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

[Robert Meuser]

It is very likely they are not good managers, then. They might be a very 
good something else, but not a manager.

R


Gary Glaenzer wrote:

>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 
>>>>>          
>>>>>