Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I was just saying that the broadcast strength in itself is comparable, just measured differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper
Ooops that could do it. Our roof is 14 foot high, with a 10 foot mast and antenna. So our antenna is only at 24 foot. Zoning here does not allow us to go higher than the surrounding tree line which is mostly at 40-foot.
The Telecommunications act of 1996 is preemptive and prevents local zoning from prohibiting you from getting a signal.
Satellite Television Antennas: The Act required the FCC to issue regulations to prohibit local governments, community associations, landlords, and so forth, from restricting a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through devices designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services. Although the FCC has issued its rules, the prohibition does not extend, however, to commonly-owned property such as condominium balconies.
Yes of course 10% of a signal as compared to 100% of signal is comparable.
You see analog is a type of thing that you only need a small bit of and it still works. Digital packets though, if you miss even the smallest bit, you have missed it all.
I am not saying that our state would deny me building a tower, rather that I did look into it, and there are permits with requirements for lighting.
For both our small town rental in Tennessee, and our current home in small metro NW Florida, we couldn't get an antenna signal even during the analog days so the digital switch didn't really have any impact on us.
You probably couldn't build a 70 foot tower where I live. The Air Force does all kind of weird testing in the area and they've got an effective 60 foot from sea level height limit on all structures.
Cut the crap and the cable. Satellite is the way to go, now and into the future. When the weather cuts out our HD feed , I go over to the non HD channel and I get reception just fine. It takes a really big storm to cut all signals, very rare.
We have 400 amp electric up our Mountian , thats it.( was expensive install). Everything else is wireless, including Internet services, which we use an air card for phones ( business and personal) along with the Net. Works well, better than the cable we had in town. DSL was not much better ether.
... However , how i long for the old days when my 10" dish did it all, even during a blizzard., and it was free !
Do any of you get TV out there without cable or satellite?
Since I will need to be prepared for anything in the backwoods, I am opting for free TV.
How do y'all get TV now that the FCC shut down the analog over-the-air broadcasting? A lifetime RVer told me those HD/digital TV antennas are a sham and it's not like what it used to be. If the reception was lousy, the screen would be blank while the analog version would have that old charming fuzzy effect. Said distance isn't what it used to be, either.
I need to watch reports and local news. Is satellite the only choice?
I don't have a television. I get my news from the internet and radio. Trust me when I say that your life will be infinitely better without it.
20yrisnBranson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
