On Jun 27, 7:50 am, George wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:37:43 -0000, wrote:

[snip]

Damned if I know how you can claim "everyone is better off in the end".

Yes, some will be worse off, but not by much. There is a small
minority that receive NTSC today over the air and don't accept the
value proposition of having an HD picture that puts to shame what they
are watching now,

Strangely, I find the difference (HD resolution compared to 480 lines)
to be nearly insignificant. There is a considerable difference, but
most of that is in ATSC, rather than HD.

Because everyone seems to confuse what is happening. The only
requirement is that analog OTA must be turned off and then all OTA can
only be *digital*. There is no requirement that OTA digital must be HD.


Yes, it's true that with ATSC there is no mandatory reqt that it be
HD. But there is plenty of HD programming available today. Much of
network prime time is HD. Sports are in HD. There is plenty of HD
available on cable channels too. And the main point of moving to ATSC
was to get HD. So, when someone says the difference between HD and
regular TV is significant, one assumes they are talking about viewing
material on an HDTV that is HD. And how anyone can look at that and
call it an insignificant improvement, is beyond me.








Of course, these people will still need a converter for 480-line ATSC
broadcasts.

or simply can't afford a new TV. They will have to
buy a converter. The cost is estimated at a whopping $50 to $100.
And the fed govt has already announced a program to give any household
that requests it, 2 rebate coupons for $40 each. That means you
could still use your 2 existing TV's for a cost of ~$70.

[snip]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -