Re: Brother, have you been converted?

In article
<ctbishop-1205081924470001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Charles Bishop <ctbishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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]
> >> 
> >> 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.

Apparently less so than it used to be, since in that deal mentioned
above, ABC took a UHF slot in the deal.  Wasn't a large part of the bias
against UHF (outside the appearance) that not all TVs back then had UHF,
and if they did then it was tuned through a separate knob and thus more
of a PITA to get to?  Those aren't significant factors any more.

-- 
-eben     QebWenE01R@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
     http://royalty.mine.nu:81
An ASCII character walks into a bar and orders a double. "Having a bad
day?" asks the barman. "Yeah, I have a parity error," replies the ASCII
chrcter. The barman says, "Yeah, I thought you looked a bit off." - Skud