Re: Brother, have you been converted?

In article <0tvmf5-lu9.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, ebenZEROONE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Hactar) wrote:

>In article
<ctbishop-1205081506450001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Charles Bishop <ctbishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <cckg24te3coa6rmg4d5hjkj8e1kbg4748e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Estron
>> <estron@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >I don't know where to find the statistics, but it doesn't seem to me
that
>> >many TV viewers are watching over-the-air TV anymore.  One of the
Kansas
>> >City stations doesn't even make its over-the-air channel number part
of its
>> >logo.  The just call themselves "NBC Action News," or "Your NBC Action
News
>> >station," which indicates to me that most of their audience doesn't
see
>> >them on their over-the-air channel, 41.
>> 
>> Is channel 41 UHF? Why is a network channel on UHF, rather than VHF?
>
>A few years back in the Tampa area, 10, 13, and 28 arranged a three-way
>swap (money may have changed hands too).  I don't remember what they
>were before (except that 28 was if not independent, then some dinky
>network I didn't know).  Now 10 is CBS, 13 is Fox (there was no Fox
>at the time), and 28 is ABC.  Those are all analog channels, as I
>have never had a digital TV and especially not one receiving OTA
>broadcasts.

Interesting, if not actually useful information, but my question was more
along the lines of: I thought that the VHF channels were the good real
estate in the spectrum, so why is a network in the boonies of UHF. Of
course, this may just show my age since this was true mostly a long time
ago when tuners had clickable VHF tuners and the UHF tuners were more
analog, twisty, and hard to bring in the UHF signal. So, is UHF considered
good real estate nowadays when a tuner may be able to grab the channel
easily, and the channel can be powerful enough to reach a wide area?

-- 
cahrles