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

[Gary Glaenzer]

no dispute here

but they ARE the manager, and make the decisions


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Meuser" <Robertm at broadcast.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] Why an older transmitter may be a good choice


> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>