🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8364@orbit.cts.com> ceg@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Chris Galas) writes:
>I talked to one of the managers of Paragon Cable.  He told me that
>their existing cable equipment could not support any channels higher
>than 59 - something about the quality of reception being comprimised
>at higher frequencies.  So they would have to bump off an existing
>channel to fit in The Sci-Fi channel.  Maybe one of those pay per-view
>First Choice channels; they have four of them...

I take it that Cinemax must not be doing much business as it sits on
channel 99 in Minneapolis - and you PAY for that channel.

So a person who has Cinemax is paying for a service they admit is going
to be substandard... verrrrrry innnnnnteresting.

But doesn't surprise me _one bit_ about Paragon.

On the other hand, if you have a converter box, you've got the B band.
In any case, "substandard" broadcast on higher channels (which I've never
seen) has gotta be better than none.  (Though I wonder how they explain 
the constant bad reception on Channel 3 (Headline News).  Clearly that 
should be in the more "Clear" zone...

--Robert "I haven't liked Paragon for a long time now" Granvin

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu                             University of Minnesota