WKOX/WKXS Signal update

[doc9464]

Any updates on the city of Newton giving/denying approval to the stations?

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Re: WKOX/WXKS Signal update

> Any updates on the city of Newton giving/denying approval to the stations?

So far, approval to build the proposed towers has been denied by the city. I suppose CC may try to reopen the case again, but I haven't heard or seen anything lately.

Also, the only AAR affiliate that was to move there was WKOX. It doesn't affect WXKS. The other stations that would've been upgraded by the proposed facility were WRCA and WUNR.

 

[Smoke]

Newton

> > Any updates on the city of Newton giving/denying approval
> to the stations?
>
> So far, approval to build the proposed towers has been
> denied by the city. I suppose CC may try to reopen the case
> again, but I haven't heard or seen anything lately.
>
> Also, the only AAR affiliate that was to move there was
> WKOX. It doesn't affect WXKS. The other stations that
> would've been upgraded by the proposed facility were WRCA
> and WUNR.

I'm a little surprized such a liberal town doesn't want a liberal station coming in via the phone lines. Then again, it's owned by CC, which is evil, Bush Radio.

 

[cabradio]

Re: Newton

> Then again,
> it's owned by CC, which is evil, Bush Radio.

Keep in mind that it doesn't matter if it's CC or AAR, it's all about the <font color="green">GREEN</font>.<P ID="signature">______________



</P>

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Re: Newton

> > > Any updates on the city of Newton giving/denying approval
> > to the stations?
> >
> > So far, approval to build the proposed towers has been
> > denied by the city. I suppose CC may try to reopen the case
> > again, but I haven't heard or seen anything lately.
> >
> > Also, the only AAR affiliate that was to move there was
> > WKOX. It doesn't affect WXKS. The other stations that
> > would've been upgraded by the proposed facility were WRCA
> > and WUNR.
>
> I'm a little surprized such a liberal town doesn't want a
> liberal station coming in via the phone lines. Then again,
> it's owned by CC, which is evil, Bush Radio.

The programming or the politics of the owners isn't the issue. Some people in the Oak Hill Park neighborhood have complained of the present WUNR 5 kW two tower site coming through their phones and electronic devices, and they don't want three more powerful AM stations and three more towers up there.

 

[Neggy]

Re: Newton

>
> The programming or the politics of the owners isn't the
> issue. Some people in the Oak Hill Park neighborhood have
> complained of the present WUNR 5 kW two tower site coming
> through their phones and electronic devices, and they don't
> want three more powerful AM stations and three more towers
> up there.
>

Well it isn't the fault of the broadcasters USUALLY when cheap consumer electronics are bothered by RF. I did have a second harmonic out of tolerance once that bothered a neighbor to our tower but that was quickly found by a proof of operations test.

This is the price you pay for cheap telephones, radios, etc. They skimp on the rejection design.

I did have to shield a whole computer mainframe room once in Burlington just across 128 from where WRKO's 3 tower array is because we were having problems. The whole room was surrounded by a fine copper screen that was grounded. Problem solved.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: Newton

I know that what is now WUNR signed-on in the late 1940's as WVOM.

I suspect that the station has transmitted from Newton for it's entire existance, and that when the towers were first constructed, there likely were as yet no homes in that part of the city.

Thus no "NIMBY's" way back when to block construction.

 

[DanStrassberg]

Re: Newton

> I know that what is now WUNR signed-on in the late 1940's as
> WVOM.
>
> I suspect that the station has transmitted from Newton for
> it's entire existance, and that when the towers were first
> constructed, there likely were as yet no homes in that part
> of the city.
>
> Thus no "NIMBY's" way back when to block construction.

Assuming that WUNR were amenable, WKOX could run 50 kW-D from WUNR's two existing towers without the need for zoning approval from the City of Newton. The reason that City approval would not be required is that no tower construction would be necessary.

However, the night upgrade would present problems. WKOX is proposing to change its COL to Newton because, given the required nighttime pattern, the station can't cover the current COL, Framingham, with an adequate nighttime signal from the WUNR site. A move to the east is essential for WKOX to deliver a signal that Clear Channel considers acceptable in the downtown section of the market's largest city (Boston). With the help of the V-Soft signal-strength-by-ZIP-Code web site, I have pretty well established that even though WKOX could run 5 kW (or something close) at night from WUNR's two existing towers without interfering with any existing station, the coverage of Newton would almost certainly not meet FCC requirements. WKOX's NIF (nighttime interference-free) contour is something like 14 mV/m. An AM station must deliver an NIF signal to at least 80% of its COL. Newton is fairly spread out, geographically, and WKOX's 5 kW signal from the WUNR site apparently would not place the requisite signal over 80% of Newton. I tried half a dozen Zip codes in Newton, Needham, and Waltham, using WUNR as a surrogate for a 5 kW WKOX operation, and the signal was well below the 14 mV/m minimum in both Auburndale and Newton Lower Falls (as well as 02494 in Needham and 02454 in Waltham). Surprisingly, it was well above the minimum (almost 25 mV/m) in 02458 (Newton Corner).

Now, someone is sure to protest that since WKOX is on a lower frequency than WUNR, its coverage is bound to be better. Yes, but not enough. WUNR's towers are electrically shorter at 1200 than they are at 1600 and a ground system that is up to FCC standards at 1600 is somewhat below standards, though usable, at 1200. Both of these factors somewhat offset the benefits of the lower frequency. The reason that WUNR has no problem with covering its COL at night is that it is licensed to Brookline, which is much more compact than Newton AND WUNR's NIF is only 5.4 mV/m. From what I can tell, WUNR would meet FCC requirements for a station licensed to Newton. Now, some clever person is likely to ask why WUNR couldn't change its COL to Newton allowing WKOX to be licensed to Brookline. I'm not sure that WKOX, operating from the WUNR site with 5 kW, could deliver 14 mV/m to all of Brookline, but if it could, the FCC still won't accept applications for AM COL changes until it opens another AM major-change filing window. The last one was opened last year. The previous one was opened five years earlier. Nobody is even forecasting when--or even if--another one will be opened.

Now there is one other possibility that I can think of. Salem owns WROL 950 and WTTT 1150 and has applied to turn WROL into a true full-time (Class B) station licensed to Revere. If the FCC approves Salem's application, WROL will add two towers to its site on the Lynn Marsh Rd in Saugus and will run 5 kW-U DA-N. There would be no change to WROL's existing nondirectional daytime operation. WROL's proposed night pattern from Saugus would be very similar to WTTT's night pattern.

WTTT operates from a site on Concord Ave in Lexington, on the Belmont line. Salem owns the WROL site but not the WTTT site, which is owned by American Tower Systems. Salem likes to own its AM sites because the company does not like paying rent. Assuming that the FCC grants WROL's application and WROL builds its CP, there is a possibility that WTTT could diplex with WROL from the Saugus site. A nighttime diplex appears simple for WTTT. A daytime diplex would be more complicated. The easy part would be protecting second-adjacent WFPB Orleans on Cape Cod. Using two of WROL's three towers, WTTT could porduce a pattern very similar to that of co-owned WEZE 590--except rotated clockwise by 135 degrees. But this would not solve a possible problem with co-channel WMRD Middletown CT, which Salem might have to buy and take dark to make room for WTTT.

Nor would it solve the problem with the former CHSJ Saint John NB. Yes, CHSJ has been gone from 1150 for almost two decades and, having moved to FM, has been gone entirely from the AM band for about a year now. But CHSJ's former operation on 1150 is still notified to the US and must be protected. WTTT's current operation from Lexington protects CHSJ both because of the directional pattern and the fairly long distance the signal must travel over land before it reaches salt water. But the Saugus site could have neither of those "advantages." So unless Salem could somehow persuade Industrie Canada to remove the international notification, WTTT must remain at its present site and pay rent to American Tower Systems.

However, if WTTT were no longer at the Lexington site, the site and towers could become available to WKOX. Even if WTTT were gone only during nighttime hours, WKOX could operate from the WUNR site by day and from the WTTT site by night. (A diplex of stations on 1150 and 1200 is unworkable because the frequencies are too close.) It appears that WKOX's nighttime coverage of Newton from the WTTT site using 5 kw and a pattern almost identical to WTTT's existing night pattern, would just barely provide the required NIF coverage of Newton, and would probably provide adequate protection to co-channel and first-adjacnet-channel stations. It would also deliver a signal to downtown Boston that Clear Channel would probably find acceptable--although not as good as the company had hoped for.

A possible benefit for Salem from moving WTTT's daytime operation--assuming that both the WMRD and CHSJ problems could be solved--is that WTTT might be able to increase its day power--probably to at least 10 kW.

 

[inorm99]

Re: Newton

If all this comes into play and WKOX Does end up in Lexington, how much of the metro area could actually hear WKOX at night?
I know that what is now WUNR signed-on in the late 1940's
> as
> > WVOM.
> >
> > I suspect that the station has transmitted from Newton for
>
> > it's entire existance, and that when the towers were first
>
> > constructed, there likely were as yet no homes in that
> part
> > of the city.
> >
> > Thus no "NIMBY's" way back when to block construction.
>
> Assuming that WUNR were amenable, WKOX could run 50 kW-D
> from WUNR's two existing towers without the need for zoning
> approval from the City of Newton. The reason that City
> approval would not be required is that no tower construction
> would be necessary.
>
> However, the night upgrade would present problems. WKOX is
> proposing to change its COL to Newton because, given the
> required nighttime pattern, the station can't cover the
> current COL, Framingham, with an adequate nighttime signal
> from the WUNR site. A move to the east is essential for WKOX
> to deliver a signal that Clear Channel considers acceptable
> in the downtown section of the market's largest city
> (Boston). With the help of the V-Soft
> signal-strength-by-ZIP-Code web site, I have pretty well
> established that even though WKOX could run 5 kW (or
> something close) at night from WUNR's two existing towers
> without interfering with any existing station, the coverage
> of Newton would almost certainly not meet FCC requirements.
> WKOX's NIF (nighttime interference-free) contour is
> something like 14 mV/m. An AM station must deliver an NIF
> signal to at least 80% of its COL. Newton is fairly spread
> out, geographically, and WKOX's 5 kW signal from the WUNR
> site apparently would not place the requisite signal over
> 80% of Newton. I tried half a dozen Zip codes in Newton,
> Needham, and Waltham, using WUNR as a surrogate for a 5 kW
> WKOX operation, and the signal was well below the 14 mV/m
> minimum in both Auburndale and Newton Lower Falls (as well
> as 02494 in Needham and 02454 in Waltham). Surprisingly, it
> was well above the minimum (almost 25 mV/m) in 02458 (Newton
> Corner).
>
> Now, someone is sure to protest that since WKOX is on a
> lower frequency than WUNR, its coverage is bound to be
> better. Yes, but not enough. WUNR's towers are electrically
> shorter at 1200 than they are at 1600 and a ground system
> that is up to FCC standards at 1600 is somewhat below
> standards, though usable, at 1200. Both of these factors
> somewhat offset the benefits of the lower frequency. The
> reason that WUNR has no problem with covering its COL at
> night is that it is licensed to Brookline, which is much
> more compact than Newton AND WUNR's NIF is only 5.4 mV/m.
> From what I can tell, WUNR would meet FCC requirements for a
> station licensed to Newton. Now, some clever person is
> likely to ask why WUNR couldn't change its COL to Newton
> allowing WKOX to be licensed to Brookline. I'm not sure that
> WKOX, operating from the WUNR site with 5 kW, could deliver
> 14 mV/m to all of Brookline, but if it could, the FCC still
> won't accept applications for AM COL changes until it opens
> another AM major-change filing window. The last one was
> opened last year. The previous one was opened five years
> earlier. Nobody is even forecasting when--or even
> if--another one will be opened.
>
> Now there is one other possibility that I can think of.
> Salem owns WROL 950 and WTTT 1150 and has applied to turn
> WROL into a true full-time (Class B) station licensed to
> Revere. If the FCC approves Salem's application, WROL will
> add two towers to its site on the Lynn Marsh Rd in Saugus
> and will run 5 kW-U DA-N. There would be no change to WROL's
> existing nondirectional daytime operation. WROL's proposed
> night pattern from Saugus would be very similar to WTTT's
> night pattern.
>
> WTTT operates from a site on Concord Ave in Lexington, on
> the Belmont line. Salem owns the WROL site but not the WTTT
> site, which is owned by American Tower Systems. Salem likes
> to own its AM sites because the company does not like paying
> rent. Assuming that the FCC grants WROL's application and
> WROL builds its CP, there is a possibility that WTTT could
> diplex with WROL from the Saugus site. A nighttime diplex
> appears simple for WTTT. A daytime diplex would be more
> complicated. The easy part would be protecting
> second-adjacent WFPB Orleans on Cape Cod. Using two of
> WROL's three towers, WTTT could porduce a pattern very
> similar to that of co-owned WEZE 590--except rotated
> clockwise by 135 degrees. But this would not solve a
> possible problem with co-channel WMRD Middletown CT, which
> Salem might have to buy and take dark to make room for WTTT.
>
>
> Nor would it solve the problem with the former CHSJ Saint
> John NB. Yes, CHSJ has been gone from 1150 for almost two
> decades and, having moved to FM, has been gone entirely from
> the AM band for about a year now. But CHSJ's former
> operation on 1150 is still notified to the US and must be
> protected. WTTT's current operation from Lexington protects
> CHSJ both because of the directional pattern and the fairly
> long distance the signal must travel over land before it
> reaches salt water. But the Saugus site could have neither
> of those "advantages." So unless Salem could somehow
> persuade Industrie Canada to remove the international
> notification, WTTT must remain at its present site and pay
> rent to American Tower Systems.
>
> However, if WTTT were no longer at the Lexington site, the
> site and towers could become available to WKOX. Even if WTTT
> were gone only during nighttime hours, WKOX could operate
> from the WUNR site by day and from the WTTT site by night.
> (A diplex of stations on 1150 and 1200 is unworkable because
> the frequencies are too close.) It appears that WKOX's
> nighttime coverage of Newton from the WTTT site using 5 kw
> and a pattern almost identical to WTTT's existing night
> pattern, would just barely provide the required NIF coverage
> of Newton, and would probably provide adequate protection to
> co-channel and first-adjacnet-channel stations. It would
> also deliver a signal to downtown Boston that Clear Channel
> would probably find acceptable--although not as good as the
> company had hoped for.
>
> A possible benefit for Salem from moving WTTT's daytime
> operation--assuming that both the WMRD and CHSJ problems
> could be solved--is that WTTT might be able to increase its
> day power--probably to at least 10 kW.
>
<P ID="signature">______________
Norm Rosen
</P>

 

[DanStrassberg]

Re: Newton

> If all this comes into play and WKOX Does end up in
> Lexington, how much of the metro area could actually hear
> WKOX at night?

The signal would be virtually identical to WTTT's existing night signal. There would be somewhat more interference, though. I don't know WTTT's NIF nor do I know how to find it; NIFs are not in the FCC's public database. My guess is that WTTT's NIF is in the area of 8 mV/m--but that's purely a guess. WKOX's NIF is 13.5 or so mV/m--although that probably would change a bit if the station moved roughly 15 miles from Framingham to Lexington. WKOX's current night signal is normally easily listenable well outside of the official NIF contour. According to the V-Soft Web site, WKOX's night signal in my ZIP code (02476) is 1.6 mV/m. That is, of course, an average--possibly the value is exact at the ZIP code's population centroid, which must be about two miles east of where I live. So maybe the signal at my house is a little better than 1.6 mV/m, but it can't be much more than 2.0 mV/m. Given that WKOX's NIF is about seven times as great as the signal where I listen every night, I think it's quite safe to say that the NIF contour provides a conservative estimate of where the night signal is listenable. You probably wouldn't be too far wrong if you said that if WKOX operated with 5 kW at night from what is currently the WTTT site in Lexington, WKOX's nighttime service area would be about the same as WTTT's present nighttime service area, which is to say that the signal on the North Shore would be poor--generally not listenable, as would the signal north and west of Boston outside of Route 128. But assuming that WKOX remained in a simulcast with WXKS (AM), WXKS would cover a lot of those areas. To be sure, only a small portion would receive an NIF signal, but a larger portion would get a listenable signal. I believe that essentially all of Newton would lie within the NIF contour and I know that downtown Boston would get more than 10 mV/m, which Clear Channel considers to be the minimum it could accept.

 

[Bill-in-CT]

Could WXKS/WKOX go on Kiss HD?

Maybe Clear Channel could simulcast WXKS/WKOX on a Kiss HD carrier. Is Kiss doing HD yet?

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Re: Could WXKS/WKOX go on Kiss HD?

> Maybe Clear Channel could simulcast WXKS/WKOX on a Kiss HD
> carrier. Is Kiss doing HD yet?

That would not be a solution to significantly increase the listenership for that format yet. It'll probably be at least a few years before many people will purchase HD receivers.

 

[Alron]

Re: Could WXKS/WKOX go on Kiss HD?

How many years do you realistically think it will take for even 50 % penetration of HD receivers?



o> > Maybe Clear Channel could simulcast WXKS/WKOX on a Kiss HD
>
> > carrier. Is Kiss doing HD yet?
>
> That would not be a solution to significantly increase the
> listenership for that format yet. It'll probably be at least
> a few years before many people will purchase HD receivers.
>

 

[k9ez]

Re: Newton

> > > Any updates on the city of Newton giving/denying
> approval
> > to the stations?
> >
> > So far, approval to build the proposed towers has been
> > denied by the city. I suppose CC may try to reopen the
> case
> > again, but I haven't heard or seen anything lately.
> >
> > Also, the only AAR affiliate that was to move there was
> > WKOX. It doesn't affect WXKS. The other stations that
> > would've been upgraded by the proposed facility were WRCA
> > and WUNR.
>
> I'm a little surprized such a liberal town doesn't want a
> liberal station coming in via the phone lines. Then again,
> it's owned by CC, which is evil, Bush Radio.
>

OMG!!! You crack me up! Bush radio, yet CC is the largest carrier of AAR. Grow up and OPEN YOUR EYES.

Perhaps it is evil because it carries AAR. WHATEVER!

 

[inorm99]

Re: Newton

If WKOX does end up at WTTT's spot, then it wouldn't be the best move.
A lot of us listeners are west of rt. 128.



If all this comes into play and WKOX Does end up in
> > Lexington, how much of the metro area could actually hear
> > WKOX at night?
>
> The signal would be virtually identical to WTTT's existing
> night signal. There would be somewhat more interference,
> though. I don't know WTTT's NIF nor do I know how to find
> it; NIFs are not in the FCC's public database. My guess is
> that WTTT's NIF is in the area of 8 mV/m--but that's purely
> a guess. WKOX's NIF is 13.5 or so mV/m--although that
> probably would change a bit if the station moved roughly 15
> miles from Framingham to Lexington. WKOX's current night
> signal is normally easily listenable well outside of the
> official NIF contour. According to the V-Soft Web site,
> WKOX's night signal in my ZIP code (02476) is 1.6 mV/m. That
> is, of course, an average--possibly the value is exact at
> the ZIP code's population centroid, which must be about two
> miles east of where I live. So maybe the signal at my house
> is a little better than 1.6 mV/m, but it can't be much more
> than 2.0 mV/m. Given that WKOX's NIF is about seven times as
> great as the signal where I listen every night, I think it's
> quite safe to say that the NIF contour provides a
> conservative estimate of where the night signal is
> listenable. You probably wouldn't be too far wrong if you
> said that if WKOX operated with 5 kW at night from what is
> currently the WTTT site in Lexington, WKOX's nighttime
> service area would be about the same as WTTT's present
> nighttime service area, which is to say that the signal on
> the North Shore would be poor--generally not listenable, as
> would the signal north and west of Boston outside of Route
> 128. But assuming that WKOX remained in a simulcast with
> WXKS (AM), WXKS would cover a lot of those areas. To be
> sure, only a small portion would receive an NIF signal, but
> a larger portion would get a listenable signal. I believe
> that essentially all of Newton would lie within the NIF
> contour and I know that downtown Boston would get more than
> 10 mV/m, which Clear Channel considers to be the minimum it
> could accept.
> <P ID="signature">______________
Norm Rosen
</P>

 

[Smoke]

You don't get humor (no text)

> > I'm a little surprized such a liberal town doesn't want a
> > liberal station coming in via the phone lines. Then
> again,
> > it's owned by CC, which is evil, Bush Radio.
> >
>
> OMG!!! You crack me up! Bush radio, yet CC is the largest
> carrier of AAR. Grow up and OPEN YOUR EYES.
>
> Perhaps it is evil because it carries AAR. WHATEVER!

You don't get humor (no text)