[ARock84]

I see why theywant to do this, and its because they want to use these air waves for other things. They claim its for wireless, but lets see what happens.

[reubenhwk1]

Number6, digital IS better, I've switch back and forth between analog and digital broadcast of the same show! Digital it shaper and there's not signal degradation (as long as you could originally see the analog signal, you will see the digital signal in 100% clarity because of the digital nature (error correcting codes and whatnot)). The reason why the government is forcing the switch is because there are ignorant people out there, such as yourself, who don't understand or know or have seen the difference. Have you seen the difference for yourself in your own home? I didn't think so. The government is forcing this on us because YOU don't know any better!

BTW, are you one of those lazy folks out there that have been ignoring the constant reminders update for the last two years?

[Ryan22158]

So heated over something so stupid. The people that waited need to get with the program. I do not have a cable and I received two 40 coupons and I found converter boxes on the internet and bought some for a total out of pocket cost of, wait for it, 4 DOLLARS! That is not a type 4 DOLLARS, 400 PENNIES. If you don't have one then get one. Digital is better. And I think Obama should support the transition, then again I can bash him cause I did not vote for him.....

[reubenhwk1]

Keeping analog is harmful because it's redundant and inefficient. There's no good reason to broadcast all the same stuff in different frequencies where the frequencies are limited. HDTV has 6x more pixels than regular TV, so the analog signal for HD would take 6 time as much space in the spectrum. Digital doesn't take 6 times as much because the digital signals can be compressed at the transmitting end and decompressed by the receiving end (your converter box that you need to get). Another words, we get more bang for each buck in the spectrum. Digital is efficient, analog is wasteful. Isn't Obama all about efficiently using resources too? The switch should go on as planned.

[number6]

The quality isn't worth the price. When the price matches the value, I'll switch.

How would you like it if the government forced everyone to upgrade to SATA hard drives, LCD screens, and Vista? What's the difference?

[number6]

Isnt that up to the broadcasters? Why does the government have to decide what they broadcast?

[ARock84]

It's a no win battle! thats all I can say, I dont think it should be done, but what can you do?

[number6]

Just try to educate people about the principle of free market economics and freedom, I guess.

[reubenhwk1]

I would like if everybody used LCD screens they use much less energy than CRT's, but that's different. That's a personal choice that almost entirely effects only the person looking at the screen. How we receive broadcast is something that affects everybody and is totally different from your silly analogy. Somebody has to govern how the wireless frequencies are allocated to keep two broadcasting organization from broadcasting on the same frequency. It's silly to say the government shouldn't tell us how their going to manage broadcasting frequencies. It's also silly to complain when the govmt. mandates an upgrade and pays for the equipment you need by selling the old frequencies they want to recycle. Seriously, if we wait for every last person to stop using the analog broadcast before we switch, society will only move as fast as the biggest procrastinator.

[dpward]

Has everyone forgotten that this whole switch to digital television is supposed to free up valuable spectrum to be used for public safety -- allowing the United States to create the first-ever nationwide public safety network that will address the communication infrastructure problems that plagued first responders during Hurricane Katrina?

In short, the government gives you a coupon for a free converter box so you can continue to get free over-the-air television (no, it's not going to become un-free after the switch). And they do this so they can address shortfalls in public safety. Not to mention that you get higher-quality TV as a result (although that is entirely secondary in my mind).

And people still find every reason to complain.

Seriously, people...

[number6]

Who's paying for the boxes? The manufacturers are going to be paid and I don't want to pay for it through taxes or inflation, so who will? Will you?

[dpward]

As reubenhwk1 mentioned, Verizon is the one paying for the boxes, as part of their multi-billion dollar bid for the spectrum. Not you. Not me. Unless you happen to have Verizon service I guess, but then that's a different story.

[reubenhwk1]

OMG Number6. It's $50! It's a date to the movies and a diner for two at Chillies! You can't possibly complain that you've been getting free TV for 20 years and now it's a one time cost of $50 to keep getting free tv! Stop wining and just do it.

[number6]

I like to save my money. You want to wire me the fifty? It sounds like you have some to spare.

[reubenhwk1]

number6, you're not saving anything by not using a coupon. I don't need to wire you a $50. You box is already paid for. I tell you what I will do, I'll send you a link to an online site where you can order a converter box. This is going to happen. It's like a steam roller paving a street. You can get on the steam roller (get the converter box) or become part of the pavement...


[https://www.dtv2009.gov/]

www.dtvconverterboxnow.com/?gclid=CNXtwqO2gpgCFSJIagod-Wc-Cg

[RNR19952]

Agreed, I am so sick of the "hand out" generation. Whiney people who do nothing but whine. I say let companies fail too, you know I heard on the news today the PORN industry is looking for a handout now! NO JOKE! FOX Circa 6:30 AM This country is getting pathetic, and BTW we can see that the "change" is more of the same.

[butlerwm]

{quote:title=reubenhwk1 wrote:}Number6, digital IS better, I've switch back and forth between analog and digital broadcast of the same show! Digital it shaper and there's not signal degradation (as long as you could originally see the analog signal, you will see the digital signal in 100% clarity because of the digital nature (error correcting codes and whatnot)).{quote}

Actually, this statment is only partly correct. The coverage/comparison map for the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area, indicates that once the switch to digital is made, more than two million people in that area will no longer receive broadcast signals from various network stations. If the discrepancy exists in that market, the same is true in every other market to some degree. And it's not a matter of those customers not having converters--it's a matter of the broadcast signal not reaching the customers. Additionally, while digital video may be visually superior to analog, it is more expensive to maintain, uses "far more" bandwidth than analog, and is more prone to failure than analog.

Also, contrary to popular belief, neither the television stations nor networks "asked" for the transition. Instead it was, from its inception, the government's desire to best the broadcast standards in Europe and Japan during the late seventies and early eighties. Rather than simply implementing a higher resolution analog standard, some "brain-trust" in a think tank came up with the idea of creating a new standard based on a technology that didn't exist and wasn't on anyone's drawing board. That's why it's taken two decades to implement, from inception to reality.

{quote:title=reubenhwk1 wrote:}The reason why the government is forcing the switch is because there are ignorant people out there, such as yourself, who don't understand or know or have seen the difference. Have you seen the difference for yourself in your own home? I didn't think so. The government is forcing this on us because YOU don't know any better!{quote}

The government is forcing this on us because they spent too much money creating the technology to just say, "Oops... we made a mistake." There was supposed to be a transition period where digital and analog lived side-by-side. It was supposed to have allowed customers time to acquire new TVs and converter boxes without creating a strain on consumers. However, because the equipment was so expensive (for broadcasters) and so difficult to configure properly (again, for broadcasters), what was supposed to be a one-to-two year coexistence period, turned in to less than a year. Some local broadcasters have still not switched to their digital transmitters--because they can't make them work reliably.

Now, let me make something clear: I enjoy my HDTV and prefer my digital signals over their analog counterparts. I have cable so the digital switch being flipped on February 17th, won't directly affect me. But I also know that change for the sake of change is as unreasonable as fighting needed change. If the government mandates a change, they have a responsibility to facilitate that change without unduly, adversley affecting the people government is supposed to serve.

A final note: The freeing up of spectrum is a byproduct of the switch. It was not part of the initial, intended purpose. That doesn't make it good, bad, or otherwise... just not part of the original plan.

[auto239440]

agreee with number6

[JimH443]

Here's the way I see it: If you've got enough money for a digital TV and are insistant upon receiving a digital signal... then you've got enough money to subscribe to either Dish Network or DirecTV. Leave us poor folk out of it. You like digital? I'm glad to hear it. You say it's better? I'll take your word for it - and I'd prefer to leave it at that. But to force it down our throats - and make us pay for it to boot (since the coupons don't cover the whole cost) - just isn't right.

[number6]

Thank you, [~57662], you are so much better at putting it than I am.