[BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice

[Gary Glaenzer]

most managers (of the type I'm referring to) are concerned with 'looking
good' to the owner

as long as they don't rock the boat, all is well

propose a major capital expenditure, and all hell breaks loose


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Meuser" <Robertm at broadcast.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice


> I would think if the manager really wanted to look good he would spend
> more time with his accountant.
>
> R
>
>
> Gary Glaenzer wrote:
>
> >a lot more than you would realize
> >
> >and the present management (management, not owner) isn't about to spend
the
> >bucks for a new transmitter
> >
> >even if it does make economic sense in the long run, they will continue
to
> >run the old one, preferring to live with higher operating expenses rather
> >than justify a large capital expenditure to the owner
> >
> >econimically sensible ?  nope
> >
> >but it makes the manager look good in that he doesn't have to justify
> >spending a lot of money on a new unit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Bailey, Scott" <sbailey at nespower.com>
> >To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:32 PM
> >Subject: RE: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
> >
> >
> >Gary,
> >   How many stations are in a position like that? I could see if I was
> >the "new" owner of a station with an old transmitter, and having to keep
> >it going until I reach a position in the budget to buy a new one, but
> >business wise, with technology making it more affordable to operate a
> >solid state box, it only makes sense to invest in newer gear, even if
> >one can afford to maintain the old box.
> >   We all want to save money? Right? So a good business owner of a
> >station, even if he/she or they can afford to maintain an older tube
> >transmitter, it would be in their best interest to get the new one, save
> >money, and maybe perhaps even more money in the budget for other
> >expenses, needs, or salaries.
> >
> >Scott
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
> >[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Gary Glaenzer
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:05 PM
> >To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
> >Subject: Re: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
> >
> >Scott;
> >
> >I'm not going to argue the points you make, because they are valid.
> >
> >However, my initial rsponse was to a blanket statement by someone else
> >who
> >seems to think that every station has the wherewithall to replace the
> >transmitter just because 'it's old'.
> >
> >It may be 'old', but if it is performing what needs done, and you can
> >budget
> >for the maintenance but not the cost of a replacement, where's the
> >problem
> >with running it ?
> >
> >G
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Bailey, Scott" <sbailey at nespower.com>
> >To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 AM
> >Subject: RE: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
> >
> >
> >Your going spent more money on keeping that old rig going, than to just
> >turn around and by a new one.  The higher powered AM stations, I can
> >understand, somewhat, but an AM at 1 KW, that's crazy!
> >
> >I know of 2 AM's in this area that are still running tube transmitters.
> >I was talking to a GM at an AM/FM combo in this area and I couldn't
> >believe the price he was paying for 4-400's, 807's, just to keep up a
> >Collins 20V-2.
> >
> >My studio is with the transmitter/tower site. My AC bill this month was
> >only 160.00. Gee, I my electric bill at home was higher than that! My
> >little 1 KW Armstrong box burns way less electric than the central heat
> >and air system.
> >
> >Scott
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
> >[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Gary Glaenzer
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:40 AM
> >To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
> >Subject: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice
> >
> >one word:  finances
> >
> >I'm sure you canfigure out the rest for yourself
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert Meuser" <Robertm at broadcast.net>
> >
> > > That was not an opinion it is a fact. Please enlighten me other wise.
> > >
> > > R
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary Glaenzer wrote:
> > >
> > > >"There is no good excuse for running  something that old"
> > > >
> > > >Oh, give us a break
> > > >
> > > >While some other party's justifications may not agree with your
> >opinions
> >on
> > > >the subject, a blanket statement such as above is nonsense.
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
> www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>