Sorry to hijack the thread, but coincidentally I was in DC earlier in=0D=0A= the week, and I was trying out my new DTV tuner for my laptop=2E In my=0D= =0Ahotel room I picked up all the DC stations except 20 (DTV35) and 26=0D= =0A(DTV27=2E) FYI, I was 4 miles from the 20 tower=2E (Maybe they were=0D= =0Aright=2E=2E=2E) I also picked up 6 Baltimore DTV stations, but not the = 24 you=0D=0Areferred to=2E Granted, my room was on the 14th floor, but was= only using=0D=0Aa whip antenna=2E=0D=0A=0D=0AKen=0D=0A=0D=0A-----Original = Message-----=0D=0AFrom: opendtv-bounce@freelists=2Eorg [mailto:opendtv-boun= ce@freelists=2Eorg]=0D=0AOn Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E=0D=0ASent: Wednesd= ay, July 12, 2006 3:24 PM=0D=0ATo: opendtv@freelists=2Eorg=0D=0ASubject: [o= pendtv] Re: FW: USDTV Lands in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy=0D=0A=0D=0ADale, thanks= =2E It helps=2E CW chose to stay on 50 in DC and 54 in=0D=0ABaltimore, both= of which work=2E It's 20 in DC and 24 in Baltimore, or=0D=0Arather their D= TT virtual channels, the UPN stations, that do not seem to=0D=0Awork=2E (An= alog works fine, both of them=2E) So they're getting rid of the=0D=0Acorrec= t transmitters, IMO=2E=0D=0A=0D=0ASomeone else commented on this, don't rem= ember where, that you can only=0D=0Areceive UPN 20 DTT if you're within 2 m= iles of their tower=2E May have=0D=0Abeen an exaggeration, but the point wa= s clear=2E=0D=0A=0D=0ATom Barry wrote:=0D=0A=0D=0A[USDTV compared with cabl= e]=0D=0A=0D=0A> But let's not equate local broadcasters competing with the = idea of the=0D=0A=0D=0A> content cartels owning the national networks compe= ting=2E The second =0D=0A> group has the power to more easily negotiate wi= th cable, the first =0D=0A> increasingly does not=2E=0D=0A=0D=0AYes, you ha= ve a point=2E I should not lump the two in one=2E As long as the=0D=0Anatio= nal cap exists, though, those content creators are going to have to=0D=0Ade= pend on the affiliated stations=2E And as long as Congress continues to=0D= =0Abe confused about the meaning of the 39 percent national cap, that cap= =0D=0Aain't likely to go away=2E=0D=0A=0D=0ABesides which, cable customers = would soon crucify the cable company if=0D=0Ait drops any of the OTA statio= ns=2E It's happened more than once=2E So OTA=0D=0Abroadcasters should have = nothing to worry about=2E Trust the viewing=0D=0Aaudience (including cable = subscribers) and trust the content=2E=0D=0A=0D=0ABUT =2E=2E=2E=0D=0A=0D=0AY= ou do bring up another interesting point=2E If we get rid of the national= =0D=0Acap, the major networks can directly control, or even own outright if= =0D=0Athey want, their nationwide OTA network=2E Right? And as you say, the= se=0D=0Aguys have nothing to fear, because cable depends on them a lot=2E= =0D=0A=0D=0ASo why isn't this a far better formula to save OTA TV than vagu= e notions=0D=0Aabout "competitive infrastructure" and an undefined OTA serv= ice?=0D=0A=0D=0ABert=0D=0A =0D=0A =0D=0A-----------------------------------= -----------------------------------=0D=0AYou can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenD= TV list in two ways:=0D=0A=0D=0A- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your use= r configuration settings at=0D=0AFreeLists=2Eorg =0D=0A=0D=0A- By sending a= message to: opendtv-request@freelists=2Eorg with the word=0D=0Aunsubscribe= in the subject line=2E=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A----------------------------= -------------=0D=0AThis message (including any attachments) may contain con= fidential=0D=0Ainformation intended for a specific individual and purpose= =2E If you=0D=0Aare not the intended recipient, delete this message=2E If= you are=0D=0Anot the intended recipient, disclosing, copying, distributing= , or=0D=0Ataking any action based on this message is strictly prohibited=2E= =0D=0A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.