[mythtv-users] Comcast just made things worse
Douglas_Peale at comcast.net
Sat May 8 18:53:45 UTC 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05/08/2010 10:38 AM, Tom Dexter wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Brian Wood <beww at beww.org> wrote:
>> On Friday 07 May 2010 04:55:16 pm LuKreme wrote:
>>> On 7-May-2010, at 11:12, Ross Campbell wrote:
>>>> Who would have guessed a few years ago that we'd all be putting antennas
>>>> BACK on top of our houses?
>>> We had our roof replaced in 2002. Chucked the antenna that was up there.
>>> Kicking myself now.
>> Don't kick too hard. It's likely that the antenna on your roof was for VHF, or
>> maybe VHF/UHF. Today you want a UHF antenna (unless you live in the few
>> markets that still use VHF).
>> Though maybe you could have re-used the mounting hardware.
> Is VHF really that uncommon after the switch to digital? I'm in NJ
> and the New York area has 7 (ABC) 11 (WB) and 13 (PBS), and the Philly
> are has 6 (ABC) and 12 (PBS), all of which moved their digital signal
> to their original VHF frequency as of the switch. (God knows *why*
> Philly ABC decided to use 6 which is known to be a really bad
> frequency for digital...it works like crap just as expected.)
> I've read of a whole lot of people who got burned before the switch
> putting up UHF only antennas and finding out they needed a combination
> after the switch. I happened to buy a combination because I was still
> picking up the analog channels...good thing.
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
VHF Low (2-6) is uncommon. The FCC is discoraging its use for major stations.
VHF High (7-13) is still being used (though I wish it weren't). VHF High + UHF antennas are about half the size of full range antennas,
but UHF only antennas could be much smaller.
In my area, channels 7, 8, and 12 are in use.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the mythtv-users