-
Website
http://www.ohgizmo.com/ -
Original page
http://www.ohgizmo.com/2009/01/27/us-senate-delays-digital-tv-transition-by-four-months/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
facebook-19701276
34 comments · 2 points
-
TrishaG
17 comments · 2 points
-
cirez
17 comments · 1 points
-
joeythenifty
22 comments · 1 points
-
Dennis Box
18 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
5 (+3) Games That Will Run On Your Netbook
15 hours ago · 7 comments
-
Private: Tamrac ZipShot Tripod With Tent Pole-Like Legs
12 hours ago · 3 comments
-
Win An Ultra X4 850W Modular Power Supply!
1 week ago · 129 comments
-
Private: Talking Luggage Locator
12 hours ago · 2 comments
-
Private: Yoomi Self-Heating Baby Bottle
12 hours ago · 2 comments
-
5 (+3) Games That Will Run On Your Netbook
I say just follow the original plan. It's not like these people are paying for reception and if some have to go without TV to finally realize what's taking place then so be it. Of course I stop short of saying that it would teach people a lesson because it likely wouldn't.
I'll bet you a million dollars that when they do finally make the switch some guy in Jabip will exclaim: "Hey, the TV just stopped workin! What the F!"
Anyway, I don't think the blame can be laid solely on consumers; the government kinda borked this and needs time to get their ducks in a row (the way it should have been a year ago, but whatever)
I bought one of the more expensive converters, and installed a digital antenna outside my home thinking that maybe that would help with reception. Money wasted... as even when the signal strength is 100%, the station will still cut in and out. It has gotten so bad lately that I have taken to watching all my television shows online, and only use my television for DVD viewing.
To date.. over the air digital sucks worse than analog.. at least with analog, the picture might be fuzzy, but I can still watch and hear the show... with digital, it is either there or not.
Broadcasting TV uses a lot of power, causes a lot of money. Broadcasting TWO kinds of TV? That costs even more. So rather than pay a crapton of money for new equipment, the TV stations are splitting it now, using a lower-powered (and thus lower range) antenna to broadcast the digital signal. Once the analog service shuts down, they'll be broadcasting digital at full strength, and your signal will likely improve.
Of course, I don't get why they don't put digital on full-power, analog in half power as part of the transition. Maybe that leads to the same result of some yokel on the outskirts of town suddenly not getting TV and wondering why.
Rather than mandating a date on which all TV would switch though, the government should have staggered dates between local stations. Then put ads on the channels that are still analog: "wondering why you can't watch Channel 11 anymore? You need a digital converter box". Probably a better way to get somebody's attention.
The DTV transition is just another handout to big corporations who paid off the politicians, like usual. What will the government demand we switch to next - cable internet, digital cameras, and satellite radios? I see they want to spend $9 billion to expand high-speed internet access as part of the "stimulus" - such a necessity in times like these...