Hurray for President elect Obama!

leaningright said:
That's what it means. And yep, some of us still have an antenna.
Click to expand...

Ohh, you know I've been trying to figure out if analog means antenna. I see.

I actually didn't know that some people still used antenas, isnt' that horrible? I really didn't. But I've been reading now that there are actually people that do, and that's good that Obama is trying to set this back then.
 
Darla said:
Ohh, you know I've been trying to figure out if analog means antenna. I see.

I actually didn't know that some people still used antenas, isnt' that horrible? I really didn't. But I've been reading now that there are actually people that do, and that's good that Obama is trying to set this back then.
Click to expand...

I live around several people who can't afford satellite TV and we don't have cable out here. These folks are poor (The three families I am thinking about have hand-me-down TV's) and can't afford the converter boxes. I have bought a couple of the boxes for family members but there is another problem. When you use an antenna and receive the analog signal your picture might be snowy or staticy but you can still watch it. With the converter boxes, those snowy or staticy channels are so choppy that it is next to impossible (and also very irritating) to try to watch something. I've really been dreading this change.
 
looks like somebody figured out that it's going to cost big bucks to supply digi converters to the analog set. bucks that this economy just isn't going to have right now.
 
leaningright said:
I live around several people who can't afford satellite TV and we don't have cable out here. These folks are poor (The three families I am thinking about have hand-me-down TV's) and can't afford the converter boxes. I have bought a couple of the boxes for family members but there is another problem. When you use an antenna and receive the analog signal your picture might be snowy or staticy but you can still watch it. With the converter boxes, those snowy or staticy channels are so choppy that it is next to impossible (and also very irritating) to try to watch something. I've really been dreading this change.
Click to expand...

I understand.
 
Obama is only using government to try and head off a problem that government created.
From the article:
"In 2005, Congress required that broadcasters switch from analog to digital broadcasts, which are more efficient, to free up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum."

Congress should have absolutely no say in this change one way or the other and stop forcing broadcasters to act as they wish.
 
leaningright said:
I live around several people who can't afford satellite TV and we don't have cable out here. These folks are poor (The three families I am thinking about have hand-me-down TV's) and can't afford the converter boxes. I have bought a couple of the boxes for family members but there is another problem. When you use an antenna and receive the analog signal your picture might be snowy or staticy but you can still watch it. With the converter boxes, those snowy or staticy channels are so choppy that it is next to impossible (and also very irritating) to try to watch something. I've really been dreading this change.
Click to expand...

Yep with digital it is either there or not. like digital vs analog cell phones. Remember those? You would get static warning you your call might drop.

Leaning, Signal boosters work with digital. I had the same problem here.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Obama is only using government to try and head off a problem that government created.
From the article:
"In 2005, Congress required that broadcasters switch from analog to digital broadcasts, which are more efficient, to free up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum."

Congress should have absolutely no say in this change one way or the other and stop forcing broadcasters to act as they wish.
Click to expand...

Why did you cut off the remainder of the sentence?

The new bandwidth would free up space for emergency-response networks. If the gov't shouldn't be involved in that, we shouldn't have a gov't.
 
When even my mother is ready, finally giving up the old tube set that took 17 minutes to warm up and had a constant high-pitched whine constantly in the background that only me and the dog seemed able to detect for a 2 decade old "newer" model that can accept a cable, why should we try to weigh down the prepared for the lowest common denominator?

;)
 
I'm not sure how this would work. Much of the portions of the spectrum being vacated by TV have already been auctioned off.
 
Onceler said:
Why did you cut off the remainder of the sentence?

The new bandwidth would free up space for emergency-response networks. If the gov't shouldn't be involved in that, we shouldn't have a gov't.
Click to expand...

That doesn't address the underlying problem though, emergency response systems like those in hospitals use antiquated technology so one way to fix it would be that directive the government issued which would free up the analog bandwidth that they use, a far better idea would be to compel them to switch to more recent digital bandwidth themselves (like so many other businesses do).
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1644&zoneid=237

Why they have not done this is because it isn't yet critical to them but once it would be then they would pay and switch, as they should, it's not the right thing to do to use government to force regular people out of technology that they have no pressing need to move away from which would hit their pocketbooks, rather than health businesses who simply don't want to spend their money and use government to give them more breathing room and let others pay for the transition that they need far less anyway.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep with digital it is either there or not. like digital vs analog cell phones. Remember those? You would get static warning you your call might drop.

Leaning, Signal boosters work with digital. I had the same problem here.
Click to expand...

Yea, I am fine as far as my household's TV's are concerned. I've had a dish for years and will put in a converter eventually for bad weather when the dish won't work. I just think about the friends and family members around here who aren't. With the antenna you are lucky to receive 4 channels here. With the digital conversion you will be lucky to receive 1.
 
leaningright said:
Yea, I am fine as far as my household's TV's are concerned. I've had a dish for years and will put in a converter eventually for bad weather when the dish won't work. I just think about the friends and family members around here who aren't. With the antenna you are lucky to receive 4 channels here. With the digital conversion you will be lucky to receive 1.
Click to expand...

UHF or VHF antennas? UHF (14-83 with short elements) work fine with the digital signal, the VHF(2-13) ones do not work too well with digital siganl.
 
uscitizen said:
UHF or VHF antennas? UHF (14-83 with short elements) work fine with the digital signal, the VHF(2-13) ones do not work too well with digital siganl.
Click to expand...

Both. Our "local" channels are 5 (CBS), 40 (ABC), 24 (Fox) and 51 (NBC). Channels 5 (VHF) and 40 (UHF) are the closest to us, being about 60 miles away and channels 24 and 51 (both UHF) are about 150 miles away. The only channel that comes in without the jumbled mess that comes with a weak digital signal is channel 5.
 
leaningright said:
Both. Our "local" channels are 5 (CBS), 40 (ABC), 24 (Fox) and 51 (NBC). Channels 5 (VHF) and 40 (UHF) are the closest to us, being about 60 miles away and channels 24 and 51 (both UHF) are about 150 miles away. The only channel that comes in without the jumbled mess that comes with a weak digital signal is channel 5.
Click to expand...

Hmm, well you shouldn't have to go without Fox - then you would just be stuck with Liberal media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top