Yeah, they figure the range with antenna will be 30 to 40% down from analog,
and places like vegas because of the construction of the houses in door
antennas will never work. I know someone who should get a signal they're
told but is in a hole, can't get anything but one channel. With all that
time they should have foreseen that problem, another thing they're finding
is the equipment at the TV stations can get the cooling clogged in the
summer with leaves and stuff real fast and it over heats. I'm sure they'll
fix that but the easiest fix, I'm told, is to back the power off in the
summer a little with the original installs. There's a lot they didn't think
out but the fact is, it's just an effort to line someone's pockets and
nothing more.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: SAP channels
> Don,
>
> It could if they took the time to think things through, but there are so
> many issues they didn't address. For example, the new digital format has
> 8
> separate audio channels, one of which is meant for description, but nobody
> has yet told the manufacturers to start making TV sets and cable boxes
> with
> those channels implemented. So, of course, the broadcasters aren't
> preparing because as they see it, none of the TV sets have that feature
> anyway, so why bother. And nobody seems to realize that receiving the
> digital signals will be more difficult than receiving what we have now, so
> lots of people won't have any programming at all if they're too far away
> from the transmitters.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "don bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 15:42
> Subject: Re: SAP channels
>
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Well, not sure about that. Who appoints the fcc commissioners and who
>> pushes for funding.
>>
>> I do agree that it's all for the money. The administration is still
>> responsible for running all such projects either directly or indirectly.
>> Sure, congress is involved too and really shouldn't be totally let off
>> the hook.
>>
>> How ever you cut it though, it's a big mess and I really don't see that
>> postponing digital implementation is really going to improve things at
>> this late date.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 12:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: SAP channels
>>
>>
>>> Don,
>>>
>>> Much as I love to bash the Shrub, I don't know if we can blame him for
>>> this
>>> one. This tangle has been a long time coming, and I think the problem
>>> is
>>> that the bean counters are driving this particular bus. In other
>>> words,
>>> it's all about money, and the one with the biggest bucks wields the
>>> axe.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "don bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 15:21
>>> Subject: Re: SAP channels
>>>
>>>
>>>> Harvey,
>>>>
>>>> Good point about the switch to digital. That probably makes my
>>>> question
>>>> irrelivant.
>>>>
>>>> It does seem as though it's too close now to reverse it. Just
>>>> another
>>>> wonderful process we can thank gw bush for.
>>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Harvey Heagy" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:51 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: SAP channels
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Don't I don't know much about satellite providers, but you may have
>>>>> to
>>>>> consult Dish network to make certain that Sap capability is included
>>>>> in
>>>>> whatever package you purchased.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for myself, I am wondering how we will access the new digital
>>>>> subcarriers
>>>>> on cable once digital fully takes effect. Obama and others are
>>>>> saying
>>>>> now
>>>>> that there should be a delay in the conversion process, but I think
>>>>> it
>>>>> is
>>>>> too far along and too much money has been invested to turn back this
>>>>> close
>>>>> to the deadline date.
>>>>> Harvey
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ NOD32 3773 (20090117) Information __________
>>>>>
>>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 3773 (20090117) Information __________
>>>
>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>
|
