> The Washington Post today, Thursday, June 11, has a good article > about how the transition to digital television has missed virtually > every single promised advantage over analog TV. The claims made by > broadcasters and their lobbying organizations that were designed to > ensure and garner public support for the transition never came to > pass.
It's a good bet that most broadcasters didn't want ATSC, it's an additional expense and new transmitters had to be bought or alternatively expensive alterations to existing ones had to be made. Other downsides are that coverage is often much less than NTSC and its analog effects. Digital is real nice if you can receive the signal but as many are finding out, many cannot or will have to go to extraordinary lengths to get a decent signal. that being said, if it does work, you get a better picture even with a converter/old tv setup. In most markets, those who can receive a signal will get more offeringgs, even if the extra offering is weather and short news or even worse infomercials. I'm neither in a panic nor enthused about ATSC. One more comment, the US would have been better off adopting the European DVB setup, technically it's a more developed system and predictions about coverage could have been more accurately made. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
