Re: Brother, have you been converted?

In
<ctbishop-1205081924470001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
ctbishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Charles Bishop) writes:
[snip]
>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?

Under FCC "must carry" rules, the cable companies have
to, well, carry... all local channels (with some grey/gray
arguments as to what's local), both UHF and VHF. There's 
little "need" for the local broadcasters to actually
have a good and solid signal anymore, because 3/4 or 
thereabouts of their viewers are using cable.

In fact, the broadcasters kind-of-prefer the cable viewers
since the demographics are better...

So the tv stations don'r care much anymore as to
how good their over-the-air signal propogates. They're
far more concerned over getting a good location
on the cable lineup.


-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]