FCC DTV vs analog coverage change maps

[Dan.Strassberg]

My experience, using an unamplified indoor antenna in a pretty good
location (about 0.7 miles west of the top of Belmont Hill and maybe
0.4 miles north of Route 2) is that I have gone for weeks receiving a
perfect DTV picture--and sound (DON'T forget the sound; it's the first
to go;>( and then suddenly for no reason that was apparent to me have
been forced into periods of frantic repositioning and fiddling with
the antenna to restore even just reasonably reliable reception. Very
frustrating (but not frustrating enough to make me willing to spend
upwards of $40/month for cable). Also frustrating is how seemingly
insignficant repositioning of the antenna can make large differences
in the reliability of the reception, and how changing the position of
parts of the antenna (the rabbit ears) that are not supposed to affect
UHF reception appear to have a major effect. If there were a
systematic procedure for tweaking the antenna, the exercise could be a
lot less frustrating.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert F. Sutherland" <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
To: <BRI@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 12:38 AM
Subject: RE: FCC DTV vs analog coverage change maps


> yeah, yeah, I posted before seeing existing posts on the subject.
> sorry about that.  (chief)
>
> I agree with you Garrett, that the FCC assumes comsumers all
> have excellent antennae .....
> but  I suspect most in the outer DTV coverage range will have
> to improve  their antenna system.
>
> Bob
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Robert F. Sutherland <madprof@ix.netcom.com>
>> To: BRI <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.bostonradio.org>
>> Date: 1/2/2009 12:15:01 AM
>> Subject: FCC DTV vs analog coverage change maps
>
>
>