Quote:
Originally Posted by the_bear89451 
That depends on what you consider watchable. Currently, 26 and 27 are not a good comparison because antennaweb bases the calculation for 26 on 100KW. Once 26 goes full power, it is also likely 26 will be more watchable. If Fox was broadcasting on 2 instead of 44, the signal would easily curve around Slide to reach Carson. This is why I have been complaining that Fox has not fought hard enough to get lower on the dial.

That depends on what you consider watchable. Currently, 26 and 27 are not a good comparison because antennaweb bases the calculation for 26 on 100KW. Once 26 goes full power, it is also likely 26 will be more watchable. If Fox was broadcasting on 2 instead of 44, the signal would easily curve around Slide to reach Carson. This is why I have been complaining that Fox has not fought hard enough to get lower on the dial.
I didn't mention anything about quality of the channels. Although, 27 has always been at least as good as any at 13 or below. Analog 4,5,15 I can't get at all. 52, which is 4 and 29 which is 5 come in good enough to watch. But I only watch those on the analog tv in the bedroom. I watch only the digitals on the 65", in the HT.
I was told last Nov, by an engineer at 11, that they were waiting for approval from the FCC to erect a digital translator on Slide. Oviously, they couldn't get up to Slide until after the snow had melted on top anyway. Now if they are still waiting, I don't know. And I also don't know if that statement was even the truth. or what channel it will be.


















