Delay the digital switchover for TVs?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Eh, in Finland, switching from analoque to digital was something of a fiasco. It hasn't really brought any tangible things you could point to, and say, this is better now...

You mean, apart from vast extra pieces of spectrum that can be put to other uses?

[Kuciwalker]

**** anyone who doesn't know already. They'll figure it out.

[Jon Miller]

We should just ban TV and force people to develop lives.

I don't agree with you that often Winston, but you might have something there.

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

I agree with Winston and Jon. I credit my winning personality and unending empathy toward others to my lack of a TV.

[Ming]

Until people's tvs stop working, they aren't going to care or notice. Just get on with it and help those that were too stupid to make the change in time.

[onodera]

Can't they just interrupt the programs with public service announcements?

Go buy a digital TV, *******, or this will be the last time you'll see Strictly Come Dancing!

People will probably notice that.

[Dinner]

Good lord, if it's just a shortage of coupons, send out more ****ing coupons. If the issue is the expiring ones, just send out more, they'll expire anyway... no need to delay anything because a bunch of bozos in Congress can't get their act together.

I think the problem isn't lack of coupons but that the government didn't set aside enough money for people to cash in all those coupons.

[MarkG]

"Let's find a fiancιe to a farmer".

please tell me that this is a joke and such a programme does not exist :desire:

[Tattila the Hun]

The HD and analog-to-digital transitions are being done at the same time here in the states. The transition has been a long one. It started about 7 or 8 years ago. Because they are doing both at the same time, the direct benefits are pretty clear.

Ah, you are at least smarter in that regard...

You mean, apart from vast extra pieces of spectrum that can be put to other uses?

Still don't see the benefits to anyone's tv watching experience. I do believe they've been working on using the bandwith for wireless internet, which is another can of worms, I seem to recall.

please tell me that this is a joke and such a programme does not exist :desire:

Oh, yes it does, isn't even a finnish invention, as it turns out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Wants_a_Wife

[Traianvs]

Digital TV hasn't improved the quality of the broadcast thus far. Like Tattila said there's no tangible improvements to be seen yet. As long as there's no need to spend money on a TV that is used from time to time only, buying digital is useless. I don't have tv myself, but I suppose that's the reasoning of a good number of people.

[FrostyBoy]

TV is for idiots. The Internet is all you need. I have no interest in them whatsoever. They're has been; they're a 20th century fad. Anyone still using them has a delusional thought that they still serve a good purpose.

[-Jrabbit]

The FCC, NTIA and the broadcasters have used only broad-stroke "education" communication; there has been precious little "do this, do it now" how-to material. The coupon argument is a straw man.

People will not act until their TVs go dark. Delaying the inevitable will only raise the cost even higher.

I'm not a big fan of how this transition has been managed, but we have to move forward.

On this issue, I agree with the Bush administration!

[Jonny]

Go on with it already, I say. They've been running those PSAs for ages now, it seems, so if one hasn't seen them, it probably means: 1) they haven't watched TV for at least a year, so it won't be a problem for them, or 2) they saw the announcement but were too lazy to act on it, and there's no reason to think they'll do otherwise if we give them more time.

So let's get on with it already!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Digital TV hasn't improved the quality of the broadcast thus far. Like Tattila said there's no tangible improvements to be seen yet. As long as there's no need to spend money on a TV that is used from time to time only, buying digital is useless. I don't have tv myself, but I suppose that's the reasoning of a good number of people.

Well, the benefits aren't necessarily in terms of picture quality but in opening up bandwidth space even in cable, allowing for the transmission of more channels.

[DanS]

The picture quality has been improved for my parents. They're about 35 miles from the towers and they now get all channels without any static. Also, they sometimes get more than one subchannel for each channel. Lastly, they get a low-power channel that they couldn't get with analog. These new digital receivers are becoming very good now that the equipment manufacturers are at generation 5 or 6 of the technology.

Of course, YMMV. I have a sense that in European countries where population is denser, the quality of reception is less of an upgrade.