Comments

richard-courtney wrote on 10/21/2005, 6:38 AM
We already have purchased ATSC receivers for our household, was not $50.

PBS HD was great at first but new material is slow in coming. We still watch
SD most of the time and sometimes analog.

We do get a little tiling from time to time, birds landing on the antenna and
strong wind I assume. I can't say it is worth converting now since 2009 is a
few years away. Let everyone else help pay for the converter!
Grazie wrote on 10/21/2005, 6:41 AM


Yup, good to see that in one of the largest democracies of the World, your country realises the need to keep the channels of communications open - even to those who can't afford it. Way to go America!

Good bless yah Uncle Sam!

Grazie


rs170a wrote on 10/21/2005, 6:46 AM
Grazie, did you go through the times when PAL was being switched not only from 405 to 625 lines but B&W to colour as well?
I remember talking to friends who told me that you had to have 2 tuners on your sets for this to happen. Apparently there were a lot of unhappy users in those times :-)

Mike
Jay Gladwell wrote on 10/21/2005, 6:53 AM

I guess what I'm getting at is... considering everything else going on in this country--genuine, life threatening issues--throwing $3 billion at this minor inconvenience is not the best way to spend that kind of money.

The Government has its hands so deep into my pockets they could tie my shoes!


farss wrote on 10/21/2005, 7:13 AM
The ROI is probably not too bad, down here it's adding $50K per annum to every stations costs having to run two transmitters.
Also there's some pretty dodgy maths in that estimate of $3B, down here the cost of STB boxes has dropped from $500 to $100, as more buy the price will come down. The improvement in image quality, particularly feeding component from the box to the TV is pretty dramatic in PAL, I'd imagine it'd be even more with NTSC.
By my rough calculations on average this is only going to cost $10 per head in the USA, hardly a very deep dig into the pockets. If you offset the $1B from the sale of spectrum space it looks even better and while I could think of a few better things to blow $3B of public funds on I can think of a lot worse.
Bob.
AlanC wrote on 10/21/2005, 7:21 AM
"Grazie, did you go through the times when PAL was being switched"

Grazie was around when we only had ONE tv channel. The BBC.

Old TV Programmes

Yes, during the transitional period between 405 to 625, set top adapters were available but heck, it was worth the cost. But no, nobody ever invented a box that could display colour pictures on a B & W tv. :~)

Edit: It's all coming back to me now. We needed set top adapters when they first introduced our second channel.

Alan
JJKizak wrote on 10/21/2005, 8:00 AM
A billion dollars in a politicians pocket is like a hundred dollars in ours.

JJK
p@mast3rs wrote on 10/21/2005, 10:33 AM
"I guess what I'm getting at is... considering everything else going on in this country--genuine, life threatening issues--throwing $3 billion at this minor inconvenience is not the best way to spend that kind of money.

The Government has its hands so deep into my pockets they could tie my shoes!"


When has life threatening situations EVER stopped the government from doing stupid stuff?
Jay Gladwell wrote on 10/21/2005, 11:09 AM

Uuhhh... Hmmm...

Let me get back to you on that.


OdieInAz wrote on 10/21/2005, 12:10 PM
Actually, the gov't is anxious to sell the spectrum to wireless operators. The CBO expects to raise $10B in auctions, so $3B to subsidize converters doesn't seem too bad. Probably will be no-bid awards to the well connected. When the Europeans auctioned off 3G spectrum, it brought in Hundreds of Billions (Euros, Marks, Pounds, ...) so US telcos are getting a bargain!