Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.



Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.



By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.



I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra kilowatt
hours.



The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring cites.



But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to get
all the local programming.



Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job.............



Smarty

Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.



Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.



Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

On Jan 15, 10:50�am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Well UHF doesnt pass tyhru walls etc nearly as well as VHF.

Bunny ears arent going to work for many

Its a typical government FIASCO

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.



Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.



Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.


Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to 100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by beaurecrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty

On Jan 15, 11:52*am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news




Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to 100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by beaurecrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?

wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:52 am, "Smarty" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news




Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any
is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter
ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now
need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to
100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A
good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum
pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily
been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by bureaucrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?


Trader4,

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.

Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision making by
lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

What you call "throwing rocks" suggests a haphazard and ill-conceived,
perhaps unjustified attack.

I ask you what your basis is for that accusation?

Smarty

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:02:33 -0500, against all advice, something
compelled "Smarty" , to say:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.



You must be lots of fun at parties.




--

Real men don't text.

Smarty wrote:

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of
broadcast engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a
ham radio enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of
government policies which ignore solid science and engineering
principles.
Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision
making by lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.


I think you misunderstand the roles various people play. It is the role of
the politician to decide on goals and the role of the engineer to make them
come true. Let me give you another example:

If a lawyer or accountant says "what you want cannot be done," the next
words from your mouth should be "you're fired." Lawyers, accountants, and
engineers are STAFF positions, not LINE positions. Politicians are
commanders, engineers are administrators.

When things turn out well, the politician gets the credit for setting and
achieving the goals. When things turn out poorly, the engineers will get the
blame for the failure. This is the way it has always been, this is the way
it always will be, this is the way the world works.

I don't own this railroad,
I don't ring the bell,
But let this sucker jump the tracks,
And see who catches hell.

On Jan 15, 9:02*pm, "Smarty" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 15, 11:52 am, "Smarty" wrote:





"HeyBub" wrote in message

news

Smarty wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air
HDTV reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and
often need to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher
transmitter power and transmitting antenna type and site choices.

Uh, no. Fewer people would be able to receive TV signals due to the
interference by neighboring, higher-powered, transmitters.

Makes no sense at all to me. Cheap attenuators, no more that 3 resistors
configured in a "Tee" attenuator pad, provide whatever attenuation if any
is
necessary for a total cost of less than a buck, if front-end converter
overload is what you are referring to. Another 6 to 9 dB of transmitter
ERP
would not create overload....it would extend coverage to those who now
need
outdoor yagis and sometimes rotors as well.

Unlike the VHF TV era where only 13 channels were available and legitimate
concern existed for co-channel interference between cities spaced 50 to
100
miles apart, there are many more channels available in the UHF band. A
good
and well established method for placing transmitters in the optimum
pattern
of "re-use" was developed for placing cell sites, and could have easily
been
applied to choosing far more optimal UHF TV assignments than the ones
selected presently.

The bottom line is that the FCC is managed by bureaucrats, not engineers,
and that the public interest is not foremost in their agenda.

I have helped scores of people get over the air reception HD, and the mess
and unnecessary expense created by very poor legislation and planning is
outrageous, in my view.

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you seek to impugn the qualifications and decision making
process of the transition, one can only ask exactly what your
qualifications are, what tests you conducted, what cost/benefit
analysis you went through, etc to arrive at what you claim is a
superior solution? * Or let me guess, you're just throwing rocks?

Trader4,

I am a retired broadcast engineer with 3 FCC licenses, 40 years of broadcast
engineering experience, a graduate electrical engineer, a ham radio
enthusiast since the 1950's, and a harsh critic of government policies which
ignore solid science and engineering principles.

Regrettably, the FCC in recent years is a good example of decision making by
lawyers and politicians rather than by good engineers.

What you call "throwing rocks" suggests a haphazard and ill-conceived,
perhaps unjustified attack.

I ask you what your basis is for that accusation?

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My kind of guy.

I agree with you...it's a train wreck.

TMT

On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Smarty" wrote:
Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.

By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.

I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra kilowatt
hours.

The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring cites..

But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to get
all the local programming.

Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job.............

Smarty

Oddly enough I find that I get the best reception with rabbit ears and
bow ties. I've tried several fancier antennas and they've all been
worthless junk. I think the only thing that would likely give an
improvement, from what I've read, is either a) a homemade bow tie
array (I may try this) b) either a "silver sensor" or Winegard SS-3000
type antenna or c) a proper roof or attic mounted antenna.

It seems that there is a LOT of junk on the market at the moment, and
if someone buys a new "amplified antenna" and then finds that they
only get one channel, they may bitch and moan about how crappy DTV is
but they may find that if they just try an old bowtie they get 20+
channels. I know that that's been my experience, I've returned
several medium-priced antennas because they didn't work any better
than a piece of wire jammed in the F-connector on the back of the box.

nate

On Jan 15, 11:28*am, N8N wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:44*am, "Smarty" wrote:





Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.

By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.

I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra kilowatt
hours.

The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring cites.

But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to get
all the local programming.

Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job..............

Smarty

Oddly enough I find that I get the best reception with rabbit ears and
bow ties. *I've tried several fancier antennas and they've all been
worthless junk. *I think the only thing that would likely give an
improvement, from what I've read, is either a) a homemade bow tie
array (I may try this) b) either a "silver sensor" or Winegard SS-3000
type antenna or c) a proper roof or attic mounted antenna.

It seems that there is a LOT of junk on the market at the moment, and
if someone buys a new "amplified antenna" and then finds that they
only get one channel, they may bitch and moan about how crappy DTV is
but they may find that if they just try an old bowtie they get 20+
channels. *I know that that's been my experience, I've returned
several medium-priced antennas because they didn't work any better
than a piece of wire jammed in the F-connector on the back of the box.

nate

Discovered something annoying last night... was watching the playoff
game (go stillers) and decided to watch it OTA rather than off cable
so I could see it in widescreen (well, letterboxed, but whatever) I am
using a Channel Master CM7000 tuner box with aforementioned wabbit
ears and bowtie. Every couple minutes the audio would drop out for a
second or so then come back in, sometimes with some pixellation
sometimes not. I thought it might be a problem with the station's sat
feed because I have not noticed this on any other channels that I
watch. But the same thing happened with the news this AM as I left it
on Channel 9 (WUSA) rather than one of the other channels. Now I
never watch Channel 9, so I have not noticed this before, but it
doesn't appear to be a problem with my setup as I can leave the "info"
menu on the screen and see that the signal strength remains pegged at
100% while it drops out. Also ran a long piece of coax up the stairs
just to see if it was antenna position but with the antenna upstairs
it still does this. Have not seen this with any other channels... if
this is going to be permanent this kinda puts a damper on my TV
watching experience, and I may just keep my cable and not install a
roof mounted antenna like I'd originally planned. Based on the
coverage maps I'm just outside the "red" zone for WUSA so this should
not be a problem at all.

nate

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:28 am, N8N wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:44 am, "Smarty" wrote:





Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often
need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power
and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.

By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they
would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.

I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra
kilowatt
hours.

The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring
cites.

But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate
that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every
neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather
than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to
get
all the local programming.

Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning
and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job.............

Smarty

Oddly enough I find that I get the best reception with rabbit ears and
bow ties. I've tried several fancier antennas and they've all been
worthless junk. I think the only thing that would likely give an
improvement, from what I've read, is either a) a homemade bow tie
array (I may try this) b) either a "silver sensor" or Winegard SS-3000
type antenna or c) a proper roof or attic mounted antenna.

It seems that there is a LOT of junk on the market at the moment, and
if someone buys a new "amplified antenna" and then finds that they
only get one channel, they may bitch and moan about how crappy DTV is
but they may find that if they just try an old bowtie they get 20+
channels. I know that that's been my experience, I've returned
several medium-priced antennas because they didn't work any better
than a piece of wire jammed in the F-connector on the back of the box.

nate

Discovered something annoying last night... was watching the playoff
game (go stillers) and decided to watch it OTA rather than off cable
so I could see it in widescreen (well, letterboxed, but whatever) I am
using a Channel Master CM7000 tuner box with aforementioned wabbit
ears and bowtie. Every couple minutes the audio would drop out for a
second or so then come back in, sometimes with some pixellation
sometimes not. I thought it might be a problem with the station's sat
feed because I have not noticed this on any other channels that I
watch. But the same thing happened with the news this AM as I left it
on Channel 9 (WUSA) rather than one of the other channels. Now I
never watch Channel 9, so I have not noticed this before, but it
doesn't appear to be a problem with my setup as I can leave the "info"
menu on the screen and see that the signal strength remains pegged at
100% while it drops out. Also ran a long piece of coax up the stairs
just to see if it was antenna position but with the antenna upstairs
it still does this. Have not seen this with any other channels... if
this is going to be permanent this kinda puts a damper on my TV
watching experience, and I may just keep my cable and not install a
roof mounted antenna like I'd originally planned. Based on the
coverage maps I'm just outside the "red" zone for WUSA so this should
not be a problem at all.

nate


Nate,

"Multipath cancellation" can wreak havoc with digital signals, loosely
analogous to "ghosts" which can show up on analog signals. The problem
arises from the temporary or permanent bounce of the transmitted signal on
some reflector between you and the transmitter. This bounced signal arrives
slightly later, via a different path from the direct signal. The result at
your antenna is a cancellation or smearing of digital data.

Overhead aircraft can cause the problem. Fluttering tree limbs are also
often the culprit. One problem I ultimately found was a large nearby traffic
sign blowing in the wind which caused my relative to have drop-outs on windy
days. Signal strengths can be very high but this effect will still show up.

The modulation system used for over-the-air digital TV has some built-in
immunity, using redundant bits, forward error correction, and other methods,
but it is far from being perfect.

Cable companies will normally site their receiving antennas at very high
locations to ensure line of sight reception with little or no multipath
degradation. Highly directional antennas can also help, but introduce their
own new issues related to proper pointing.

A brief description of how multipath is measurable with a Sencore test
device is at:
http://www.sencore.com/uploads/files...veGoodHDTV.pdf

Smarty

On Jan 19, 2:35�pm, "Smarty" wrote:
"N8N" wrote in message

...
On Jan 15, 11:28 am, N8N wrote:





On Jan 15, 9:44 am, "Smarty" wrote:

Many if not most homeowners who are trying to now get over the air HDTV
reception are finding that indoor antennas are not adequate and often
need
to use expensive outdoor antennas.

Ironically, the entire problem could have been avoided if the FCC had
proper
engineering people who had chosen / demanded higher transmitter power
and
transmitting antenna type and site choices.

By increasing the effective radiated power by another 6 to 9 dB, they
would
have put a much smaller burden on the homeowner antenna, and lowered the
deployment cost and risk for the homeowner tremendously.

I gotta' believe that the choices they made were driven by sparing the
broadcasters the extra operating costs of consuming all the extra
kilowatt
hours.

The FCC would, if challenged, probably claim that they kept the ERP to a
small number to prevent co-channel interference between neighboring
cites.

But in the UHF spectrum, they have so vastly more spectrum to allocate
that
they could have very, very easily chosen clear channels for every
neighbor,
and allowed homeowners to use simple rabbit ears and bow ties rather
than
need outdoor directional antennas even in urban and suburban areas to
get
all the local programming.

Colin Powell's son, an attorney, headed the FCC during the HDTV planning
and
transition. Talk about technical qualifications for the job..............

Smarty

Oddly enough I find that I get the best reception with rabbit ears and
bow ties. I've tried several fancier antennas and they've all been
worthless junk. I think the only thing that would likely give an
improvement, from what I've read, is either a) a homemade bow tie
array (I may try this) b) either a "silver sensor" or Winegard SS-3000
type antenna or c) a proper roof or attic mounted antenna.

It seems that there is a LOT of junk on the market at the moment, and
if someone buys a new "amplified antenna" and then finds that they
only get one channel, they may bitch and moan about how crappy DTV is
but they may find that if they just try an old bowtie they get 20+
channels. I know that that's been my experience, I've returned
several medium-priced antennas because they didn't work any better
than a piece of wire jammed in the F-connector on the back of the box.

nate

Discovered something annoying last night... was watching the playoff
game (go stillers) and decided to watch it OTA rather than off cable
so I could see it in widescreen (well, letterboxed, but whatever) I am
using a Channel Master CM7000 tuner box with aforementioned wabbit
ears and bowtie. �Every couple minutes the audio would drop out for a
second or so then come back in, sometimes with some pixellation
sometimes not. �I thought it might be a problem with the station's sat
feed because I have not noticed this on any other channels that I
watch. �But the same thing happened with the news this AM as I left it
on Channel 9 (WUSA) rather than one of the other channels. �Now I
never watch Channel 9, so I have not noticed this before, but it
doesn't appear to be a problem with my setup as I can leave the "info"
menu on the screen and see that the signal strength remains pegged at
100% while it drops out. �Also ran a long piece of coax up the stairs
just to see if it was antenna position but with the antenna upstairs
it still does this. �Have not seen this with any other channels.... �if
this is going to be permanent this kinda puts a damper on my TV
watching experience, and I may just keep my cable and not install a
roof mounted antenna like I'd originally planned. �Based on the
coverage maps I'm just outside the "red" zone for WUSA so this should
not be a problem at all.

nate

Nate,

"Multipath cancellation" can wreak havoc with digital signals, loosely
analogous to "ghosts" which can show up on analog signals. The problem
arises from the temporary or permanent bounce of the transmitted signal on
some reflector between you and the transmitter. This bounced signal arrives
slightly later, via a different path from the direct signal. The result at
your antenna is a cancellation or smearing of digital data.

Overhead aircraft can cause the problem. Fluttering tree limbs are also
often the culprit. One problem I ultimately found was a large nearby traffic
sign blowing in the wind which caused my relative to have drop-outs on windy
days. Signal strengths can be very high but this effect will still show up.

The modulation system used for over-the-air digital TV has some built-in
immunity, using redundant bits, forward error correction, and other methods,
but it is far from being perfect.

Cable companies will normally site their receiving antennas at very high
locations to ensure line of sight reception with little or no multipath
degradation. Highly directional antennas can also help, but introduce their
own new issues related to proper pointing.

A brief description of how multipath is measurable with a Sencore test
device is at:http://www.sencore.com/uploads/files...veGoodHDTV.pdf

Smarty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

gee I saw this last nite in pittsburgh but wasnt watching the game.
signal strength bounces a lot over time, apparently on all channels I
was watching RTN one of channel 11s feeds

Its the super bowl bottom of the 4 quarter its a long pass, its going
going

(blank screen) the fans are going wild here! it was the pass of a
century, the final score (blank screen)

my normal signal strength is excellent on the channel blanking out