustments. 96.7
> Valdosta, 96.9 Fitzgerald GA, 96.7 P:ne Hill AL can possibly
> make some big signal adjustment now due to this.
>

The television tower where they currently reside needs their
extra loading for their HDTV upgrade. They have to move off
and build a new stick. Quite expensive.
 
96.9 WDJR, What will the adjacent channels do?

>
> Stations like 96.5 in Fort Walton, 97.3 in Bainbridge and
> 97.1 in Montgomery could make small adjustments. 96.7
> Valdosta, 96.9 Fitzgerald GA, 96.7 P:ne Hill AL can possibly
> make some big signal adjustment now due to this.
>

It doesn't seem like better signals for any of the above stations could make them any more money. Can any of the experts out there come up with a scenario that would benifit someone?

96.5 in Ft Walton is probably stuck due to Eglin Air Force base. They are already 100kw on the tallest tower in the vacinity... which I assume is the tallest tower Eglin will allow them to have. I assume there's no chance in hell of them moving to Pensacola and adding Mobile, AL to their coverage area. Also, Cumulus would be out of their minds to sacrifice Pensacola coverage for Panama City coverage.

97.3 from Bainbridge has always been blocked from providing better coverage of the Tallahassee market, could they move closer to Dothan and target South-West Alabama? Would being a Dothan station be any better than being an Albany station? Maybe the Clear Channel engineers can work out a scheme to make WRAK the next big Atlanta move in!
 
Re: 96.9 WDJR, What will the adjacent channels do?

> >
> > Stations like 96.5 in Fort Walton, 97.3 in Bainbridge and
> > 97.1 in Montgomery could make small adjustments. 96.7
> > Valdosta, 96.9 Fitzgerald GA, 96.7 P:ne Hill AL can
> possibly
> > make some big signal adjustment now due to this.
> >
>
> It doesn't seem like better signals for any of the above
> stations could make them any more money. Can any of the
> experts out there come up with a scenario that would benifit
> someone?
>
> 96.5 in Ft Walton is probably stuck due to Eglin Air Force
> base. They are already 100kw on the tallest tower in the
> vacinity... which I assume is the tallest tower Eglin will
> allow them to have. I assume there's no chance in hell of
> them moving to Pensacola and adding Mobile, AL to their
> coverage area. Also, Cumulus would be out of their minds to
> sacrifice Pensacola coverage for Panama City coverage.
>
> 97.3 from Bainbridge has always been blocked from providing
> better coverage of the Tallahassee market, could they move
> closer to Dothan and target South-West Alabama? Would being
> a Dothan station be any better than being an Albany station?
> Maybe the Clear Channel engineers can work out a scheme to
> make WRAK the next big Atlanta move in!
>
I don't see WKXK 96.7 in Pine Hill getting another power increase. They are already broadcasting at 50,000 watts of power.

If any of Roscoe Miller's radio stations deserve a power increase, that award should go to his two Montgomery Translators. It is time for those two stations to be ditched and relocated to a more powerful frequency. (Possibly 93.1)

RDP <><
 
> > > A loss of nearly 500 feet of height.
> > > Still a good signal...but no longer a monster signal.

Couple of things before everyone gets all excited. I'm the C.E., and here is what is going on:

1. The cost difference between a 1,000 and 1,500 foot tower is insane.

2. Our current building penetration in the metro leaves something to be desired at 1,500 feet. Going lower, optimizing and pointing the antenna towards our metro will help our signal cosideribly in offices and homes in our 5 counties. Right now the antenna is non-directional and points at Tallahassee. The thought behind that way back when was Dothan + Beaches = $$$.

3. With the steel optimization ERI is caplable of, we will still have a monster signal (if not better) north of our tower. Sure, having fisherman listening 30 miles out to sea is great...but it doesn't help pay the bills.

4. Imagine it's raining, you have an umbrella with a 20 foot handle. You stay sorta dry. Now you have an umbrella with a 10 foot handle and it leans toward the rain...NOW you stay very dry.


> The television tower where they currently reside needs their
>
> extra loading for their HDTV upgrade. They have to move off
> and build a new stick. Quite expensive.


This is true. WTVY-TV is required to be at full power digtal by July '06. They have 6 inch rigid-conduit that needs to go up in order to achive the mega-watt signal, and that line is quite heavy.

Expensive? Yes. Pain in the butt? Yes. Having your monster signal point at your metro? Priceless.

New tower broadcasting date: Feb 1. Still gonna be putting out 30+KW.

-Frog
 
> > > > A loss of nearly 500 feet of height.
> > > > Still a good signal...but no longer a monster signal.
>
> Couple of things before everyone gets all excited. I'm the
> C.E., and here is what is going on:
>
> 1. The cost difference between a 1,000 and 1,500 foot tower
> is insane.
>
> 2. Our current building penetration in the metro leaves
> something to be desired at 1,500 feet. Going lower,
> optimizing and pointing the antenna towards our metro will
> help our signal cosideribly in offices and homes in our 5
> counties. Right now the antenna is non-directional and
> points at Tallahassee. The thought behind that way back when
> was Dothan + Beaches = $$$.
>
> 3. With the steel optimization ERI is caplable of, we will
> still have a monster signal (if not better) north of our
> tower. Sure, having fisherman listening 30 miles out to sea
> is great...but it doesn't help pay the bills.
>
> 4. Imagine it's raining, you have an umbrella with a 20 foot
> handle. You stay sorta dry. Now you have an umbrella with a
> 10 foot handle and it leans toward the rain...NOW you stay
> very dry.
>
>
> > The television tower where they currently reside needs
> their
> >
> > extra loading for their HDTV upgrade. They have to move
> off
> > and build a new stick. Quite expensive.
>
>
> This is true. WTVY-TV is required to be at full power digtal
> by July '06. They have 6 inch rigid-conduit that needs to go
> up in order to achive the mega-watt signal, and that line is
> quite heavy.
>
> Expensive? Yes. Pain in the butt? Yes. Having your monster
> signal point at your metro? Priceless.
>
> New tower broadcasting date: Feb 1. Still gonna be putting
> out 30+KW.
>
> -Frog
>


Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.

BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
or another clients on 96.?

The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
 
> Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
>
> BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> or another clients on 96.?
>
> The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> you have to be at the handle to stay dry.


OK, I've gotta ask: What has Paul (or someone) done to you or someone you know?<P ID="signature">______________
Terry Keith Hammond

Message Boards: http://www.monsterfm.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi</P>
 
> > Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
> >
> > BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> > Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> > their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> > or another clients on 96.?
> >
> > The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> > you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
>
>
> OK, I've gotta ask: What has Paul (or someone) done to you
> or someone you know?
>

Was just an analogy Juicy. I wanted to paint a picture. Was not meant to be taken literal. Again, people resort to hatred on this board.
 
> Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
>
> BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> or another clients on 96.?
>
> The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
>

Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit

Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.

While not agreeing that going lower will help building
penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
done on the original install, there could be a real signal
deficit toward the desired coverage area.

Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
could possibly be really beneficial in this case.

Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
But economics always mandate.

It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully compensate
for the loss of height.

It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all that matters.
 
A move to Selma or Montgomery, perhaps?

> I don't see WKXK 96.7 in Pine Hill getting another power
> increase. They are already broadcasting at 50,000 watts of
> power.

What about a voluntary downgrade (back to C3 or a low-powered C2) and a move towards Selma...or even Montgomery somehow? <P ID="signature">______________
"Not fixing [New Orleans'] levees before Katrina struck will now cost us untold billions. Not resolving the nation's issues of race and class has and will cost us so much more."
--Wynton Marsalis
</P>
 
> Was just an analogy Juicy. I wanted to paint a picture. Was
> not meant to be taken literal. Again, people resort to
> hatred on this board.
>

I thought it was an excellent analogy: while I'm not an engineer,
I've watched several stations here in Nashville do basically the same thing.
WCJK, WRVW, WGFX are all licensed 100k, but are now in the center of
the city (on TV towers off I-24 on the NW side to be exact) at
power levels between 30-40kw. Their metro signals are excellent, and
fully cover all eight counties of the Nashville DMA.<P ID="signature">______________
but wait...there's more!</P>
 
> Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit
>
> Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.
>
> While not agreeing that going lower will help building
> penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
> Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
> an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
> Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
> done on the original install, there could be a real signal
> deficit toward the desired coverage area.
>
> Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
> could possibly be really beneficial in this case.
>
> Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
> But economics always mandate.
>
> It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully
> compensate
> for the loss of height.
>
> It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all
> that matters.
>

Thank you!

Here is a counter point: I've seen the maps and spoken with several other engineers who all seem to agree that you can "overshoot" your target area with too much height. We might be able to pound into buildings at 1,500 feet, however they may be buildings outside the metro.

I will still be putting over 30kW into our new 8 bay antenna...that's a helluva lot of power when you consider alot of stations at 100kW ERP only put 19, 20 or 21kw into a 12 or 14 bay antenna. IMHO you can't fake RF. The more RF and the less antenna bays; the stronger and more pure your signal is. More bays = more multi-path.

Again, if money and budgets weren't part of the game we'd all have 100kW transmitters going into 1 bay.
 
> > Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit
> >
> > Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.
> >
> > While not agreeing that going lower will help building
> > penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
> > Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
> > an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
> > Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
> > done on the original install, there could be a real signal
>
> > deficit toward the desired coverage area.
> >
> > Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
> > could possibly be really beneficial in this case.
> >
> > Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
> > But economics always mandate.
> >
> > It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully
> > compensate
> > for the loss of height.
> >
> > It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all
> > that matters.
> >
>
> Thank you!
>
> Here is a counter point: I've seen the maps and spoken with
> several other engineers who all seem to agree that you can
> "overshoot" your target area with too much height. We might
> be able to pound into buildings at 1,500 feet, however they
> may be buildings outside the metro.
>
> I will still be putting over 30kW into our new 8 bay
> antenna...that's a helluva lot of power when you consider
> alot of stations at 100kW ERP only put 19, 20 or 21kw into a
> 12 or 14 bay antenna. IMHO you can't fake RF. The more RF
> and the less antenna bays; the stronger and more pure your
> signal is. More bays = more multi-path.
>
> Again, if money and budgets weren't part of the game we'd
> all have 100kW transmitters going into 1 bay.
>

I don't believe "overshoot" would be the case here.
With your tower being 20 to 30 miles away.
Maybe if it was closer in.
Regardless, "beam tilt" is available in such cases.

I do subscribe to the less bays/more power belief though.
 
> I don't believe "overshoot" would be the case here.
> With your tower being 20 to 30 miles away.
> Maybe if it was closer in.
> Regardless, "beam tilt" is available in such cases.
>
> I do subscribe to the less bays/more power belief though.
>
To whom to I have the pleasure of having a real conversation with on the board? It is nice to match wits and discuss engineering!

Reveal yourself! [email protected]

Later...
 
> > Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
> >
> > BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> > Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> > their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> > or another clients on 96.?
> >
> > The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> > you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
>
>
> OK, I've gotta ask: What has Paul (or someone) done to you
> or someone you know?
>

Not to me. Someone I know. As told to me, some
possible deception in one of their multi channel
moving schemes.
 
> > Somebody's been listening to a swampland salesman.
> >
> > BTW...Reynolds Technical did the engineering.
> > Heard of them. Wouldn't surprise me if they have
> > their own agenda. Like upgrading one of their stations
> > or another clients on 96.?
> >
> > The flaw in your umbrella analogy is
> > you have to be at the handle to stay dry.
> >
>
> Whoaaaa.....Mr. Fruit
>
> Some of the points Frogman makes are valid.
>
> While not agreeing that going lower will help building
> penetration, antenna optimization can be a real blessing.
> Have you ever seen the pattern distortion created when
> an antenna is leg mounted on a ten foot face tower?
> Believe me, it is not pretty. And if a range study wasn't
> done on the original install, there could be a real signal
> deficit toward the desired coverage area.
>
> Use of ERI's lambda sections and/or pattern optimization
> could possibly be really beneficial in this case.
>
> Maintaining 1500 feet HAAT would be icing on the cake.
> But economics always mandate.
>
> It remains to be seen if the optimization can fully
> compensate
> for the loss of height.
>
> It all comes down to covering your base of revenue is all
> that matters.
>

Mr. Fruit? Please.....

Still sounds like a lot of snake oil to me.
 
> > Was just an analogy Juicy. I wanted to paint a picture.
> Was
> > not meant to be taken literal. Again, people resort to
> > hatred on this board.
> >
>
> I thought it was an excellent analogy: while I'm not an
> engineer,
> I've watched several stations here in Nashville do
> basically the same thing.
> WCJK, WRVW, WGFX are all licensed 100k, but are now in the
> center of
> the city (on TV towers off I-24 on the NW side to be
> exact) at
> power levels between 30-40kw. Their metro signals are
> excellent, and
> fully cover all eight counties of the Nashville DMA.
>

'cept they ain't a movin to the center of the city.
 
'cept they ain't a movin to the center of the city.

Understood: however they still blanket the eight county metro...
signal good to 60-70 miles out. Apples and oranges, I know...
how far out is the WDJR site?<P ID="signature">______________
but wait...there's more!</P>
 
> > I don't believe "overshoot" would be the case here.
> > With your tower being 20 to 30 miles away.
> > Maybe if it was closer in.
> > Regardless, "beam tilt" is available in such cases.
> >
> > I do subscribe to the less bays/more power belief though.
> >
> To whom to I have the pleasure of having a real conversation
> with on the board? It is nice to match wits and discuss
> engineering!
>
> Reveal yourself! [email protected]
>
> Later...
>
No can do froggy.

I sometimes find it necessary to reveal classified information
on these boards. Anonymity is essential.
There ain't no ham like birming....my home base.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom