Re: WKOX Upgrade question (Didn't They Win?)
Didn't we just read somewhere (Fybush?) that CC, WUNR, WRCA took the Newton issue to some sort of Mass. state land-use court; and won? But then that might be a temporary victory.... me thinking of WQTH-720, which won the same kind of battle in NH state court against town of Hanover NH (or was it Lebabnon NH?), but then soon after, the town passed a law that required all radio transmission sites must have something like a 10'-high fence around the entire perimeter of the site. In the case of WQTH-720, encircling 30 acres (4 towers) with such a fence might be more costly than building the towers.
> > Would it make sense for Clear Channel to 'enhance' its
> > upgrade of WKOX
> > by taking its San Antonio flagship WOAI directional, thus
> > creating a situation
> > similar to that between KRLD (Dallas) and WTIC (Hartford)?
>
> >
> Preposterous idea! Have you ANY idea of how many full-time
> stations there are on 1200 between Newton and San Antonio?
> Must be dozens! The latest (CP granted just a couple of
> weeks ago), will be licensed to Highland NY (Poughkeepsie)
> with 4.7 kW-D/1 kW-N DA-2 five towers day and night. A
> little farther northwest is WTLA N Syracuse 1 kW DA-N two
> towers. And north of WTLA is CFGO Ottawa 50 kW-U DA-2 (six
> towers nights beaming north). Farther west is WCHB Inkster
> MI (Detroit) 50 kW-D/15 kW-N DA-2 (ten towers nights beaming
> due north). And there is a powerful 1200 AM in Chicago. This
> list is scarcely complete!
>
> WKOX was the first station (other than WOAI, of course) to
> apply for nighttime operation on 1200. The FCC accepted
> WKOX's application before the AM freeze that preceded the
> breakdown of the (then) IA clear channels circa 1980. Many
> applications were filed during the freeze but WKOX's
> application was the only one on any IA channel that was
> accepted for filing before the freeze began. WKOX's
> application was for 50 kW DA-N. When the freeze was lifted,
> the rules limited new Class II occupants of IA channels in
> the 48 contiguous states to 10 kW-D/1 kW-N. That limitation
> died only a few years later when the Rio treaty was signed
> sometime in the mid 80s.
>
> Anyhow, when the freeze ended, WKOX scaled back its
> application to 10 kW/1 kW but it was deemed mutually
> exlusive with an application from WAGE Leesburg VA (then a
> daytimer on 1290). After a hearing, both applications were
> granted (WAGE's for 5 kW-D/1 kW-N DA-N), but WKOX had to
> accept significant nighttime interference from WAGE, which
> had proposed a site southwest of Leesburg. To protect WOAI,
> WAGE had to directionalize toward Boston using a two-tower
> array. Protecting WKOX while also covering Leesburg was
> impossible from WAGE's proposed site.
>
> Given the 1-kW nighttime limitation, the significant
> co-channel interference from WAGE, and WKOX's desire to
> cover the whole MetroWest market, WKOX oriented its
> two-tower array with its axis at 215 degrees. That
> arrangement protected WAGE and provided nighttime coverage
> of Marlborough but proved to be a big problem when the 1-kW
> nighttime power limitation was lifted. The Town of
> Framingham refused building permits to reconfigure the
> towers in any way whatsoever. And stations, some of which
> I've listed above, were cropping up on 1200 all over the
> Northeast, Midwest, and Eastern Canada. A power increase
> that would have provided better service to suburbs between
> MetroWest and Boston became impossible because of the
> orientation of the towers. Were the towers at, say, 270
> degrees, WAGE could have been protected and WKOX could
> probably have received a nighttime increase to 10 kW--maybe
> more--using the two existing towers (50 kW using three
> towers). All that is water under the bridge now, but the
> history and all of the NIMBYism around here have succeeded
> in delaying WKOX's power increase by more than a decade--so
> far.
>
