Re: Brother, have you been converted?

ebenZEROONE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Hactar) wrote in
news:ngonf5-tal.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> 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.

UHF tuners were mandated as standard equipment on US televisions around 
1965, but I don't think that the transmitters or receiving antennas were 
regarded as being on a par with VHF back then. They improved over time and

now I don't think there's too much difference.