Slashdot Mirror
Will America's Favorite Technology Go Dark?
Ant wrote to mention that MSNBC is reporting on the upcoming proposed digital television switchover planned for the end of 2006. From the article: "That's the date Congress targeted, a decade ago, for the end of analog television broadcasting and a full cutover to a digital format. If enforced, that means that overnight, somewhere around 70 million television sets now connected to rabbit ears or roof-top antennas will suddenly and forever go blank, unless their owners purchase a special converter box. Back when the legislation was written, New Year's Eve 2006 probably looked as safely distant as the dark side of the moon. But now that date is right around the corner and Congress and the FCC are struggling mightily to figure out what to do."
Well, the government had either lift the regulation or start subsidizing these sets somehow. Oh wait, that comes out of our taxpayer money... For the people by the people my ass if this goes through without some kind of recompense. The market simply isn't ready for it...
But on the bright side, what a way to get your average Joe to take a look at the government and the way it operates than to turn off his idiot tube. Not that this regulation was all bad -- it was to spur on development. Would that they'd do away wth IP patents in the same way.
We'll see. In this case, the revolution may really NOT be televised.
...in the UK, this is already happening, region by region - even though the official switchover isn't until 2008 or so. The first switchover was to a small area of Wales (with a smallish population), who decided by public vote (around 95% in favour) to switch off the analogue transmissions completely. I think my area (south west england/south wales) is scheduled next, although not for a year or so. Obviously, it's a lot easier to provide digital signals to the whole of the UK than it is to the entire of the US.
Of course, it's also to the UK (and I guess the US's) government's benefit, since by switching off early they can sell of the frequencies earlier, and get cash sooner.
These TVs aren't exactly obsolete -- they can still function as monitors for game systems, video tapes, DVDs, etc., etc. The question is how expensive these converter boxes will be. I might be willing to shell out the money for one of those, attach it to the oldest functioning TV set I can find, and have a nice retro piece.
What do you call a comercial service that cuts off 70 million potential customers ...Progress is good , but if they need to phase it in slowly not have a termination date .Obviously 10 year was far from enough as you still have a good ?(half)ammount of the homes in the US with analog TVs(70 million TV sets is probably about a quater really or a half , who knows , i was thinking average of 3-4 people per house but then each house may have 2 sets or more ?? ). ,preferably alot lower) other-wise several million people going out at once to get TV add-ons may cause a few problems(along with a few boosts in revenue )
They will need to extend the date till the numbers are well under 10 million(at-least
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The reason that no one really gives a damn about switching over is that most people have cable or satellite, while those of us (including myself, still on rabbit ears) just don't think American television is damn good enough to pay for. The Brits bitch about their TV licences, but at least they get kick-ass television and television news that is second to none. I would gladly pay it. But am I going to buy a converter box to watch American TV? No - I barely even watch the rabbit ears now - my TV is basically a device for watching VHS tapes on. It's a slightly bigger screen to invite friends over to look at (instead of the computer monitor) and to be frank, I don't know if it's worthwhile to lug to my new apartment when my lease is up. And if you want me to subsidize this farce? The only way you will get me to support subsidizing television is if either the companies that put television on the air start putting on some shows worth watching or we move to an "all stations are publically financed and owned by the government" BBC-like model. I plan to solve the problem by living in another country by the time that New Years Even 2006 rolls around, but this has been a clusterf*ck at the FCC. The waste of HDTV bandwidth and the utter mismanagement of this FCC, spending more time looking for nipples than caring about technology. The corporations squatted the spectrum, didn't do anything with it... why hasn't the FCC responded with the only possible course of action and removed their licences!
We're doing this in Germany right now. Some areas with high population density have already been switched to entirely digital distribution over the air. There is a difference however: Only a small percentage of viewers was receiving TV programming over the air anyways. Most viewers have cable (mostly analog) or satellite (mostly digital), so they were not affected by the switchover.
DVB-S(atellite) is very popular, so we're used to set top boxes. DVB-T(errestrial) is very similar technology, so the receivers are already in the same price range (starting at about $65).
If you delay this, you'll just be in the same situation some years down the road. Without setting a date and sticking to it, nothing gets done.
Do you think watching T.V. is a personal right or something? Get off the T.V. and get into a book. Better still go out side, and see how the consumer culture has trashed the country, air, water, forests. After that, go do something to help stop it.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day. I think you were trying to be funny but unfortunately you were modded insightful so I feel compelled to respond if not to you then to the moderators who thought your comment was insightful.
I've recently been re-reading E. T. Jaynes' wonderful book, Probability Theory : The Logic of Science which gives a mathematically rigorous treatment of plausible reasoning using, among other things, Bayes Theorem.
One of the things he makes perfectly clear is that new relevant evidence will always affect the decisions of a rational/perfect reasoner unless that evidence is totally redundant with respect to evidence that was already known.
The book was published posthumously in tree form but there are still .pdf and .ps available on the web. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone were to read this book. Unfortunately it has a lot of math in it that makes it un-readable for people without a technical background. But certainly anyone who uses probability theory or statistics really owes it to themselves to read this book.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I've never heard a non geek complain about picture quality on an average broadcast TV. Unless it's a signal strength problem or a failing TV, consumers don't care. NTSC is good enough.
Look at the number of people who download TV shows. The quality really isn't as good as a broadcast but people love it anyway.
The electronics companies needed a way to revolutionize the industry. The consumer isn't driving this revolution.
Just like IBM's Microchannel and Intel's Rambus fiasco, this "improvement" will probably be rejected by the consumer. Online (streaming and/or downloadable) TV may take a big chunk out of the broadcast TV market.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
I think the bigger issue politicians will be considering is CONTROL. I personally don't think any politician in their right mind would risk the control factor that TV represents in the name of spectrum. The last thing you want is even 1 million people not watching TV, getting their heads filled with "nonsense" from their neighbors. No, you want Fox and the other major media outlets delivering their crap ASAP. A tele watching populace, is a controlled populace. I'll bet ya 100ozs of silver they extend the deadline, though they would never admit the real reason why.
You're absolutely right. The rights of the rich always supercede those of the poor.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
More digital television means actually less television for the mass market, which in turn means less control of the population, and ultimately more democracy. It might force people to buy a newspaper to learn the news, instead of watching useless mind-altering garbage TV shows for 5 or more hours per day.
Tuesday morning, DirectTV is going to be putting up a new bird, the Spaceway 1.
"After a checkout period, Spaceway 1 will go into service this summer to begin DIRECTV's new program offering for both national and local high-definition channels to its customers across the United States. It will later be joined by three other satellites to fully implement the system by 2007."
"By 2007, the number of high-definition channels will be expanded to over 1,500, and DIRECTV says its next-generation services will be able to reach every U.S. household."
"Spaceway 1 carries a two-meter transmit antenna with full steering ability that can form multiple spot beams to customize programming in different regions of the country. This communications payload has a total bandwidth capacity of about 10 gigabytes per second."
I find this preferable to our government's enforced upgrades, although I can see the arguments for more efficient bandwidth usage.
More info
We in the UK get switchoff in about 2008, probably. The set-top boxes are about £30 or so for a basic model (normal res only - we haven't got HDTV), more for HDD recorders and the like. You can get TV cards that support digital, but they seem to be more expensive than set-top boxes for some reason
Tinfoil hat nothing, practical reality. TV is the opiate of the masses in this country. Watch, it will be extended. Money means nothing if you have millions disconnected from the indoctrination engine.
I believe he was joking, referring to how in the last election, John Kerry was called a flip-flopper, while most of the opinions sited were thirty years apart.
And thank you for pointing that book out to me.
You aren't the only ones to get shafted. Over here the switchover dates are different for each region. The shutoff dates are already fixed since they involve termination of long-term contracts. However, the go live dates of Digital TV are not so fixed.
The region I live in was promised DVB-T for the 18th of April. However the powers that be decided that 1 million people where not worth the hassle of installing digital infrastructure (By the way, Germany is about 15 times as densly popuated as the US). And when did they tell us? Beginnning of April.
So all those people who bought DVB-T Receivers are now royally screwed. Still Analogue TV was shut off with very little noise, like one article in the local paper on Saturday the 16th, complete with a big ad from the cable service.
Satelite dishes are now sold out. We were lucky to get one for my mother-in-law who was freaking out so we had to install it as quickly as possible and she still owes us the money for the dish. Funnily enough it was about 25% more expensive than the identical one we bought for ourselves two years ago.
I think you will get screwed the same way. DVB-T will only be available in very high density population centres. The rest can go buy a dish and find a wall to fix it on. Don't suppose otherwise even if you are bombarded with ads about how good DVB-T will be and that you should buy the box while it's cheap.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
I am attached to my TV. And my TiVo. And cable (or satellite, or IPTV, or whatever they come up with next). It provides me with information and entertainment. TV has been a part of my life since I can remember. I used to wonder what people did before Nickelodeon and MTV.
The three-network powers of yore are about to get a much-needed shot in the arm (or perhaps the butt, if their core cheapo analog viewers decide to upgrade to cable instead of buying a digital converter).
I don't really even know who watches over-the-air broadcast television, other than people who can't/won't/don't pay for cable BUT still love TV enough to own a set.
Essentially what I'm implying is that people who currently don't pay for cable or satellite (a) cannot pay for it, or (b) don't want the advanced features or channels.
Therefore, almost every single benefit of digital broadcasts are almost entirely irrelevant. Receiving an HD picture on a 13 inch analog television won't look any better (and will cost those consumers $50-$100 to buy the converter). Moreover, those who don't want the advanced features or multitude of channels aren't going to suddenly buy a big-screen HDTV to watch broadcast channels in high definition, just because their black-and-white in the kitchen doesn't receive Maury Povich anymore.
While I think it is wise and important to reapportion our available spectrum as new technology becomes available and matures, I doubt the legislative mandate to push analog TV into obsolescence is important or a worthwhile use of our legislative, financial, and technological resources.
(As a side note, isn't broadcast television dying, or just turning into one of the pack, anyway? We are no longer bound to the three-network oligarchy, and I fail to see why we should keep supporting that establishment legislatively).
What "situation"? The point is that it's not really important whether we switch or not. It's just television. I say, let the change happen organically. Sure, it might take a little longer but the last thing I need is the government mandating which TV I can buy.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Here in Italy, the switch is sheduled for 31 december 2006.
What's "fun" is that nobody was even considering it until some four years ago. The move was decided in a rush, and the government granted *150 euros* to anyone who buys a decoder. That is, 100% of the price for many brands (incidentally, if you're 16 you can get just slightly more to buy a PC). Why all this generosity?
Well, it happens that, as you may know, italian prime minister Berlusconi also own 3 of the 7 major channels (3 of the remaining ones being state owned). To contrast this monopolist position a law was passed years ago limiting to two the channels a single corp can control. Berlusconi managed to ingore it until 2003, when he ruled that if DT had been adopted by the majority of italians by 2006. The rest is history. What blows me is that it seems most people just don't get that *they* are paying for the decoder they are getting "for free" from the store.
That's why I for one don't welcome our new DVB-T overlords...
I have to agree with the parent, and think it should be moded up. This isn't a tin-foil hat situation, this is political economics, pure and simple.
However, I think about stories a friend of mine tells me of days he worked as an installer for Cox Communications... going into trailer homes which were missing floors to install digital cable. So you take away analogue transmissions; rabbit ears and roof-top antennaes no longer work. That's okay, because the poor will still believe they NEED television, for whatever reason. Be it to escape the ugly reality of class-separation induced poverty or whatever, they won't be able to subside without the daily drama of someone else's life which is better or worse than their's; without the daily cramming of horrible news from around the world; without the daily reminder that their country is the greatest on Earth, so says the President. So on and so forth.
So, they'll spend whatever little money they can scrape together to buy the three main necessities: cigarettes, alcohol, and TV. Food, shelter, transportation -- those all come into the view later on. But by God, it's down-right un-American not to have TV.
That's enough of my un-thought-out rant.
Personally, I'll be fine with no longer being able to use my analogue TV one day in the far future. (2006 affects over-the-air, right? When does analogue cable go the way-side?) I have stayed away from digital cable because I don't want another friggin' box on my entertainment stand, and another piece of equipment complicating my already complex system (select VCR, then put the TV to Input 1, but you can't use the TV volume here unless you actually use it as a tuner, but if you select DVD, you have to...)
But aside from that, which is really a minor issue, I consider getting rid of cable every time the bill comes due. I don't watch any prime-time network shows because I just can't handle the brain-rot. Phuqn "reality" shows just annoy the hell out of me, and I just can't bring myself to follow any of the shows currently running. I enjoy well-written shows which make me think, all across the board of drama to comedy, investigatory society, etc. Well, I have to admit that some of these real-life video shows (read that as unscripted reality, I guess) do provide some entertainment, but I could easily, and happily, live without them.
ComCast used to call me every so often to pitch digital cable. I'd ask why I would want it, and hear "well, it adds two hundred channels!" Great, that's 195 new channels that I won't watch, so why in the hell would I want to pay for service, installation, set-top decoder, etc.?
Perhaps I am robbing myself of some great experiences and entertainment, but it just doesn't seem that way. Blah.
There are two arguments here: 1) There shouldn't be a mandated switchover. 2) There isn't enough time left, so the deadline ought to be pushed back.
The first message of this thread argued in favor of changing the deadline. I argued against pushing the deadline back. You're changing the topic by arguing against a mandated switchover. I see your point, but I don't agree with it. The people grant companies permission to use parts of the radio spectrum exclusively. The people, represented by their government, have decided to adapt the rules to the technological advancement.
More often than not, the poor spend a far larger percentage of their income on their TV than the middle or upper class. I live in a 500k house and I only have one 32-inch HDTV (and it's a flat tube, not plasma or anything.) I can't tell you how many people who are obviously not well-off I see going over to Best Buy and getting a $2000 widescreen HDTV and probably paying the minimum on it for the rest of their lives. Many of my relatives are poor West Virginians, and, again, they all have bigger TVs than I do. You can afford alot of things when it's important enough to you.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Rich people did. HDTV companies did. But they're a small minority compared to the poorer masses.
But do you really think the poorer masses went more for Bush? Actually, forget the speculation, let's look at the exit polls. 36% of people with income under $15,000 voted for Bush. 42% from $15-30,000. Even the majority of people making $30-50,000 voted for Kerry. Bush won because of the people making $50,000 and up. Surely most of these people have cable television.
Lets face it, no politician wants a voting public that won't be able to see their TV commercials.
If that cuts out a group of people who overwhelmingly tend to vote for your opponent and not you, and it cuts out the TV commercials from both parties, then I don't see why not.
Besides, in the end, those who really care about TV will just buy a converter. And I seriously doubt the blame will get put on Bush anyway. The FCC is who makes the decision, not Bush, and the mandate was put in place by Clinton, not Bush.
I don't have a television, haven't had one for about 9 years, don't miss it, except for Red Green.
I watch TV when I stay in a hotel, stay with family, etc. I never have the desire to get one of my own.
We think that advertisements don't affect us because we don't immediately rush out and buy a Big Mac (Whopper, Coke/Pepsi/Shasta, Bud/Miller/Michelob, Ford/GM/Toyota, whatever) instantly every time we see a commercial. Try doing without TV for a year and see what happens to your purchasing habits. For me, I noticed the biggest difference in less desire to see movies.
I don't think that TV is inherently evil (though it does tend to totally dominate any room it's in, even when off). I do check out DVD's from my local library and watch them on the computer.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories
Great quote:
That sounds about right...!
This spectrum was hardly free, and it's very much not true that stations aren't doing anything with the second channels.
The station I work for had to:
Not cheap. And we lucked out by drawing RF channel 10, meaning we could run 42 kilowatts of power as opposed to our competitors who need 1000 kilowatts to achieve the same coverage. I don't want to know about their electric utility bills!
This is an expense imposed on these stations. Even if your business plan doesn't have room for high-definition. Even if your business plan depends on multicasting. (multiple programs over the same transmitter -- the FCC has decided cable is not required to carry the additional programs, making multicasting economically impractical.)
The stations' other alternative: do nothing with their second channel, and know that at some future point, they will be forced to surrender their license and go out of business. (At least one station already has.(scroll down to "1993+"))
IMHO there is no shortage of available public-safety spectrum. The two-way radio manufacturers know that each time a new chunk of public-safety spectrum is opened, they'll sell thousands if not millions of new radios. The old 150MHz and 460MHz bands are being abandoned in droves - but are perfectly suited for public-safety work. (the old 40MHz band has been so fully abandoned that the FCC feels safe in allowing special temporary use for a FM broadcast station commemorating Armstrong's original FM experiments in New York City...)
This is a classic example of that truism. Most people don't need, don't want, and can't afford new televisions throughout their house, and I would guess are more or less happy with their current analog pictures. The government shouldn't be forcing this down everyones throats. And the idea that the government would pay to subsidize converters for low income households is ludicrous, when there are people within even the US that do not have enough money to eat.
Excellent timing on the article, since today is the start of TV-TURNOFF WEEK 2005
Servus,
actually in germany there now seems to be an interresting development. Since terrestrial TV-transmission is relatively expensive, compared to satellite transmissions, commercial stations are stopping to transmit terrestrially in some less populated areas at all. When the analog transmitters get turned off, they will only have a choice of about 5-6 public TV channels over the air.
But here nobody really cares. Free to Air satellite is just normal here (unless you live in an apartment building) and you can get more channels that way anyhow. And even on satellite a large share of the users already moved to digital, despite of the fact that the digital signal is worse most of the time.
In the US, digital television would have a lot more potential. Everyone can see the difference, at least in newer productions. With digital TV you can get real colour television, perhaps with HDTV even in a better resolution. (Note that PAL already has 576 lines instead of the 480 lines of NTSC).
Unfortunately the broadcast flag will ruin it all.
I'm from a very small farming community. They don't have cable, they don't have high speed internet, the cows out number the people there.
To get channels besides local stations people have to get satellite. It's not that bad really, I like satellite more than I like cable. But didn't congress pass a law several years ago saying satellite providers couldn't carry local channels and they couldn't provide locals from other markets?
So congress (in effect) is saying that they can't have antenna's to watch local TV, and they can't use satellite to watch local TV, but they don't get cable to be able to watch.
?????
J
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
That should apply to everybody, not just the poor. This is a good chance for a lot of people to learn to live without that damn box.
I'm certain some means will be found to prevent an interruption of TV service, particularly for poor people.
If the poor were permitted to sit, read, notice reality, calmly think about things that affect their lives, then where would we be? In a damn pickle! The success of our government relies on a system of checks and balances: the free market purchase of government influence and corresponding market access to media so that the proper education of the people can be achieved. You know - Michael Jackson 24/7 to a quarter billion pairs of eyeballs who need to know © important things that affect their daily lives.
No, given the stakes, you can expect Bread & Circus to be continued despite the impending analog TV doom scheduled for 2006.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Discovery HD
I'm not really running a text-byte for it, I'm just saying I don't watch Sopranos and Law and Order and all the shit that the rest of the spectrum covers.
There's some outstanding things to see on Discovery HD, and the 1280x1080i really makes all the difference. Looking at that link, they've got Egypt (and you can see it without worry of getting your head chopped off), Lewis and Clark, insects, evolution, and the Himalayas. Granted, it's not Louis and Clark with Terri Hatcher in tight leather, but there probably some hot American Indian chicks it in.
If I watch fifteen hours of television per week, at least 14 of those are off Discovery HD...
As someone who has watched a Digital signal and an analog signal, I can say that Digital quality is WORSE than analog when viewed through a NTSC set. Things may be different under HDTV, but when viewed through "standard" TV sets, the digital signal is inferior.
Consider a scene that is mostly a single color, such as characters under moonlight (mostly blueish) or a submarine action movie where they are about in the murky depths (also mostly blueish scene).
In an analog signal, the light to dark blue is graduated evenly, while the digital signal shows banding and other digital artifacts, because there aren't enough "blue" colors in the digital compression scheme.
I've also watched many episodes of StarGate SG1 under digital where the Audio and Video were out of sync, and it wound up looking like a bad quicktime movie played on an underpowered computer and the characters lips flapped, but the voices were just a fraction of a second out of sync -- it still looked really weird.
Maybe it's just my shitty provider (comcast), but damn, digital is so bad, it makes me want to throw out my TV.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I live in outer London.
I can't get freeview because we have these things called "hills" in this part of town. I can't get channel 5 for that matter.
If they put in another transmitter, I wouldn't be confident in setting up the video to record while I'm watching another channel, first time anyway. How well do all those pieces of equipment integrate?
Its a private road so I can't get cable. I don't see why I should pay a monthly tithe on top of the license fee anyway.
The residents association/landlord/council/neighbours would complain if I put up a satellite dish since that's so working class. And a monthly tithe to Murdock is even less appealing.
Hmm, back to reading magazines then!
Here's the difference between UK and US TV:
On UK TV, you have all the stuff that's worth watching packed into three or four channels. (BBC2, Channel 4, BBC1... er... that's about it.)
On US TV, you have almost exactly the same amount of TV that's worth watching, but it's spread across about a dozen channels, and you can only get those by subscribing to about a hundred channels.
The answer is ReplayTV or TiVo. You tell it what you want to watch, and it goes away and searches the hundreds of channels and finds the 3 channels' worth of stuff that's worth watching. It also lets you skip the obnoxious ads.
I tried watching US TV without a PVR, and it's just impossible. You have to dedicate an hour or two to reading the centimeters-thick TV guide each week, you have to track where FOX have moved your show to this week, you have to sit through the ads without going into a homicidal rage, and so on. The reward-to-effort ratio is way too low.
This is why Americans who get TiVo liken it to a religious experience, and say "You'll have my TiVo when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers". It turns US TV into something approaching UK TV.
Anyway, as far as the original topic goes... I don't see it as that big of a deal if they just go ahead with the switchover. Nobody who gets cable or satellite will even notice. How many people get their TV via bunny ears anyway?
Rural America doesn't get its TV via bunny ears. My in-laws live in rural America. They all have satellite dishes, because there's no way you'll pick up TV via a set-top antenna out on the prairies. No, the people who will be hit by this are predominantly poor people who live in cities and suburbs, and culture snobs who think they're too good for TV but occasionally sneak a fix (see examples in this discussion). 90% of the problem could probably be fixed by capping the price of basic cable.
Anyone have any actual statistics on how many people receive TV via bunny ears?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Digital TV signals have a definite range. Once you hit a certain distance out, you go from perfect signal to nothing. This means that New York and Philadelphia can use the same channels without worrying about them bleeding into each other over Jersey.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
This is also about the broadcasters having more control on who is watching what. Once everything is digital it will be _much_ easier to charge per program and the like. They don't say that now, but that's the way it is going to be.
Whoa. I lived in Maine during the first Gulf War and had to rely on a grainy PBS signal for info. Cable was not an option and Sat TV would have a meant mini-deforrestation of my property. The arrogance of the parent comment underlies the technological isolation of rural America.
What's next-- the forced elimination of analog radio?
" You think you're clever, witty, and sophisticated, but you're not. This is not a political issue. OK? This is a technical issue. Analog technologies are being phased out in favor of digital replacements because analog signal transmission is inferior.
Holy crapthrashing christ, not every slashdot story is an invitation for condescending political commentary."
Ah, but it is... why does the FCC/govt they want the analog signals to go dark? Because the FCC wants to reclaim some of that frequency spectrum to resell/re-allocate which has been very lucrative for the FCC. That seems like a pretty political reason for me.
Furthermore, the content providers are dying to close analog loopholes and drag everyone kicking and screaming to closed propietary "protected"/DRM'd/encyrcpted digital connections e.g. HDMI/HDCP
*shrug* when there's big money involved, I think it's safe to say there's some political motivation, and it's not a purely technical issue.
Besides (DTV) might be superior as far as PQ/clarity but it doesn't seem to range as far the analog signals. Pull up antennaweb and compare the number of digital broadcast signals you'll be able to get OTA vs old school broadcasts... (assuming you live in an area that most of the broadcast places are currently broadcasting both).
With that said, by all means cut over to digital only, but not before the cable companies are mandated to have bi-directional CableCARDS available with an open spec rolled out.
*Shrug*
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"