<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: KFI&#8217;s tower closer to going back up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/</link>
	<description>Same old blog, brand new place</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:14:59 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls Weblog &#183; The Kurse of KFI</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-78199</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls Weblog &#183; The Kurse of KFI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-78199</guid>
		<description>[...] just learned that KFI&#8217;s new tower went down while it was going up. This was the long-awaited replacement for the tower that was knocked down in 2004. Here&#8217;s what I wrote about it back then. It was [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] just learned that KFI&#8217;s new tower went down while it was going up. This was the long-awaited replacement for the tower that was knocked down in 2004. Here&#8217;s what I wrote about it back then. It was [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-77604</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:04:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-77604</guid>
		<description>As a former airline captain, it is a pilot&#039;s responsibility to know where he is at all times in relationship to ground hazards, such as radio towers.  They are listed on aeronautical charts, and if VFR pilots maintain the proper altitude, there should be little problem.
ATR commercial pilots always fly IFR.  GA pilots who fly in terminal control airspace, such as LA, really should fly IFR as well.

This place is full of small aircraft traversing the area and it can be a really big worry when we would fly the pattern into LAX.  Despite excellent air traffic control, small planes pose a significant hazard to the big jets.  An accident occurred in Cerritos a few years back with a Cessna versus a Douglas MD-80.  A disaster that no one certainly wants to repeat.  I don&#039;t want to seem arrogant, but GA pilots need to learn IFR techniques just like the rest of us if they want to fly in this terribly crowded airspace.  Flying is not for amateurs with this degree of traffic and population density.

Getting back on point...  I drove by the new tower on the way home from LA yesterday, and I was quite impressed by the new structure.  It features new strobe anti-col lights and a very capable guying system.  It looks great!  It also has a circular structure atop the structure, perhaps this is part of the guying system.  It&#039;s very visable and clean.  Bravo!

I&#039;m glad that KFI is not using the spare tower longer as the radiation pattern seemed to be much closer to the ground and a few people I have spoken complained about headaches and eye aches when near the radiating tower.  It&#039;s not good to have 50KW in close proximity to people as it can be quite uncomfortable and possibly dangerous with long-term exposure.

Thank you for reading.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a former airline captain, it is a pilot&#8217;s responsibility to know where he is at all times in relationship to ground hazards, such as radio towers.  They are listed on aeronautical charts, and if VFR pilots maintain the proper altitude, there should be little problem.<br />
ATR commercial pilots always fly IFR.  GA pilots who fly in terminal control airspace, such as LA, really should fly IFR as well.</p>
<p>This place is full of small aircraft traversing the area and it can be a really big worry when we would fly the pattern into LAX.  Despite excellent air traffic control, small planes pose a significant hazard to the big jets.  An accident occurred in Cerritos a few years back with a Cessna versus a Douglas MD-80.  A disaster that no one certainly wants to repeat.  I don&#8217;t want to seem arrogant, but GA pilots need to learn IFR techniques just like the rest of us if they want to fly in this terribly crowded airspace.  Flying is not for amateurs with this degree of traffic and population density.</p>
<p>Getting back on point&#8230;  I drove by the new tower on the way home from LA yesterday, and I was quite impressed by the new structure.  It features new strobe anti-col lights and a very capable guying system.  It looks great!  It also has a circular structure atop the structure, perhaps this is part of the guying system.  It&#8217;s very visable and clean.  Bravo!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad that KFI is not using the spare tower longer as the radiation pattern seemed to be much closer to the ground and a few people I have spoken complained about headaches and eye aches when near the radiating tower.  It&#8217;s not good to have 50KW in close proximity to people as it can be quite uncomfortable and possibly dangerous with long-term exposure.</p>
<p>Thank you for reading.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76064</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-76064</guid>
		<description>Good to know, Mark. Thanks! Not sure they&#039;re using it yet. Sounds about the same to me here in Santa Barbara.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good to know, Mark. Thanks! Not sure they&#8217;re using it yet. Sounds about the same to me here in Santa Barbara.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BuenaParkMark</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-76047</link>
		<dc:creator>BuenaParkMark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-76047</guid>
		<description>FYI, a new tower went up finally around August 9 2008.  It has strobe lights during the day, at the top and mid-way down, so it will be easier to see.  In addition the strobes appear to be firing at night in addition to the required red lights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI, a new tower went up finally around August 9 2008.  It has strobe lights during the day, at the top and mid-way down, so it will be easier to see.  In addition the strobes appear to be firing at night in addition to the required red lights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-43746</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 17:33:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-43746</guid>
		<description>Gray, I am of two minds about this: a radio mind and an aviation mind. I love both, and I feel like I am watching both go through troubles.

On the radio side...

First, KFI is one of Los Angeles&#039; most popular stations -- even while using lesser transmitting facilities. So, while AM is &quot;on the way out,&quot; it still has a long way to go.

Second, KFI&#039;s facility has been, since 1947, a landmark signal from a landmark tower. It is, by virtue of its frequency (low on the AM dial), power, non-directionality (it only uses one tower) and power (50000 watts) and tower length (a half wave), the largest AM signal in the country. The shorter design that was being built when it fell down (and is probably being built again soon) would have the same electrical length but would not exist at the height it was hit by the plane that brought it down.

Third, there aren&#039;t many other places to put AM towers. When KFI&#039;s transmitter was established in La Mirada, it was surrounded by miles of orchards and other forms of agriculture in all directions. Land was cheap. Not any more.

On the aviation side...

First, it pains me to see so many local airports closing, especially around Los Angeles. I think it was nuts for the voters of Orange County to close and redevelop El Toro and exclude forever the possibility of having an airport there. Small airports all over the country are going the way of farms, and this is a Bad Thing.

Second, I don&#039;t doubt that the old KFI tower was a hazard to aviation. All towers, especially guyed ones, are hazards to aviation. And there are &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_United_States_by_height&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;a lot of them&lt;/a&gt;.

Third, I believe that most of what we now call radio will eventually just be data streams on the Internet, which can be carried on anything, including (and especially cell phones). Distributing data streams that way seems far more efficient and less wasteful to me than the current system, with its geographical limitations on coverage.

Sooo... I remain of two minds. Maybe they&#039;ll be blowing up these towers everywhere before the airport at fullerton closes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gray, I am of two minds about this: a radio mind and an aviation mind. I love both, and I feel like I am watching both go through troubles.</p>
<p>On the radio side&#8230;</p>
<p>First, KFI is one of Los Angeles&#8217; most popular stations &#8212; even while using lesser transmitting facilities. So, while AM is &#8220;on the way out,&#8221; it still has a long way to go.</p>
<p>Second, KFI&#8217;s facility has been, since 1947, a landmark signal from a landmark tower. It is, by virtue of its frequency (low on the AM dial), power, non-directionality (it only uses one tower) and power (50000 watts) and tower length (a half wave), the largest AM signal in the country. The shorter design that was being built when it fell down (and is probably being built again soon) would have the same electrical length but would not exist at the height it was hit by the plane that brought it down.</p>
<p>Third, there aren&#8217;t many other places to put AM towers. When KFI&#8217;s transmitter was established in La Mirada, it was surrounded by miles of orchards and other forms of agriculture in all directions. Land was cheap. Not any more.</p>
<p>On the aviation side&#8230;</p>
<p>First, it pains me to see so many local airports closing, especially around Los Angeles. I think it was nuts for the voters of Orange County to close and redevelop El Toro and exclude forever the possibility of having an airport there. Small airports all over the country are going the way of farms, and this is a Bad Thing.</p>
<p>Second, I don&#8217;t doubt that the old KFI tower was a hazard to aviation. All towers, especially guyed ones, are hazards to aviation. And there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_United_States_by_height" rel="nofollow">a lot of them</a>.</p>
<p>Third, I believe that most of what we now call radio will eventually just be data streams on the Internet, which can be carried on anything, including (and especially cell phones). Distributing data streams that way seems far more efficient and less wasteful to me than the current system, with its geographical limitations on coverage.</p>
<p>Sooo&#8230; I remain of two minds. Maybe they&#8217;ll be blowing up these towers everywhere before the airport at fullerton closes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gray</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-43199</link>
		<dc:creator>Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-43199</guid>
		<description>Some very interesting comments and some very incorrect information being thrown about regarding the former tower and the new tower.  I will preface my diatribe by identifying myself as a private pilot based out of Fullerton, flying since around 1999.  I’ve seen the tower many times while flying around the relatively congested So Cal airspace.  I remember one of my instructors warning me about the dangers of the tower and how we pilots should do everything possible to avoid the thin steel monster waiting to pluck out fragile aluminum birds from the sky.  I have had numerous flights where the tower seems to have appeared out of nowhere even though I thought I was flying a safe distance away.

The bottom line from this pilot’s perspective is this – the tower is a hazard to navigation and to aircraft flying in the area – period.  It is a danger and it will be hit by an aircraft again if allowed to be rebuilt.  I whole heartedly agree with the airport manager’s comment that it’s not a matter of if, just a matter of when.  

Now I know, I know – it’s the pilot’s responsibility to see and avoid and for the most part that is exactly what we do.  Fullerton Airport has an excellent safety record.  But a tower is a different animal.  It’s made of relatively thin tubing with even thinner guy wires for support.  It’s just not that easy to see and it’s just one more thing a very busy pilot needs to keep track of while arriving to or departing from the airport.  The airport, as a side note to a previous post, was constructed and put in operation prior to the KFI tower being built.

With respect to another post which indicated the tower to be approximately 7 miles NE of the airport – that number is way off!  The old and proposed new towers are approximately 1.7 miles west-northwest of the airport.  This puts the tower within the traffic pattern.  During the most recent tragedy, which unfortunately claimed two lives, I believe runway 6 was in use for landing and departing.  The normal “race track” traffic pattern for runway 6 uses left turns.  So a pilot arriving to Fullerton would enter the downwind leg north of the airport and in the opposite direction to landing prior to setting up for their turn to the base leg and then to the final approach.  Well guess what is waiting for the pilot on the downwind leg – you guessed it – a 750 tall tower.  Now to make matters even more challenging, the incoming pilot enters the traffic pattern at 1,100 feet AMSL (1,000 feet above the ground) and begins their descent to landing around the midfield point.  A typical single engine piston plane flying around 90 knots and descending at the standard 500 feet per minute is going to be at an altitude of approximately 500 to 600 feet when they intercept the location of the tower.  A recipe for disaster.

As several of the previous posters have pointed out, AM radio is on the way out.  KFI appears to be maintaining its listener base using the current systems of antennas.  Do we really need to construct another death trap just to provide an AM signal that no one listens to anyway?  When will the madness stop?  The tower should not be rebuilt within Fullerton Airport’s controlled airspace.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some very interesting comments and some very incorrect information being thrown about regarding the former tower and the new tower.  I will preface my diatribe by identifying myself as a private pilot based out of Fullerton, flying since around 1999.  I’ve seen the tower many times while flying around the relatively congested So Cal airspace.  I remember one of my instructors warning me about the dangers of the tower and how we pilots should do everything possible to avoid the thin steel monster waiting to pluck out fragile aluminum birds from the sky.  I have had numerous flights where the tower seems to have appeared out of nowhere even though I thought I was flying a safe distance away.</p>
<p>The bottom line from this pilot’s perspective is this – the tower is a hazard to navigation and to aircraft flying in the area – period.  It is a danger and it will be hit by an aircraft again if allowed to be rebuilt.  I whole heartedly agree with the airport manager’s comment that it’s not a matter of if, just a matter of when.  </p>
<p>Now I know, I know – it’s the pilot’s responsibility to see and avoid and for the most part that is exactly what we do.  Fullerton Airport has an excellent safety record.  But a tower is a different animal.  It’s made of relatively thin tubing with even thinner guy wires for support.  It’s just not that easy to see and it’s just one more thing a very busy pilot needs to keep track of while arriving to or departing from the airport.  The airport, as a side note to a previous post, was constructed and put in operation prior to the KFI tower being built.</p>
<p>With respect to another post which indicated the tower to be approximately 7 miles NE of the airport – that number is way off!  The old and proposed new towers are approximately 1.7 miles west-northwest of the airport.  This puts the tower within the traffic pattern.  During the most recent tragedy, which unfortunately claimed two lives, I believe runway 6 was in use for landing and departing.  The normal “race track” traffic pattern for runway 6 uses left turns.  So a pilot arriving to Fullerton would enter the downwind leg north of the airport and in the opposite direction to landing prior to setting up for their turn to the base leg and then to the final approach.  Well guess what is waiting for the pilot on the downwind leg – you guessed it – a 750 tall tower.  Now to make matters even more challenging, the incoming pilot enters the traffic pattern at 1,100 feet AMSL (1,000 feet above the ground) and begins their descent to landing around the midfield point.  A typical single engine piston plane flying around 90 knots and descending at the standard 500 feet per minute is going to be at an altitude of approximately 500 to 600 feet when they intercept the location of the tower.  A recipe for disaster.</p>
<p>As several of the previous posters have pointed out, AM radio is on the way out.  KFI appears to be maintaining its listener base using the current systems of antennas.  Do we really need to construct another death trap just to provide an AM signal that no one listens to anyway?  When will the madness stop?  The tower should not be rebuilt within Fullerton Airport’s controlled airspace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-41133</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-41133</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d think the current KTLK/1150 site would be better. The five towers there are 146.93 meters high, or about 500 feet. That&#039;s somewhat better than a quarter wave at 640KHz. And on relatively conductive ground. The old &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fccinfo.com/CMDProEngine.php?sCurrentService=AM&amp;tabSearchType=Appl&amp;sAppIDNumber=1173895&amp;sHours=D&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;KIIS site towers&lt;a&gt; are only 65.17 meters high, and on pretty nonconductive ground, as I recall. 

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=77965.msg571292&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More interesting stuff here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d think the current KTLK/1150 site would be better. The five towers there are 146.93 meters high, or about 500 feet. That&#8217;s somewhat better than a quarter wave at 640KHz. And on relatively conductive ground. The old <a href="http://www.fccinfo.com/CMDProEngine.php?sCurrentService=AM&amp;tabSearchType=Appl&amp;sAppIDNumber=1173895&amp;sHours=D" rel="nofollow">KIIS site towers</a><a> are only 65.17 meters high, and on pretty nonconductive ground, as I recall. </p>
<p></a><a href="http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=77965.msg571292" rel="nofollow">More interesting stuff here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Art Landing</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-40922</link>
		<dc:creator>Art Landing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-40922</guid>
		<description>It makes complete sense that KFI might use a KTLK tower in a pinch. Both stations are owned by Clear Channel and share common studios and staff in Burbank (along with KOST, KBIG, and KLAC). Switching feed to another transmitter in the family would be quite easy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It makes complete sense that KFI might use a KTLK tower in a pinch. Both stations are owned by Clear Channel and share common studios and staff in Burbank (along with KOST, KBIG, and KLAC). Switching feed to another transmitter in the family would be quite easy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dino Darling - K6RIX</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-33611</link>
		<dc:creator>Dino Darling - K6RIX</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-33611</guid>
		<description>KFI is currently transmitting from their 200&#039; back up tower.  In March, during the construction of the new tower, they moved their operation to the old KIIS-AM / KTLK-1150 site in Montecito Heights.

When the new tower fell during mid-construction, they moved back to the aux tower since it works better than the Montecito Heights location.

See pictures of the new construction AND the tower failure on my website...  http://www.k6rix.com/

Dino Darling - K6RIX</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>KFI is currently transmitting from their 200&#8242; back up tower.  In March, during the construction of the new tower, they moved their operation to the old KIIS-AM / KTLK-1150 site in Montecito Heights.</p>
<p>When the new tower fell during mid-construction, they moved back to the aux tower since it works better than the Montecito Heights location.</p>
<p>See pictures of the new construction AND the tower failure on my website&#8230;  <a href="http://www.k6rix.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.k6rix.com/</a></p>
<p>Dino Darling &#8211; K6RIX</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/comment-page-1/#comment-29912</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2007/11/29/kfis-tower-closer-to-going-back-up/#comment-29912</guid>
		<description>I gather from the news coverage that KFI is currently radiating from another tower entirely. It also seemed that way to me yesterday. When I was tuning around the rental car radio downtown, it seemed to me that KFI was almost local. Made me think that maybe they were using the central tower of the KLAC/KFWB array, not far from downtown.That&#039;s the tower KFWB uses full time while KLAC uses it just by day (switching to the two other shorter ones at night).

I agree about the programming. Awful and sad. Also popular. Even with reduced coverage, KFI is a ratings winner.

Interesting that you&#039;re getting the values you&#039;re reading. Seems KFWB from the short (but sectionalized) stick is 25kw. 

BTW, I have two GE SuperRadios, of the original type. Great boxes, those. Here in Boston I&#039;m using a Sangean/Radio Shack radio that does a pretty good job. Not much cause on the AM side, though. It&#039;s crazy that they&#039;ve let new stations drop in on the old Chicago clears. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fccinfo.com/CMDProFacLookup.php?sCurrentService=AM&amp;tabSearchType=Within+Search&amp;ArchiveRecords=N&amp;sKilometers=25&amp;sLatitude=42-22-43&amp;sLongitude=71-7-44&amp;sZip=02138&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Check this out&lt;/a&gt;. The &quot;new station&quot; on 720 will blow away WGN, which come in quite well here at night. They&#039;ve already put a station on 890, so WLS is gone. Makes no sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I gather from the news coverage that KFI is currently radiating from another tower entirely. It also seemed that way to me yesterday. When I was tuning around the rental car radio downtown, it seemed to me that KFI was almost local. Made me think that maybe they were using the central tower of the KLAC/KFWB array, not far from downtown.That&#8217;s the tower KFWB uses full time while KLAC uses it just by day (switching to the two other shorter ones at night).</p>
<p>I agree about the programming. Awful and sad. Also popular. Even with reduced coverage, KFI is a ratings winner.</p>
<p>Interesting that you&#8217;re getting the values you&#8217;re reading. Seems KFWB from the short (but sectionalized) stick is 25kw. </p>
<p>BTW, I have two GE SuperRadios, of the original type. Great boxes, those. Here in Boston I&#8217;m using a Sangean/Radio Shack radio that does a pretty good job. Not much cause on the AM side, though. It&#8217;s crazy that they&#8217;ve let new stations drop in on the old Chicago clears. <a href="http://www.fccinfo.com/CMDProFacLookup.php?sCurrentService=AM&amp;tabSearchType=Within+Search&amp;ArchiveRecords=N&amp;sKilometers=25&amp;sLatitude=42-22-43&amp;sLongitude=71-7-44&amp;sZip=02138" rel="nofollow">Check this out</a>. The &#8220;new station&#8221; on 720 will blow away WGN, which come in quite well here at night. They&#8217;ve already put a station on 890, so WLS is gone. Makes no sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
