T
TXengineer
Guest
WBOT's application to go to Blue Hill was has been approved by the FCC.
-
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
> > WBOT's application to go to Blue Hill was has been
> approved
> > by the FCC.
> >
>
> Now I guess the next question is whether they will actually
> be able to get on WGBH's tower on the hill? Some people I've
> talked to don't even think there will be room for another FM
> antenna up there.
>
Also, will the environmentalists who have been trying to get WGBH down for years let the WBOT CP fall through the cracks?
> approved
> > by the FCC.
> >
>
> Now I guess the next question is whether they will actually
> be able to get on WGBH's tower on the hill? Some people I've
> talked to don't even think there will be room for another FM
> antenna up there.
>
Also, will the environmentalists who have been trying to get WGBH down for years let the WBOT CP fall through the cracks?
> > > WBOT's application to go to Blue Hill was has been approved
> > > by the FCC.
One thing ironic is that WGBH's five-watt directional translator W242AA serving Beacon Hill and Back Bay from the WMBR tower at MIT in Cambridge was originally on 97.7 for a short time.
The translator license was moved to 96.3 after a number of people in Boston and Cambridge claimed they could no longer get 97.7 from Brockton, which was then Country station WCAV. This was during a period when there was no Country station in Boston proper.
If WGBH hadn't been forced to move their translator frequency back then, the move by 97.7, now WBOT, from Brockton to (I presume) their tower on Blue Hill may not have been able to work.
> > > by the FCC.
One thing ironic is that WGBH's five-watt directional translator W242AA serving Beacon Hill and Back Bay from the WMBR tower at MIT in Cambridge was originally on 97.7 for a short time.
The translator license was moved to 96.3 after a number of people in Boston and Cambridge claimed they could no longer get 97.7 from Brockton, which was then Country station WCAV. This was during a period when there was no Country station in Boston proper.
If WGBH hadn't been forced to move their translator frequency back then, the move by 97.7, now WBOT, from Brockton to (I presume) their tower on Blue Hill may not have been able to work.
CALLING SCOTT FYBUSH, CALLING SCOTT FYBUSH!!!!
...Because I know Scotts the guy who can give us the scoop on this. For example, what are the chances this change will happen, how long will it take, and are they likely to face a legal challenge from others like 'GBH, the Blue Hill Observatory folks, or maybe even Clear-channel in some contribed way?
> > > > WBOT's application to go to Blue Hill was has been
> approved
> > > > by the FCC.
>
> One thing ironic is that WGBH's five-watt directional
> translator W242AA serving Beacon Hill and Back Bay from the
> WMBR tower at MIT in Cambridge was originally on 97.7 for a
> short time.
>
> The translator license was moved to 96.3 after a number of
> people in Boston and Cambridge claimed they could no longer
> get 97.7 from Brockton, which was then Country station WCAV.
> This was during a period when there was no Country station
> in Boston proper.
>
> If WGBH hadn't been forced to move their translator
> frequency back then, the move by 97.7, now WBOT, from
> Brockton to (I presume) their tower on Blue Hill may not
> have been able to work.
>
...Because I know Scotts the guy who can give us the scoop on this. For example, what are the chances this change will happen, how long will it take, and are they likely to face a legal challenge from others like 'GBH, the Blue Hill Observatory folks, or maybe even Clear-channel in some contribed way?
> > > > WBOT's application to go to Blue Hill was has been
> approved
> > > > by the FCC.
>
> One thing ironic is that WGBH's five-watt directional
> translator W242AA serving Beacon Hill and Back Bay from the
> WMBR tower at MIT in Cambridge was originally on 97.7 for a
> short time.
>
> The translator license was moved to 96.3 after a number of
> people in Boston and Cambridge claimed they could no longer
> get 97.7 from Brockton, which was then Country station WCAV.
> This was during a period when there was no Country station
> in Boston proper.
>
> If WGBH hadn't been forced to move their translator
> frequency back then, the move by 97.7, now WBOT, from
> Brockton to (I presume) their tower on Blue Hill may not
> have been able to work.
>
Re: CALLING SCOTT FYBUSH, CALLING SCOTT FYBUSH!!!!
are they likely to face a
> legal challenge from others like 'GBH, the Blue Hill
> Observatory folks, or maybe even Clear-channel in some
> contribed way?
I'd doubt that Clear Channel would challenge the WBOT CP. Now that Clear Channel is letting WILD lease space on the WXKS tower, I don't think that there is much bad blood between these two companies, at least locally.
are they likely to face a
> legal challenge from others like 'GBH, the Blue Hill
> Observatory folks, or maybe even Clear-channel in some
> contribed way?
I'd doubt that Clear Channel would challenge the WBOT CP. Now that Clear Channel is letting WILD lease space on the WXKS tower, I don't think that there is much bad blood between these two companies, at least locally.
WILD
> I'd doubt that Clear Channel would challenge the WBOT CP.
> Now that Clear Channel is letting WILD lease space on the
> WXKS tower, I don't think that there is much bad blood
> between these two companies, at least locally.
Meanwhile, last week an engineer did some interim repair work at WILD's old (still current) facility, because there was a problem causing intermittent modulation and dropouts at times.
In addition to repairing that, he apparently hooked up WILD's mono STL line to both channels of the AM stereo transmitter, so although there's still no stereo link from their new studios, at least it's not only feeding the mono line into only the right stereo channel of the signal anymore. (I can visualize a "Y adaptor"...)
Also, the modulation level has been tweaked, and it sounds somewhat better.
I hear that the plan when moving WILD to the WXKS tower will be a new transmitter and IBOC (at which point the analog AM stereo light will finally be shut off, leaving WJIB and WLYN as our only remaining AM stereo signals).
> I'd doubt that Clear Channel would challenge the WBOT CP.
> Now that Clear Channel is letting WILD lease space on the
> WXKS tower, I don't think that there is much bad blood
> between these two companies, at least locally.
Meanwhile, last week an engineer did some interim repair work at WILD's old (still current) facility, because there was a problem causing intermittent modulation and dropouts at times.
In addition to repairing that, he apparently hooked up WILD's mono STL line to both channels of the AM stereo transmitter, so although there's still no stereo link from their new studios, at least it's not only feeding the mono line into only the right stereo channel of the signal anymore. (I can visualize a "Y adaptor"...)
Also, the modulation level has been tweaked, and it sounds somewhat better.
I hear that the plan when moving WILD to the WXKS tower will be a new transmitter and IBOC (at which point the analog AM stereo light will finally be shut off, leaving WJIB and WLYN as our only remaining AM stereo signals).
T
TXengineer
Guest
> If WGBH hadn't been forced to move their translator
> frequency back then, the move by 97.7, now WBOT, from
> Brockton to (I presume) their tower on Blue Hill may not
> have been able to work.
Sure it would have. The translator would be forced off the air.
Translators get no protection from full power licenses or CPs.
They are considered a secondary service (Yet get priority over LPFM, go figure).
> frequency back then, the move by 97.7, now WBOT, from
> Brockton to (I presume) their tower on Blue Hill may not
> have been able to work.
Sure it would have. The translator would be forced off the air.
Translators get no protection from full power licenses or CPs.
They are considered a secondary service (Yet get priority over LPFM, go figure).
Re: CALLING SCOTT FYBUSH, CALLING SCOTT FYBUSH!!!!
> ...Because I know Scotts the guy who can give us the scoop
> on this. For example, what are the chances this change will
> happen, how long will it take, and are they likely to face a
> legal challenge from others like 'GBH, the Blue Hill
> Observatory folks, or maybe even Clear-channel in some
> contribed way?
If anyone were going to challenge the move, it would have happened before the construction permit was granted, not now. The move fits the spacing rules, doesn't step on anyone's toes right in the Boston market, and apparently satisfies the FCC that it will put 70 dBu over all of Brockton still. How - and why - would anyone challenge that, under those circumstances? Broadcasters (yes, even Clear Channel) respect each others' rights to make legitimate upgrades.
The big question, apparently, is whether there's space on Blue Hill for WBOT. It's state land, but I believe it's WGBH's tower, and the word I hear is that as long as 89.7 is there, there's no room on the tower to accommodate a 97.7 antenna.
The questions to be asking, then, are whether WGBH will ever implement its move to Needham (paid for, perhaps, by Radio One?), or whether Radio One would want to go to the (very considerable) expense of replacing WGBH's antenna with a broadband panel antenna that could handle both 89.7 and 97.7 (if that could even be done, given the need to directionalize the 97.7 signal). Either option is likely to cost more than the WBOT upgrade would be worth.
s<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
> ...Because I know Scotts the guy who can give us the scoop
> on this. For example, what are the chances this change will
> happen, how long will it take, and are they likely to face a
> legal challenge from others like 'GBH, the Blue Hill
> Observatory folks, or maybe even Clear-channel in some
> contribed way?
If anyone were going to challenge the move, it would have happened before the construction permit was granted, not now. The move fits the spacing rules, doesn't step on anyone's toes right in the Boston market, and apparently satisfies the FCC that it will put 70 dBu over all of Brockton still. How - and why - would anyone challenge that, under those circumstances? Broadcasters (yes, even Clear Channel) respect each others' rights to make legitimate upgrades.
The big question, apparently, is whether there's space on Blue Hill for WBOT. It's state land, but I believe it's WGBH's tower, and the word I hear is that as long as 89.7 is there, there's no room on the tower to accommodate a 97.7 antenna.
The questions to be asking, then, are whether WGBH will ever implement its move to Needham (paid for, perhaps, by Radio One?), or whether Radio One would want to go to the (very considerable) expense of replacing WGBH's antenna with a broadband panel antenna that could handle both 89.7 and 97.7 (if that could even be done, given the need to directionalize the 97.7 signal). Either option is likely to cost more than the WBOT upgrade would be worth.
s<P ID="signature">______________
Tower Site Calendar 2005 NOW AVAILABLE! - <a target="_blank" href=http://www.fybush.com/nerw.html#calendar>www.fybush.com</a></P>
Re: WILD
> I hear that the plan when moving WILD to the WXKS tower will
> be a new transmitter and IBOC (at which point the analog AM
> stereo light will finally be shut off, leaving WJIB and WLYN
> as our only remaining AM stereo signals).
>
This is true. But why bother with the old AM stereo when IBOC AM will be hi-fi anyway? I hear the new IBOC stuff sounds pretty good (despite distorting analog with hash). But when we all have IBOC radios, will that matter anymore?
> I hear that the plan when moving WILD to the WXKS tower will
> be a new transmitter and IBOC (at which point the analog AM
> stereo light will finally be shut off, leaving WJIB and WLYN
> as our only remaining AM stereo signals).
>
This is true. But why bother with the old AM stereo when IBOC AM will be hi-fi anyway? I hear the new IBOC stuff sounds pretty good (despite distorting analog with hash). But when we all have IBOC radios, will that matter anymore?
Re: WILD
> > I hear that the plan when moving WILD to the WXKS tower will
> > be a new transmitter and IBOC (at which point the analog AM
> > stereo light will finally be shut off, leaving WJIB and WLYN
> > as our only remaining AM stereo signals).
> >
> This is true. But why bother with the old AM stereo when
> IBOC AM will be hi-fi anyway? I hear the new IBOC stuff
> sounds pretty good (despite distorting analog with hash).
> But when we all have IBOC radios, will that matter anymore?
They'll have to come down quite a bit to fit into my meager budget.
I wonder how IBOC AM car receivers will be affected in a car like mine, which slams huge amounts of ignition, alternator, electric fuel pump, windshield wiper motor, directional relay (etc...) static down the antenna line?
> > I hear that the plan when moving WILD to the WXKS tower will
> > be a new transmitter and IBOC (at which point the analog AM
> > stereo light will finally be shut off, leaving WJIB and WLYN
> > as our only remaining AM stereo signals).
> >
> This is true. But why bother with the old AM stereo when
> IBOC AM will be hi-fi anyway? I hear the new IBOC stuff
> sounds pretty good (despite distorting analog with hash).
> But when we all have IBOC radios, will that matter anymore?
They'll have to come down quite a bit to fit into my meager budget.
I wonder how IBOC AM car receivers will be affected in a car like mine, which slams huge amounts of ignition, alternator, electric fuel pump, windshield wiper motor, directional relay (etc...) static down the antenna line?
Re: WILD
Probably won't be any worse than today's current FM receivers.
>
> They'll have to come down quite a bit to fit into my meager
> budget.
>
> I wonder how IBOC AM car receivers will be affected in a car
> like mine, which slams huge amounts of ignition, alternator,
> electric fuel pump, windshield wiper motor, directional
> relay (etc...) static down the antenna line?
>
Probably won't be any worse than today's current FM receivers.
>
> They'll have to come down quite a bit to fit into my meager
> budget.
>
> I wonder how IBOC AM car receivers will be affected in a car
> like mine, which slams huge amounts of ignition, alternator,
> electric fuel pump, windshield wiper motor, directional
> relay (etc...) static down the antenna line?
>
WJMN?
> I don't think that there is much bad blood between these two companies, at least >locally.
What about Jamn? WBOT basically runs the same format as them, and a power increase
may jeopardize Clear Channel's nice hold on their audience.
> I don't think that there is much bad blood between these two companies, at least >locally.
What about Jamn? WBOT basically runs the same format as them, and a power increase
may jeopardize Clear Channel's nice hold on their audience.
Re: WJMN?
> > I don't think that there is much bad blood between these
> two companies, at least >locally.
>
> What about Jamn? WBOT basically runs the same format as
> them, and a power increase
> may jeopardize Clear Channel's nice hold on their audience.
Yes, but WBOT targets a much more urban audience than Jam'n. And the WBOT signal upgrade will improve their signal over Dorchester and Roxbury enormously. Jam'n targets far more of a suburban audience, and is a Rhythmic CHR, not strictly Hip Hop/R&B as is Hot 97.7.
Even with the WBOT upgrade, Jam'n signal is still far superior to WBOT. Additionally, because Clear Channel's Medford/Everett tower (currently used for 1430 WXKS) will be leased to Radio One to use for WILD, I tend to believe that they are not intense rivals (i.e. WBCN and WAAF).
> > I don't think that there is much bad blood between these
> two companies, at least >locally.
>
> What about Jamn? WBOT basically runs the same format as
> them, and a power increase
> may jeopardize Clear Channel's nice hold on their audience.
Yes, but WBOT targets a much more urban audience than Jam'n. And the WBOT signal upgrade will improve their signal over Dorchester and Roxbury enormously. Jam'n targets far more of a suburban audience, and is a Rhythmic CHR, not strictly Hip Hop/R&B as is Hot 97.7.
Even with the WBOT upgrade, Jam'n signal is still far superior to WBOT. Additionally, because Clear Channel's Medford/Everett tower (currently used for 1430 WXKS) will be leased to Radio One to use for WILD, I tend to believe that they are not intense rivals (i.e. WBCN and WAAF).
- Status