Well, obviously a lot of people have dropped the ball on this one. It
will be interesting to see how it plays out.
For my own part, I have to stop and remember that not everyone is as
affluent and well wired as they are here in California and other metro
areas. There are apparently a lot of people who don't have cable or
don't choose to for what ever reason.
But the government has opened a real can of worms and at some point is
going to have to deal with it.
One real issue is that there hasn't been enough serious public
discussion on all the issues involved. I'm not talking about just those
which have arisen in the past few months, but all the issues which have
come up since the proposal was set out.
I honestly don't look for any audio described tv any time soon at all.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:50 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> __________ NOD32 3774 (20090117) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
|
