Couldn't disagree with this more. Not everything is a conspiricy. This is being done both to replace a 50 year old, inefficient technology that's way past its time and for the demand from the consumer for a far superior picture quality. This is apparently a bad forum to look for an example of people who do want everything in high-definition but I can assure there are a lot of people who have been demanding it.

As you say, there is a very limited amount of radio spectrum available. This itself justifies the switch to a format that uses a fraction of the spectrum while allowing the station to broadcast multiple channels (did you say "no commercial gain"?). This frees up the spectrum for the growing demand.

The money the government collects by "renting" out the spectrum is just a bonus. Since "the government" is you and I, I'd outraged if they didn't get as much as they can out of it for commercial use.

Then why did the TV stations and the people that make TV’s not come out with this before now instead of being forced by law on everyone by the government?





I have a carpet cleaning business; I’m in a large number of homes and businesses each week (sometimes up to 20 homes & businesses a week) I talk to my customers about all kinds of things, the digital issue being one of them. When the TV issue comes up, the answer to being asking is yea it’s nice to have a clearer picture, but it was not a big concern. (This tells me that the consumer was not driving this change.)


With everything that relates to the government and what it does, to get answers as to why it’s doing it.

Follow the money trail for it’s motivation. Do you know any politician or government agency would turn down an idea that will generate billions? I don’t, it’s a mythical beast.

Because we didn't know they could do it. I hadn't really heard anything about it until they announced the date for the change. The only thing I'd heard was third hand about five years before with no details of what they were proposing or the consumer equipment to support it.

Yes, it was specified by law. The law also specified that >85% of the population had to have access to cable or satellite reception before the date for switchover was set. IIRC even after that they delayed it at least once.

As far as HD goes, I want anything I can get in it.

This reinforced the government wanted it and not the public. If you don’t know about it, its kind of hard to demand it!

This just makes me laugh. The only effect for me will be taking my tv to the curb for the trashman to pick it up. I never -literally- watch it unless I'm watching a dvd. Buh - bye.

DVDs will still work with analog TVs. No need to toss the TV.

Unless you are in the industry, had you heard anything very far ahead about DVD's before they came out? I know this isn't exactly an oranges-oranges comparison because digital was written into law but DVD's didn't require an infrastructure investment.

When I first heard of the switch, there wasn't any hardware out so I didn't really pay it any attention. Once more information and the hardware were both available, I was all for it. It doubled the channels I can receive without cable and the clarity went up significantly on the ones I could receive before.

The switchover and hardware availability could have been handled better. They should have required manufacturers to switch to producing TV's with digital receivers back when this was set up instead of shortly before the switch.

There is a learning curve to it just like there was with broadcast TV. After so many years with cable it took a while to get the antenna set just right.