From: "Dominic Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:49:09PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > And there was me thinking that Chris was going to say that he doesn't
> > a TV either. But he didn't. I don't have a TV. But I'm currently camped
> > in my parents house, and they have 2. But I learn that they will both be
> > obsolete in 5 years when we all the analogue TV transmitters are turned
> > Is that relevant? :-)
> Dunno, but I sure hope the digital packages get a bit better than the
> current offerings otherwise I'll just switch off the telly and not turn
> it on again...
> -Dom (resents paying once for the license fee and again for the

Hmm. I too am pissed off about this digital stuff, as the quality is worse
than analogue TV. My measure of quality is uninterrupted viewing. I have yet
to watch any digital TV where at some point the picture didn't pixelate or
completely blank for a few seconds. I have an excellent Sony 100Hz TV, and
cannot fault the picture. Why are we being forced down this digital route?
Money I expect.

But if you get a digital TV/receiver, surely BBC is available for free
without any subscriptions. If this is not the case then I think it's

[thinking maybe he should have taken this to (void)]

Reply via email to