Any Plans for FM at 1WTC? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Any Plans for FM at 1WTC?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Massapequa Park, NY
    Posts
    17
    Is there a link to the estimated coverage map for FM, VHF and UHF for the new antenna?
    Last edited by djl; 04-08-2016 at 09:06 PM. Reason: Adding

  2. #12
    I can see it as an advantage for FM if this will improve multipath, or building penetration issues. I guess my question is how much difference is the reception at the current sites vs the former site (2001). With cable, online, etc. For TV, I don't know if they would look at it as a primary and the current location as a secondary backup. In 2001, the TV landscape was very different, and probably more OTA viewers. Now most stations are running a direct cable fiber from the studio to the cable headends. Maybe there are enough OTA viewers to make it viable. Any rating/household insights?

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Groove1670 View Post
    I can see it as an advantage for FM if this will improve multipath, or building penetration issues.
    I don't recall there being much of an advantage on Manhattan. Perhaps in other boroughs.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Groove1670 View Post
    I can see it as an advantage for FM if this will improve multipath, or building penetration issues. I guess my question is how much difference is the reception at the current sites vs the former site (2001). With cable, online, etc. For TV, I don't know if they would look at it as a primary and the current location as a secondary backup. In 2001, the TV landscape was very different, and probably more OTA viewers. Now most stations are running a direct cable fiber from the studio to the cable headends. Maybe there are enough OTA viewers to make it viable. Any rating/household insights?
    The real issue is separation on a crowded band. For example, CBS-FM which is co-channel with WBEB in Philly apparently can not move an inch farther to the south or southeast. A number of other stations are similarly affected.

    Another issue is that there is more population in the metro to be reached from the ESB than from the new location, as more of the radio market is in NE New Jersey and even a piece of SW Connecticut.

    Beyond that, adding height would further reduce power and that can affect building penetration in the high-rise areas of the market. One consideration, though, is that there are Midtown structures rivaling the height of the ESB with more planned, and that could shadow or affect coverage from the current preferred site.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by djl View Post
    Is there a link to the estimated coverage map for FM, VHF and UHF for the new antenna?
    That would depend on the power of each station. For FMs, all have to fit the same height/power restrictions as applies to their class; they would increase height but decrease power. The center of coverage would simply move about 6 km to the south.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEduardo View Post

    There is one commercial FM that "fit" on the World Trade antenna, WPAT
    I thought the one FM on WTC was 103.5.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    I thought the one FM on WTC was 103.5.
    IIRC, it was on WTC on a separate antenna back in the WTFM days when it was directional. When, in the 80's, it went non-directional it stayed on the WTC as it was minimally short spaced to WBZO and a station in NJ (Newton, I think). After 9/11 they filed for an STA to the ESB and then requested a waiver for the minimal interference to run 6 kw on the ERI master antenna, which was granted. They now have no reason to go back to the other location.

    When they were directional, they had a separate small mast with the DA antennas on it. I actually saw it on the roof when doing due diligence for the purchase of WTFM, and it had a lower center of radiation than the big mast.

    WPAT was on the WTC, and still operates with slightly reduced power on the ESB because of spacing.

    Last edited by DavidEduardo; 04-10-2016 at 09:54 PM.
    www.americanradiohistory.com
    Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks, RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio Annual, Radio News, Sponsor, Television/Radio Age, R&R, Duncan's American Radio, M Street Directory, Broadcast Engineering, db, and more.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Lansdale, PA
    Posts
    427
    When we moved 103.5 (WYNY at that time) from the DA antenna on the south tower to the north tower master antenna, there was quite a bit of negotiation involved to bring it about. Westwood One, in order to get the non-directional status, negotiated agreements with WNNJ in Newton, NJ and WPRB in Princeton, NJ. In return for WNNJ and WPRB agreeing to allow WYNY to go non-directional from 1WTC, Westwood One in turn agreed to pay for both WNNJ and WPRB to increase power to bring them to full class B status. All three agreed to accept any mutual interference from overlap in New Jersey. Overall, it was a win-win-win agreement for all three stations. I was only minimally involved with the move as I was primarily working for our AM (WNEW-AM) at the time, so was only involved in some of the grunt work of the project, but if Jim Huste is on this board he could give more details. He was CE at WYNY at the time. Off the top of my head, I can't remember what our input power to the master antenna was, but I do remember that looking at the Bird watt meters in the WTC combiner room that WYNY was pretty much equal to the two other class B's running from WTC, WPAT and WQCD.
    Last edited by rtetro; 04-11-2016 at 12:48 PM.
    Rene Tetro
    Director of Engineering
    WNTP 990AM -WFIL 560AM
    Philadelphia

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Groove1670 View Post
    I guess my question is how much difference is the reception at the current sites vs the former site (2001). With cable, online, etc. For TV, I don't know if they would look at it as a primary and the current location as a secondary backup. In 2001, the TV landscape was very different, and probably more OTA viewers. Now most stations are running a direct cable fiber from the studio to the cable headends. Maybe there are enough OTA viewers to make it viable. Any rating/household insights?
    I watch OTA TV 90% of the time because the picture quality is far superior to the cable we have, and I sense this is a growing trend. There are also some good sub-channels, such as Antenna TV. We need cable for football games, all the news channels, etc. But almost all our viewing is OTA.
    Last edited by Willits; 04-12-2016 at 03:57 AM.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Area Code 305
    Posts
    3,279
    I wish I could delete my own posts, and once and for all...
    I am not an effing robot!
    (and this GIF if for my NEXT post)
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by ai4i; 04-12-2016 at 12:15 PM.
    Ai4i has Always Been on the Trailing Edge of Technology!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




     
Our Conferences
Useful Contacts
Community


Contact Us