Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ind. USA
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
|Originally posted by others
rad said, " ... they say WBBM is now saying end of December to get WBBM-DT on the air. ..."
kippjones said, "... Channel 2 will have to go through the entire November sweeps on its alternate antenna ..."
wirehead_rick said, "... What a huge disaster! Time to give up on WBBM-DT ..."
|Originally posted by FrankS
Hopefully your getting a stable picture because that is as good as it gets as 25% is what it will be at permanently!
|Not sure what you meant to say. Your post is confusing at best.|
|Originally posted by BobRoss
That is not true. We can not cover all the service area at 25%
25% was picked as a compromise between output power (coverage area) and the amount of interference we generate in the area around the Hancock.
As the number of cable drops get fixed and the bad VCR to TV cables get replaced we will be upping the power.
|Originally posted by WishIdInventedTivo
Wow. I just read through this entire thread. I saw a lot of venting at CBS, some venting at AT&T, and little to none at the FCC. This is not a very nice way to treat the guys from CBS who have been providing information. Seems to me the place to vent should be the FCC!
I'll point out the obvious (at least to me anyway) because I didn't see it mentioned here. But if AT&T had not purchased a bunch of Chicago cable companies (including Jones Intercable which serves my area in Naperville) wouldn't the problem be WORSE? That's right - instead of one company that understands and is capable of fixing numerous problems at multiple cable companies we'd be waiting on multiple companies that created the problems in the first place. Chew on that for a moment.
I don't really understand why there isn't some channel somewhere that the FCC couldn't have assigned to CBS-DT instead of 3, but I don't work there. I understand all the potential interference issues hundred of miles from here but it seems to me that it might have been cheaper and easier for CBS, AT&T, or whomever to resolve a conflict in some small town 250 miles away then to tackle them here, in a major metropolitan area, with multiple cable companies who built poor systems.
But then, maybe this is what the FCC intended all along?
I know this thread is dated (CBS-Dt in Chicago Up and Running seems to be the current thread) but I just had to comment.
Please, no flames. Unless you direct them at the FCC.