• 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

WQGR 93.7 - New FM station in NE Ohio

B

Buckeyes2001

From the Cleveland board, a new FM station just started broadcasting on 93.7 with callsign WQGR. They're calling it 'Cougar 93.7' with a signal about 45 miles ENE of Cleveland in North Madison, OH.

http://radiodiscussions.com/smf/index.php?topic=227528.0


If you happen to get an e-skip opening to Ohio, check 93.7. They're stunting with all John Cougar Mellencamp songs for now until their new format, adult CHR is launched.

http://radioinsight.com/blog/headlines/84157/cougar-comes-to-cleveland-suburbs/
 
Hard to believe that this wasn't dropped in years ago. Is there a story behind this? Another station moved or downgraded? Difficulty negotiating CKLW-FM/CIDR? I see it's 79 meters HAAT. I'd have to look at the application to see what the problems were. It's Section 73.215, and that is a separate issue from Canada.
 
It is short spaced to the current KDKA-FM Pittsburgh, PA. Also to 93.5 in London, ON as well as 93.9 CKLW-FM/CIDR. It could be either an FAA issue or Canadian Overlap issue that limits it to 79 meters HAAT. I didn't see the overlap maps in the application, only a narrative. I'll try to look again. There was some trouble loading. It would be about the equivalent of 3.75 kW from 100 meters, but that might not give overlap protection to KDKA-FM. Along the lake, there are probably no big shadowing issues within the lake shore area, and that's where the population is normally concentrated. Pretty good new facility considering everything.
 
Wasn't the callsign KDKA-FM ever used before on an FM connected with KDKA? I couldn't find it online. Well, I see that it was from 1942 to 1979, as I suspected. Wikipedia is quite radio history unfriendly. Station histories are seriously incomplete, and call letter changes and other changes often obscure interesting histories. One of the things I really don't like about the internet. It's almost like George Orwell's "memory hole" in the novel "1984". David's site does a lot to help that situation, as do libraries with old newspaper microfiche. It just takes time.
 
Interestingly out here in Vermilion, I could plainly hear WQGR in the right spots where their signal covered WQIO's signal. It's about a 50/50 mix of the 2 signals here tonight while in a moving car. I'll have to try again during the middle of the day and see if it's still there.
 
The protection of KDKA-FM 93.7 is achieved by reduced height for Class A and terrain shielding. The irregular contour is due to rapid changes in HAAT with direction. It looks like there should be an exhibit for CKLW-FM/CIDR 93.9 Windsor and CBCL 93.5 London overlap, but so far I haven't found it. Overlap over water is excluded.

Using a directional antenna for less than a 3 dB reduction in ERP is usually not good in practice. Only when corporate insists that the ERP be maximized is this done. Usually you do best with Omni for many reasons. Different situations require different approaches, but this approach looks very reasonable. Bob On The Job has driver commented in a thread in the engineering section about FM DAs falling short of their licensed pattern parameters in many directions, which is permitted, but if you can optimize the pattern it is better. But usually, if you could be 4-5 kW Omni vs 6 kW directional, from an engineering standpoint, it is better, and usually the Omni has an observably better signal than DA to the sophisticated DXer, "signal drivers", and engineers.
 
Schroedingers Cat said:
Overlap over water is excluded.
Click to expand...

I know, same as with AM. But I agree that there should be at least some mention of spacing to the Canadian stations.
 
I've noticed that many applications are pretty sketchy these days. The Canadian overlap situation is kind of glossed over in the narrative on one of the applications. Now the people who review these applications have software and I'm sure they checked it and the Canadian Treaty committee reviewed it, but if it were me reviewing the application, I would prefer a map showing the overlap. And I'm sure that if I had prepared the application, I would have been asked for a supplemental showing to address the Canadian overlap situation if one had not been included in the original application. And it would be a competitor of some description trying to delay the application or to shoot it down.

I didn't realize that CBCL had reduced power to 69,300 watts from 100,000. I'm sure it's still protected in the treaty as 100,000 watts. CKLW-FM/CIDR is directional. The information on the DA is sketchy, just 4 radials as I recall, but it appears to pull in slightly to protect WVIC 94.1 Jackson, MI.
 
I just found out that the 69,300 watt ERP for CBCL is the average ERP, and that it is still 100,000 watts ERP maximum. They went directional to drop in CBLA on FM in Toronto, apparently to reduce coverage overlap, not interference, as CBLA is on 99.1.
 
Schroedingers Cat said:
The protection of KDKA-FM 93.7 is achieved by reduced height for Class A and terrain shielding. The irregular contour is due to rapid changes in HAAT with direction. It looks like there should be an exhibit for CKLW-FM/CIDR 93.9 Windsor and CBCL 93.5 London overlap, but so far I haven't found it. Overlap over water is excluded.
Click to expand...

If 93.7 causes issues with 93.5 CBCL or 93.9 CKLW, then what about the new WEHP 92.7 in Erie PA?? How is that not causing problems with CJBX 92.7 in London? CJBX used to be like a local with good signal travel across Lake Erie.
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WEHP&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=CJBX&service=FM&status=F&hours=U

Another good example is 102.9 W275BB in Buffalo and CKLH 102.9 in Hamilton Ontario. There seems to be quite a coverage overlap. And what about WJCA and CFNY on 102.1??
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=WJCA&service=FM&status=L&hours=U
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat?call=CFNY&service=FM&status=F&hours=U

It seems like Canada doesn't really care as long as the signal isn't causing reception problems of a Canadian station within Canada... no concern for signal problems of Canadian stations in the USA.
 
Andrew K said:
It seems like Canada doesn't really care as long as the signal isn't causing reception problems of a Canadian station within Canada... no concern for signal problems of Canadian stations in the USA.
Click to expand...

Correct. The current version of the Working Agreement gives no protection to Canadian FM signals on US soil, nor vice versa.

Because all Canadian FM classes are protected within Canada to 54 dBu, the showing that US stations near the border have to make is that their 34 dBu contour (54 dBu -20 dB) doesn't hit Canadian soil. When a new US allocation is proposed to Canada for international concurrence, Canada will often request a condition limiting radiation to a certain level toward the relevant Canadian signal.

The Erie-market 92.7 achieves that by using a directional antenna that limits the amount of signal thrown northward at 92.7 in London and 92.9 in Haldimand-Norfolk. You can see the relevant filing here:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/CDBS...?appn=101497746&qnum=5290&copynum=1&exhcnum=1
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom