Sinclair shuts down HD on Comcast

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Now I understand while I will never see CSI in HD On Comcast
Time to get an LST-4200.................

In article <416721hjurugdmmjsqqrne1gaet7mvbq2u@4ax.com>, Tim Keating
<NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:49 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
><rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
>>down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
>>that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
>>carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
>>
>>Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
>>modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
>>data service instead of HDTV.
>>
>>For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
>>signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
>>of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
>>ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
>>
>>I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
>>lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
>>
>
>FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
>http/www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:

> You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
> lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name
"ROBMX".
> Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.
>
> That was the last I heard from you.
> So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old
lie.
>
> Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digital
television
> forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England,
Australia
> and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.
>
> Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power

> [COFDM] transmitting system the
> broadcasters there use.
>
> You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably

> continue.

This guy is the most deceitful, lying SOB I've ever seen on any forum
or ng. Thank God AVS had the good sense to ban him from there due to
his chronic lying. Unfortuantely, on usernet, anyone can say anything
and not be challenged. Fortunately most people here are aware enough to
recognize a lie when they see it. But yes, nothing will stop this
slimebag from continuing to lie. He is a very desperate 'man'. What I
still find more incredible than anything, is the fact that somehow he
thinks that even if he could deceive people here, it would make a
difference. What possible difference could he think it would make to
deceive a handful of people here who are in no way the decision makers
he needs to convince. The guy would be just as 'successful' if he went
to his local McDonalds and sat down at a table and convinced that table
how great COFDM is and how miserable 8VSB is. The man is truly an
idiot. Just simply amazing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <0PTUd.806$L17.60@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable companies what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply "screw you".
>>>
>>>
>>>And the consumer gets screwed. But that's the purpose of the consumer, isn't it--to get screwed?
>>>
>>
>>Actually the consumer saves money by just putting up an antenna and getting the content for free.
>>
>>Isn't that why we gave broadcasters spectrum? Isn't that what it is supposed to be used for?
>
>
> If I have a sat receiver or cable service capable of receiving digital and HD signals, why should I have to spend the additional money to buy
> an OTA antenna in addition? And what if I can't receive the OTA signals in the first place?

Good question. I don't suggest that you should have to. In fact I would
ask the Chairman of the FCC why he had decided to make you buy an OTA
receiver if you want to buy a TV set even if you don't want OTA and have
cable or satellite.

But you asked the question a different way. Why should you have to buy
an antenna. You should have said receiver since the antenna is an
insignificant cost with COFDM. Maybe $2 and it will come built in to
most TV sets. This will be true in the US also once we have changed to a
modern modulation. Even 8-VSB 5th gen receivers have far less need for a
fancy antenna.

But again your question suggest that you shouldn't have to buy an
"antenna/OTA receiver" to RECEIVE content delivered by OTA broadcasters.
Why not I say since OTA broadcasters are in competition with cable
companies. The question to me is why are broadcasters giving their
content to cable and satellite competitors in the first place.

And if you can't receive the OTA signals in the first place the
broadcaster and the FCC should be making sure that the US has a
modulation system and a network design to go with it that would insure
OTA reception in all parts of the country. Other countries are doing
that, why can't we?

Britain, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Australia,
Japan, China and many others have or are working on building country
wide OTA broadcast networks.

Even in the US Qualcomm and Crown Castle are building national DTV
networks that will have ubiquitous coverage. It is possible and desirable.

The only reason we have such a lousy modulation as 8-VSB is because our
broadcasters were not paying attention to OTA broadcasting and relied on
must carry. They let others make the decision on what modulation they
would be required to use. INSANE?
>
> And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why would I want to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not all of them offer an OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)
>
>
>>What is happening here is that Sinclair has tested 5th gen LG receivers and is starting to think about reclaiming its customers from cable or at least being a bit more feisty as a competitor to
>>cable than they have been.
>
>
> Reclaiming? What difference does it make whether I get their programming and commercials OTA or via a dish?

Doesn't matter unless in a competitive environment OTA broadcasters
decide they do not want to support their competitors the cable or
satellite company by offering them their content.
>
> What, if any, are the advantages to the consumer to receiving OTA signals rather than the same content via the dish?
>

Cost less, maybe it is content you can't get on your dish. In a
competitive environment it could be expected that competitors might
offer exclusive content to steal customers from their competitor.

Why can't I buy Texico gas at my Mobile station?

OTA, cable and satellite are three different ways to deliver TV content.
What is confusing is that for a long time we have written off OTA as if
it didn't exist. It is making a comeback now that there is a decent
receiver, 5th gen LG if they ever show up.

The FCC has thrown the first surprise decision in this new OTA world. It
has ruled that OTA broadcasters cannot get must carry of more than one
program on cable. This says to broadcasters mind your knitting, get back
to OTA spectrum and do something with it. Sinclair is doing something
with it. They are starting to act as a competitor to cable. Getting feisty.

Expect OTA broadcasters to with hold all of their content from cable and
satellite soon. First shot is not to take it away from cable but to
charge for it and keep raising the fee. Then at some point cable will
drop the OTA content? Hardly, in a world where OTA works digital cable
and satellite are the needy ones.

Bob Miller

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <LRUUd.833$L17.147@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Bob Miller <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > If I have a sat receiver or cable service capable of receiving
> > digital and HD signals, why should I have to spend the additional
> > money to buy an OTA antenna in addition? And what if I can't
> > receive the OTA signals in the first place?
>
> Good question. I don't suggest that you should have to. In fact I
> would ask the Chairman of the FCC why he had decided to make you buy
> an OTA receiver if you want to buy a TV set even if you don't want
> OTA and have cable or satellite.

When did the chairman of the FCC make me buy an OTA receiver?

> But you asked the question a different way. Why should you have to
> buy an antenna. You should have said receiver since the antenna is an
> insignificant cost with COFDM. Maybe $2 and it will come built in to
> most TV sets. This will be true in the US also once we have changed
> to a modern modulation. Even 8-VSB 5th gen receivers have far less
> need for a fancy antenna.

Doesn't it depend on the signal strength and distance from the broadcast
tower? If the signal isn't strong enough for a smaller antenna,
wouldn't I need a larger one? Also, many houses these days are Faraday
cages because of the chicken wire and foam construction of the outer
walls, so it might be necessary to have an antenna outside of the
structure itself.

> But again your question suggest that you shouldn't have to buy an
> "antenna/OTA receiver" to RECEIVE content delivered by OTA
> broadcasters. Why not I say since OTA broadcasters are in competition
> with cable companies.

How are they in competition with cable companies? What difference does
it make to them whether I receive their content via cable, satellite, or
OTA?

> The question to me is why are broadcasters giving their
> content to cable and satellite competitors in the first place.

Because that way they get wider distribution of their content?

> And if you can't receive the OTA signals in the first place the
> broadcaster and the FCC should be making sure that the US has a
> modulation system and a network design to go with it that would
> insure OTA reception in all parts of the country. Other countries are
> doing that, why can't we?

I can think of a number of reasons. Let's start with the fact that in
the US, TV is a private industry; in most of those countries, it is a
governmental monopoly or near monopoly. In the US, there are
independent local stations, some of which are affiliated with networks,
but all of which contain local programming. Signals cannot overlap
because they would cause interference with each other; therefore, signal
strength has to be limited, which results in there being holes in
coverage. Also, in mountainous terrain, there are areas that are
blocked by the mountains from any signals. Etc., etc.

> > Reclaiming? What difference does it make whether I get their
> > programming and commercials OTA or via a dish?
>
> Doesn't matter unless in a competitive environment OTA broadcasters
> decide they do not want to support their competitors the cable or
> satellite company by offering them their content.

I ask again, how are they in competition?

> > What, if any, are the advantages to the consumer to receiving OTA
> > signals rather than the same content via the dish?
>
> Cost less, maybe it is content you can't get on your dish. In a
> competitive environment it could be expected that competitors might
> offer exclusive content to steal customers from their competitor.

How are they competitors? The stations get their revenue from their
advertisers; the more people who see the advertisements/commercials, the
better for the advertisers and for the stations. So, transmitting their
content via cable and/or satellite adds numbers of viewers or potential
viewers.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:

>You should have said receiver since the antenna is an insignificant cost
>with COFDM.

A few days ago, I pointed out to you that this is not true.

You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name "ROBMX".
Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.

That was the last I heard from you.
So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old lie.

Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digital television
forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England, Australia
and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.

Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power
[COFDM] transmitting system the
broadcasters there use.

You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably
continue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:
> "Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>You should have said receiver since the antenna is an insignificant cost
>>with COFDM.
>
>
> A few days ago, I pointed out to you that this is not true.
>
> You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
> lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name "ROBMX".
> Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.
>
> That was the last I heard from you.
> So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old lie.
>
> Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digital television
> forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England, Australia
> and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.
>
> Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power
> [COFDM] transmitting system the
> broadcasters there use.
>
> You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably
> continue.

For all the good it has done him.

Matthew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c8e08a7cef844ca989be9@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> > > > And if I have a satellite receiver with integrated DVR, why
> > > > would I want to receive OTA signals that I can't record? (Not
> > > > all of them offer an OTA tuner that can feed the recorder.)
> > >
> > > Every satellite DVR that can receive OTA digital broadcasts can
> > > also record OTA digital broadcasts.
> >
> > But will that always be the case?
>
> Why would it change? Recording satellite and OTA digital are done
> the same way: record the raw bitstream. If a DVR can tune OTA
> digital, then disabling the recording ability would do nothing to
> reduce costs and a *lot* to piss off customers.

OK. Thanks. That makes sense.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:17:59 -0500, "MrMike6by9"
<MrMike6by9@tepidmail.com> wrote:

>My city has the "pleasure" of having Stinklair owning the Fox affiliate and
>operating the WB affiliate. Double whammy. At least I'm not suffering like
>the folks in the cities where they own/run a major affiliate. I'd hate to
>lose "Lost" or "CSI".
>YMMV

In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:26:29 -0500, "curmudgeon"
<curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote:

>So what?!? It's their product and they can damn well charge cable companies
>what they want. And cable companies can certainly reply "screw you".
>I would bet real money that it's Comcast looking for a way to avoid carrying
>duplicate analog and digital programming that the villain here.
>

That's just plain bullshit.
Thumper
>"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:cr-dnWdE86k1wr7fRVn-2g@comcast.com...
>> Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by
>> shutting down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently
>> Sinclair feels that they should be paid even more per cable customer to
>> allow cable carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
>>
>> Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
>> modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
>> data service instead of HDTV.
>>
>> For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT
>> over-the-air signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal
>> literally from a pair of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD
>> transmission of a snowy ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
>>
>> I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
>> lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
>>
>>
>

To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 06:26:34 GMT, here@there.com wrote:

>Now I understand while I will never see CSI in HD On Comcast
>Time to get an LST-4200.................
>

Does the station broadcast HD?
Thumper
>In article <416721hjurugdmmjsqqrne1gaet7mvbq2u@4ax.com>, Tim Keating
><NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:
>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:16:49 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
>><rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by shutting
>>>down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently Sinclair feels
>>>that they should be paid even more per cable customer to allow cable
>>>carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
>>>
>>>Sinclair by the way fought (with Bob of all people) to change the US
>>>modulation standard to COFDM to allow the use of the bandwidth for mobile
>>>data service instead of HDTV.
>>>
>>>For the first year of service, Sinclair also ran their WRLH-DT over-the-air
>>>signal here in Richmond from a digitized NTSC signal literally from a pair
>>>of rabbit ears - I am not kidding, providing a SD transmission of a snowy
>>>ghosty picture with fuzzy sound.
>>>
>>>I suggest we all take Sinclair's analog stations off our TV channel scan
>>>lists and advise Sinclair of our actions.
>>>
>>
>>FYI, Here is a list of Sinclair stations..
>>http/www.sbgi.net/business/markets/all.shtml

To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109690657.723246.130310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David wrote:
>> You denied lying about it, so I pointed out to you the _6 pages of
>> lies_ about this, made by you, at HDTVoice.com. under the name
> "ROBMX".
>> Not to mention the hundreds of postings on this NG.
>> That was the last I heard from you.
>> So, as I expected, you're continuing to post the same, tired, old lie.
>> Again, the truth is [according to about TEN overseas digitaltelevision
>> forums and/or newsgroups] many, if not most customers in England,
> Australia and Germany are *currently using roof-top antennas*.
>> Why? Mostly to avoid interference issues, caused by the flea-power
>> [COFDM] transmitting system the broadcasters there use.
>> You've been telling this same lie for seven years and you'll probably
>> continue.

> This guy is the most deceitful, lying SOB I've ever seen on any forum
> or ng.


Wow..... thanks a lot, Vidguy.... :s

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

David wrote:
> Wow..... thanks a lot, Vidguy.... :s

Now Dave, you know I was speaking of the BOOBSTER and not you!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message

> In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
> Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
> Thumper

Is Sinclair doing up there what they did here? Digitizing a snowy OTA NTSC
signal and calling it DT-SD?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney wrote:
> Sinclair has yet again demonstrated their disdain for HD viewers by
> shutting down Comcast's carriage of Sinclair DT stations. Apparently
> Sinclair feels that they should be paid even more per cable customer
> to allow cable carriage of their over-the-air DT service.
>
I hope Comcast is able to substitute an out-of-market network affiliate to
make up for the one they lost. I know if this happened in Baltimore (FOX 45)
Comcast could easily fill in FOX 5 from D.C. I'm not sure how out-of-market
locals works for cable, but I'm guessing if Comcast is denied the station
they should have the option to provide the network in another way. If not
WTTG then WNYW.

But they shouldn't get NYC & DC FOX stations mixed up until the day after
tomorrow. (Double points to whoever gets the reference) ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

As a fellow sufferer in Stinklair Hell I'd like to know what you mean. On a
side note, I always thought 45 was low-rent years before FOX. I remember
watching one night (maybe around 11 or so) and I hear woman's voice over a
static image for the upcoming news broadcast, "You really think you can
record? Good, you know you really scared the s**t out of me." Then her face
appears on screen as if nothing went wrong ....
--
"Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
- Anon

"Drewdawg" <nope@not.here> wrote in message
news:qg4Vd.90953$Th1.43242@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>
> I hope Comcast is able to substitute an out-of-market network affiliate to
> make up for the one they lost. I know if this happened in Baltimore (FOX
> 45)
> Comcast could easily fill in FOX 5 from D.C. I'm not sure how
> out-of-market
> locals works for cable, but I'm guessing if Comcast is denied the station
> they should have the option to provide the network in another way. If not
> WTTG then WNYW.
>
> But they shouldn't get NYC & DC FOX stations mixed up until the day after
> tomorrow. (Double points to whoever gets the reference) ;-)
>
>

 

[THUMPer]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:28:37 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
<rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>> In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
>> Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
>> Thumper
>
>Is Sinclair doing up there what they did here? Digitizing a snowy OTA NTSC
>signal and calling it DT-SD?
>
Looks like it to me. I haven't really looked lately because I watch
my tv on Comcast while my OTA receiver sits collecting dust. Last
year I had one feed (Comcast) delivering ntsc and one coming from my
OTA receiver that they said was digital. I switched back and forth
and only saw a very marginal improvement with the supposed DT feed. I
wouldn't even have noticed the difference if I wasn't really looking
for it. It had to be a digitized NTSC signal. Snow, snow, snow.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7mdb219ijmf3ptju9f8cs5vjia7utmbr1e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:28:37 -0500, "Randy Sweeney"
> <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> In western Massachusetts they own the ABC affiliate. No Monday Night
>>> Football in SD or HD on Comcast and piss poor SD OTA.
>>> Thumper
>>
>>Is Sinclair doing up there what they did here? Digitizing a snowy OTA NTSC
>>signal and calling it DT-SD?
>>
> Looks like it to me. I haven't really looked lately because I watch
> my tv on Comcast while my OTA receiver sits collecting dust. Last
> year I had one feed (Comcast) delivering ntsc and one coming from my
> OTA receiver that they said was digital. I switched back and forth
> and only saw a very marginal improvement with the supposed DT feed. I
> wouldn't even have noticed the difference if I wasn't really looking
> for it. It had to be a digitized NTSC signal. Snow, snow, snow.

Snow and ghosts are dead giveaway on DT
Just Sinclair showing its disdain for both the FCC and the viewing public

 

[David]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109710286.946171.200180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David wrote:
>> Wow..... thanks a lot, Vidguy.... :s
>
> Now Dave, you know I was speaking of the BOOBSTER and not you!

:-D

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

MrMike6by9 wrote:
> As a fellow sufferer in Stinklair Hell I'd like to know what you
> mean.

Have Comcast run WTTG-DT (FOX D.C.) in the channel vacated by the greedy
WBFF-DT.

>On a side note, I always thought 45 was low-rent years before
> FOX. I remember watching one night (maybe around 11 or so) and I hear
> woman's voice over a static image for the upcoming news broadcast,
> "You really think you can record? Good, you know you really scared
> the s**t out of me." Then her face appears on screen as if nothing
> went wrong ....

Can you get WTTG-DT 36 OTA? They're 1MW and I can occasionally get them in
Dover, DE.
>
> "Drewdawg" <nope@not.here> wrote in message
> news:qg4Vd.90953$Th1.43242@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>>
>> I hope Comcast is able to substitute an out-of-market network
>> affiliate to make up for the one they lost. I know if this happened
>> in Baltimore (FOX 45)
>> Comcast could easily fill in FOX 5 from D.C. I'm not sure how
>> out-of-market
>> locals works for cable, but I'm guessing if Comcast is denied the
>> station they should have the option to provide the network in
>> another way. If not WTTG then WNYW.
>>
>> But they shouldn't get NYC & DC FOX stations mixed up until the day
>> after tomorrow. (Double points to whoever gets the reference) ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I never took a chance that the topography would not block the signals. I am
on the other northern side of the large valley formed by the Joppa Ridge.
When I look in the general direction of "TV Hill", I see the Joppa Ridge on
the other side of the Beltway. I always heard that OTA digital is
line-of-sight so I never bought a receiver to test it. I'd love to get WTTG.
My eyesight was probably ruined years ago straining to see through the snow
for images of classic monster and horror movies on my old B&W set watching
Channel 5. Now, even with a roof top antenna

--
"Sleep is a poor substitute for coffee."
- Anon
>
> Can you get WTTG-DT 36 OTA? They're 1MW and I can occasionally get them in
> Dover, DE.