On Jan 13, 11:18*am, Metspitzer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:45:34 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

wrote:
I can no longer find the message, but I'm sure that it was on one of
these two newsgroups within the past few days that I read an allegation
that the move from analog to digital for TV broadcasting was a plot to
push vast numbers of people to cable or satellite because the digital
signal is receivable only over a very small area.

I mentioned this allegation to a broadcast engineer yesterday. He told
me that in fact many people are not getting good reception of the OTA
digital signals and are moving to cable or satellite because many of the
expensive HD TVs on the market have appallingly insensitive antenna
inputs -- far inferior to the almost-free converter boxes that were
distributed over the last couple of years.

Perce

To the people that use OTA digital, how far do you live from the TV
stations?

I live in an area where we could never get good TV signals. *I am
interesting in hearing from people that had poor TV and are using OTA
for digital. *I live 45-60 miles from the stations.

I live about 30-40 miles from my stations and am located on the
backside of a hill between me and the stations. Analog signals were
adequate but not good but the digital signals are very good. With
analog I got 4 channels. With digital I get 14 channels. Note
however that's channels and not stations since most stations are
broadcasting 3 channels each. I only picked up 1 additional station
when they went to digital, but at least I didn't lose any like many
people did.
KC