On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:30:42 -0800, trader4 wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:09Â*am, Ann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:33:22 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:26 pm, Jack Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:01:07 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_...tsburgh_PA.pdf

THE MAP

So have you checked to see if this map is accurate or are you just
playing the lemming and accepting it at face value? I tested my map
and found that it's wrong. I have much better reception than they say
I do. It's not hard to find my place on the Knoxville. Look between
the dashed and the solid line, or just outside any of the lines. I'm
not supposed to get much of anything.

I actually witnessed the testing that went into these maps. Last
summer a van carrying a couple of Japanese guys stopped at my
campground. They threw out a tripod with a small UHF antenna on it
and took readings for a total of about 5 minutes. Never tried
swinging the antenna around, just filled in the blanks on their
survey sheet and started packing up. I asked what they were doing and
they said "TV signal test" and that was about all the English they
knew.

You're going to have to compare actual reception on analog and on
digital and document loss of signal. Nobody is going to give you any
sympathy based on theoretical maps.

I'm betting you'll gain some overall channels. Go ahead, hook it up
and prove me wrong.

--
Jack

WTAE, channel 4 ABC affiliate has decent analog and no usable digital
reception here.

What a mess - particularly SE of Pittsburgh. If there are hills between
the transmitters and that area, the probable cause of loss of signal is
WTAE going from VHF to UHF. Â*

This situation is reported nationwide

Same here with three stations that went from VHF to UHF. Â*I just found
out last weekend that one of the two remaining stations is moving their
transmitter 11 miles. Â*The FCC map shows it where it is now, on the
same tower as the transmitter for the other station. I have emailed the
FCC politely pointing out the error. Â*But I doubt it will ever reach
anyone who knows what I'm writing about, let alone cares. Â*

You have two decent newspapers in Pittsburgh. Â*Have you tried a litter
to the editor? Â*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



A letter to the editor about exactly what? Geez... I can't believe
anyone would point out this FCC coverage map of Pittsburgh to make their
case. I expected to see a map full of no coverage, or at least a
substantial portion. Instead, it's a map showing a huge amount of
white, which is where coveage remains the same. That area extends out
about 70 miles. The there is a very large amount of green in that area,
which is COVERAGE THAT NOW EXISTS WHERE IT DID NOT PREVIUOSLY. Then you
have a very tiny amount of orange, which is where coverage is lost, but
the CBS network can still be received on another channel. Finally, there
are a few specs of red at about 50 miles+ where coverage is lost with no
alternate channel available for the CBS network. Bottom line, the map
shows that for 99.99% of the area, coveage either remains the same or
improves.

If your standard is that this is unacceptable, then I think you're going
to go through life very unhappy.

What I wrote was that it was "a mess" - which isn't going to get sorted
out until the trees have leafed out. Whether it's "acceptable" or not
is up to the people who live in the Pittsburgh area.