Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Do you happen to know the channel that 124 kW CP was for? That would be more power than allowed on VHF channel 9. I can only speculate since I can't find historical info on that application, that they got a UHF allotment, and reapplied for a VHF-high allotment to reuse their analog antenna.
The CP, approved in February 2002 by the FCC, for that 124 kW plant was indeed for channel 9. The "Tech Box" in that app shows:
1. Channel Number: DTV 9 Analog TV, if any 10
8. Height of Radiation Center Above Average Terrain : 346 meters
9. Maximum Effective Radiated Power (average power): 124 kW
Even at the lower height, I would think the 6.3 dB power difference would have served WALA well in terms of power density. And the cap on VHF high is 160 kW.
From this thread, it's difficult to determine if WALA ever operated with that greater power. There's some speculation around mid-March 2005 that they did based on reception reports in the Florida panhandle.
As for #2, WKRG, WALA/WFNA and AETV own their towers so it would make sense to keep using them instead of going to a lease situation with American General's tower in Robertsdale.
The diversity of location helped when Hurricane Ivan came through and one of the Robertsdale towers fell. It took out several FM and TV stations all at once. Having some of the signals scattered means we're not likely to lose everything in one fell swoop.
Point well taken on that second item. The cluster of towers along I-10 aren't all that far apart. The only one with a shorter stick (excluding WEIQ, which exists for APT to cover Mobile) is for WALA and its companion, WFNA. Both are under 1300' HAAT whereas the others are around 1800'.