Is Langer's 650 moving in?

I don't know if anyone here is able to interpret the FCC's list of AM modifications and new frequencies <a target="_blank" href=http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A2.pdf>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A2.pdf</a>, which was released yesterday. However, if I'm reading it correctly, is Langer trying to move 650 to Lexington, MA, basically making it a Boston rimshot?

There's also a mention of 1580 Cordaville (Southboro), MA, and also WAZN 1470, but I can't tell at all what any of this means.

More importanly, who are his backers this time? Seems Bonnie and Clyde are previously occupied. Where's Ma Barker when you need her?


> I don't know if anyone here is able to interpret the FCC's
> list of AM modifications and new frequencies
http://> hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A2.pdf,
> which was released yesterday. However, if I'm reading it
> correctly, is Langer trying to move 650 to Lexington, MA,
> basically making it a Boston rimshot?
>
> There's also a mention of 1580 Cordaville (Southboro), MA,
> and also WAZN 1470, but I can't tell at all what any of this
> means.
>

> More importanly, who are his backers this time?

Probably the money he got for selling off 1470.

> > More importanly, who are his backers this time?
>
> Probably the money he got for selling off 1470.
>
what about the money he diddn't get for 1260 WMEX/WBIX?

> I don't know if anyone here is able to interpret the FCC's
> list of AM modifications and new frequencies
http://> hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A2.pdf,
> which was released yesterday. However, if I'm reading it
> correctly, is Langer trying to move 650 to Lexington, MA,
> basically making it a Boston rimshot?
>
> There's also a mention of 1580 Cordaville (Southboro), MA,
> and also WAZN 1470, but I can't tell at all what any of this
> means.
>
WAZN has already moved to "Watertown" and is operating from the WTTT site on Concord Ave in Lexington with 1400W-D/3400W-N DA-2 (three towers day and night). I believe that a license to cover has been granted, although the FCC AM database doesn't say so. There is also an error in the latest record for the station's nighttime operation. Somewhere and somehow the record for tower #3, which was in the original application as the FCC accepterd it for filing, has been lost. The result is that the night pattern appears to be much looser than it really is or can be without interfering with the 1470 station in Lewiston ME. Three or four months ago, I brought this to the attention of WAZN/WLYN's GM, Jeff Kline, who occasionally posts here, and he said not to worry about it, but the error has not been corrected, nor has the database been updated to show that the facilities the station has been using for about a year have finally been licensed.

There is also an error in the Cordaville app. IIRC, the proposed station would operate with 1 kW-D/250W-N DA-N (six towers). According to the app, two towers are in the same spot, which would be impossible to build and screws up the night pattern. It's supposed to protect the Canadian border and because of the error, it doesn't. This station could conceivably make money by broadcasting 24/7 in Portuguese to the large community of Portuguese speakers in MetroWest (but see my other comments later in this posting). What I don't know, and what nobody who reads this board is likely to know, is whether land is really available for the six-tower array at a price that makes any economic sense and whether the town in which the land is located (Framingham? Cordaville is part of Framingham) has any prayer of granting a building permit for the towers. Anyhow, the FCC has not yet granted a CP and given the skyrocketing price of homes in MetroWest, if a CP and a building permit are granted, the land cost is likely to extend the time for the investors to recoup their investment well into the next milennium.

And what I just said about Cordaville is true in spades for Alex's proposal to move WSRO to Lexington with transmitter in Canton--yes, Canton (on the east side of Route 1) about 30 miles south of Lexington. WSRO would remain a Class D AM but would increase power to 5 kW (from the current 250W). To do this, Alex proposes to build a six-tower array that would produce a very narrow pattern aimed due north to put the requisite 5 mV/m over Lexington. There would be a small lobe to the east to cover Brockton. The need to protect an allocation in Frederickton NB (to allow night service, albeit still as a Class D AM) and an application in Maine (Rangely, IIRC) results in a null to the northeast so that coverage of the City of Boston would be minimal. A six-tower array for 650 takes A LOT of land. I once figured out how many acres would be required for this one and it's huge. Unless the real-estate market here goes flat bust, the land-acquisition cost would exceed the highest imaginable valuation for the station by a factor of at least 20 times. I think this upgrade has at best a 0.01% chance of being built. Also, it appears that the FCC considers the WSRO upgrade and the Rangely proposal to be mutually exclusive, although I'm not sure that they really are.

WAZN 1470

> WAZN has already moved to "Watertown" and is operating from
> the WTTT site on Concord Ave in Lexington with
> 1400W-D/3400W-N DA-2 (three towers day and night). I believe
> that a license to cover has been granted, although the FCC
> AM database doesn't say so. There is also an error in the
> latest record for the station's nighttime operation.
> Somewhere and somehow the record for tower #3, which was in
> the original application as the FCC accepterd it for filing,
> has been lost. The result is that the night pattern appears
> to be much looser than it really is or can be without
> interfering with the 1470 station in Lewiston ME. Three or
> four months ago, I brought this to the attention of
> WAZN/WLYN's GM, Jeff Kline, who occasionally posts here, and
> he said not to worry about it, but the error has not been
> corrected, nor has the database been updated to show that
> the facilities the station has been using for about a year
> have finally been licensed.


First of all, it is not necessary to put Watertown in quotes. Watertown IS now the WAZN city of license. We are not being clandestine about it - we are not ID'd as Watertown-Boston, or anything similarly cutesey.

WAZN was granted Program Test Authority by the FCC, effective 3/21/05.
WAZN is now officially open for business - having begun a local program in Russian on 5/1/05. Recently, major changes were made to the 1150, on the same towers. For the last several weeks, WAZN has been operating omnidirectional, at reduced power, while the work was progressing on the 1150. That portion is now almost complete. Now the final tweaking of the pattern for WAZN can begin.
At that point, the official license will be issued.

I would suggest that you find out the FACTS, before posting anything that concerns WLYN/WAZN.

Jeff Kline
General Manager, WLYN/WAZN

> There is also an error in the Cordaville app. IIRC, the
> proposed station would operate with 1 kW-D/250W-N DA-N (six
> towers). According to the app, two towers are in the same
> spot, which would be impossible to build and screws up the
> night pattern. It's supposed to protect the Canadian border
> and because of the error, it doesn't. This station could
> conceivably make money by broadcasting 24/7 in Portuguese to
> the large community of Portuguese speakers in MetroWest (but
> see my other comments later in this posting). What I don't
> know, and what nobody who reads this board is likely to
> know, is whether land is really available for the six-tower
> array at a price that makes any economic sense and whether
> the town in which the land is located (Framingham?
> Cordaville is part of Framingham) has any prayer of granting
> a building permit for the towers. Anyhow, the FCC has not
> yet granted a CP and given the skyrocketing price of homes
> in MetroWest, if a CP and a building permit are granted, the
> land cost is likely to extend the time for the investors to
> recoup their investment well into the next milennium.

I'm pretty sure that Cordaville is part of Southboro. It's off of Route 9, near the intersection with the old Farrell Volvo dealership and that liquor store that a tractor trailer rammed into once (I think it's called Bill's Liquors).

Land in Southboro would be very pricey even if it could be found. It's not Weston, but as you said, I don't know how it the operation could stay afloat after the acquisition of land. If the COL could be changed to Framingham, would the Mount Waite home of WKOX/WSRO/WBIX work as a possible site?

> > > More importanly, who are his backers this time?
> >
> > Probably the money he got for selling off 1470.
> >
> what about the money he diddn't get for 1260 WMEX/WBIX?

1260 is WMKI, Boston (Radio Disney).

> > > > More importanly, who are his backers this time?
> > >
> > > Probably the money he got for selling off 1470.
> > >
> > what about the money he diddn't get for 1260 WMEX/WBIX?
>
> 1260 is WMKI, Boston (Radio Disney).
>
1060 of course.

Re: WAZN 1470

> First of all, it is not necessary to put Watertown in
> quotes. Watertown IS now the WAZN city of license. We are
> not being clandestine about it - we are not ID'd as
> Watertown-Boston, or anything similarly cutesey.

I put Watertown in quotes because neither your studios, offices, nor transmitter are in Watertown. I am well aware that, in all probability, the majority of US radio stations have neither their studios, offices, nor transmitter in their COL. HOWEVER, if I had not put Watertown in quotes, somebody on this board would certainly have asked about where in Watertown you were located. This is, after all, a board for radio geeks and we are VERY picky.

As for writing that WAZN has a license to cover, I got THAT from none other than you, Mr Kline! Am I now supposed to interpret this latest missive of yours to mean that the posting from which I got that information three or more months ago was incorrect? If so, you are the one who owes me (and the other members here) an apology for your error. Unfortunately, I know of no convenient way to save postings from this board. If you had sent me your earlier message as a private e-mail, I would have a copy and I could show you what you had written. In fact, one of the FCC daily digests that appeared shortly after your posting may have confirmed that a license to cover had been granted.

And the FCC database IS in error. When WAZN is running directionally at night, it uses all three towers of the 1150 array. With 3.4 kW, there IS no way the pattern could adequately protect Lewiston if you used only two of the towers. In your previous communication, you confirmed that the WAZN night pattern uses all three towers. So why don't you send an e-mail to Son Nguyn at the FCC and advise him that one of WAZN's tower records is missing. He will probably retrieve the tower record and correct the station record. Or have your consulting engineer advise the Media Bureau.

Re: WAZN 1470

I don't normally involve myself in these types of discussions Dan, but for you I will make an exception. Your knowledge on these subjects has proven to be indisputable time after time and this is no exception. Here is the link to Mr. Klines message.

http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board.php?Post=384061&Board=boston

> As for writing that WAZN has a license to cover, I got THAT
> from none other than you, Mr Kline! Am I now supposed to
> interpret this latest missive of yours to mean that the
> posting from which I got that information three or more
> months ago was incorrect? If so, you are the one who owes me
> (and the other members here) an apology for your error.
> Unfortunately, I know of no convenient way to save postings
> from this board. If you had sent me your earlier message as
> a private e-mail, I would have a copy and I could show you
> what you had written. In fact, one of the FCC daily digests
> that appeared shortly after your posting may have confirmed
> that a license to cover had been granted. <P ID="signature">______________
(The Other) Big John</P>

Re: WAZN 1470

> I don't normally involve myself in these types of
> discussions Dan, but for you I will make an exception. Your
> knowledge on these subjects has proven to be indisputable
> time after time and this is no exception. Here is the link
> to Mr. Klines message.
>
>
http:> //www.radio-info.com/mods/board.php?Post=384061&Board=boston
>
>
> > As for writing that WAZN has a license to cover, I got
> THAT
> > from none other than you, Mr Kline! Am I now supposed to
> > interpret this latest missive of yours to mean that the
> > posting from which I got that information three or more
> > months ago was incorrect? If so, you are the one who owes
> me
> > (and the other members here) an apology for your error.
> > Unfortunately, I know of no convenient way to save
> postings
> > from this board. If you had sent me your earlier message
> as
> > a private e-mail, I would have a copy and I could show you
>
> > what you had written. In fact, one of the FCC daily
> digests
> > that appeared shortly after your posting may have
> confirmed
> > that a license to cover had been granted.
>
THANKS, JOHN! I think I've just gotten a small taste of how Michael Issikoff must have felt after the Whitehouse first crucified him for inaccurate reporting and then had to admit that the US military HAD discovered accounts of Q'uran abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Nothing like being able to show the person who accuses you of not checking out your facts that the facts were supplied by the accuser himself!

Re: WAZN 1470

There was a missing set of data in the application that needed to be sent to the fcc to finally get WAZN's license issued. I am pretty sure it was just an oversight by whomever put the package together and not an intentional ommission.I read the letter from the FCC and it was all pretty minor stuff that needed to be sent in to get the matter resolved. All documentation issues.

It has been a long road getting that license issued, and speaking only for myself as a former wazn staffer pretty frustrating. None of the issues were within our control so everytime there was an inquiry about buying time we really had no information to give the potential clients. It was also fustrating to walk by a dark studio all the time.

The folks who own WAZN were none too hapy about the situation either as the station was not generating any income.

Now that there is permission from the feds to operate the station as it was intended, pending the data being sent in , WAZN can start selling time. The rates are reasonable so if you are in the market drop Jeff a line.

Re: WAZN 1470

> There was a missing set of data in the application that
> needed to be sent to the fcc to finally get WAZN's license
> issued. I am pretty sure it was just an oversight by
> whomever put the package together and not an intentional
> ommission.I read the letter from the FCC and it was all
> pretty minor stuff that needed to be sent in to get the
> matter resolved. All documentation issues.
>
> It has been a long road getting that license issued, and
> speaking only for myself as a former wazn staffer pretty
> frustrating. None of the issues were within our control so
> everytime there was an inquiry about buying time we really
> had no information to give the potential clients. It was
> also fustrating to walk by a dark studio all the time.
>
> The folks who own WAZN were none too hapy about the
> situation either as the station was not generating any
> income.
>
> Now that there is permission from the feds to operate the
> station as it was intended, pending the data being sent in ,
> WAZN can start selling time. The rates are reasonable so if
> you are in the market drop Jeff a line.
>
Well, if the missing set of data was the record for the parameters of tower 3 in the night array, that data WAS in the original application to move to Watertown and it was also in the CP for the move that the FCC granted. It was apparently missing from the application for the license to cover, however. I caught that omission months back and e-mailed Jeff about it. He replied, but he seemed a little miffed that I would bring up such a thing. Still, he told me not to worry about it. I wasn't worried; the omission obviously had no effect on me, but maybe Jeff should have worried. If indeed that tower record WAS the missing data, the error I tried to bring to his attention delayed the grant of the license to cover. If the omission was Jeff's error (seems unlikely; more likely, it was an error by the consulting engineer or by the lawyer responsible for the application), it wound up costing Multicultural a fairly substantial piece of change, and from what you say, some embarassment in dealing with potential customers. Whoever was responsible for the error would seem to owe Mr Liu.

BTW, I caught an error in WBIX's application for a license to cover (there was a 1-degree error in the longitude of either the D or CH array--I forget which--but it put that array in the Atlantic Ocean off the eastern tip of Long Island rather than on Mt Wayte Ave in Framingham). It was a clear and simple typo. I e-mailed Son Nguyn at the FCC and the record was corrected the next day. A day or two later, WBIX received its license to cover.

> If the COL could be changed to Framingham, would the
> Mount Waite home of WKOX/WSRO/WBIX work as a possible site?
>
There are several reasons why this isn't an option: 1. The Mr Wayte site probably does not have enough room for the array. 2. The existing towers are WAY too tall to be usable as any part of an array for a 1580 station. 3. The existing towers don't seem to be properly situated to form part of an array that would provide the necessary protections (to Canada). 4. (the biggy) A decade or so ago, the Town of Framingham Zoning Board of Appeals shot down WKOX's application for a building permit for a new array at the Mt Wayte site. The permit was needed as part of one of WKOX's first, if not its very first, application to increase to 50 kW-U. The station was then still owned by Fairbanks. IIRC, at that time, WKOX was proposing to use the WNTN tower by day and to replace its own two 440' towers with three 195-footers for use at night. The COL would have remained Framingham because the 50 kW-ND D signal from Rumford Ave would have delivered the requisitie 5 mV/m to Framingham. The number of applications and proposed sites that followed boggles the mind. Among other places that have also refused building permits for WKOX are Sudbury, Wayland, and of course, Newton.

I wrote:

> Alex's proposal to move WSRO to Lexington with transmitter
> in Canton--yes, Canton (on the east side of Route 1) about
> 30 miles south of Lexington.

When I said "Canton--yes, Canton" I was wrong. The correct proposed COL is Foxboro--yes, Foxboro. Canton is near Foxboro (I believe that Canton is a short distance north of Foxboro), but I get no cigar for this one.

> The need to protect an
> allocation in Frederickton NB (to allow night service,
> albeit still as a Class D AM) and an application in Maine
> (Rangely, IIRC) results in a null to the northeast so that
> coverage of the City of Boston would be minimal.

And I didn't "RC" when I said Rangeley. The correct town is Raymond. I have no idea how distant Raymond is from Rangely, but both begin with R ;>)