Ya Broadcast Guys gotta put things in perspective.... OTA has advantage of being (almost) free, but it has limited coverage today, and reportedly only "serves" perhaps 15% of households. Second/Third TV's may increase percentage of actual OTA connected sets, but it's still expected to shrink as Analog is shut down (forcing use of an STB) and ATT/FiOS expand their market share.....and the associated increase in BroadBand penetration. Likelihood of OTA reception is a crap shoot--most people live with whatever happens to come in.....such as it is..... And if it doesn't work, there is nowhere to submit a complaint (vs Cable and Sat). So if DTV reception for some people in "difficult locations" for stations using Distributed Transmitter Networks becomes more difficult under particular propagation conditions, how many people would even notice, given that DTV reception (esp via indoor antenna) is iffy to begin with??? And, of course, reception for many people should actually improve.... holl_ands ================================================== "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Tom Barry wrote: > But I'm of the school that says we will soon have very fast > fiber connecting all important (worth paying money) fixed > locations in this country anyway. Just like cable now. And just like cable, services carried over the fast fiber link won't be free. A good 40 percent of households are happy to decline cable. And some households only use cable for the broadband Internet link, not for TV. So even with a fiber link, other TV distribution media, as well as other two-way links, still have a place, I do believe. Bert --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.