The U.S. Federal government's justification for the forced conversion of the public's analog to digital television reception is a scam and a fraud since they have as a normal day to day business practice allowed themselves to be influenced capriciously without oversight by big business concerns (and lobbyists) or have been and are unethically (or possibly illegally) influenced by personal gain and have proved themselves to be Public/Consumer-Unfriendly. If this is not true, then, I posit that they don't know what they are doing (incompetence) or don't care about the people who they are supposed to represent (neglect).
Case in point: why don't emergency services which the changeover is supposed to service or facilitate use digital reception if it is supposed to be so good. Answer: it is of inferior quality and wholly inadequate for those in outlying areas.in addition, the changeover, is helping facilitate the obsolescence of the Videotape format and VCRs which are so ubiquitous and economic forcing the public to spend their assets for such receptions which they can little afford in this crisis period of our nation's economy. No affordable digital programmable Videotape equipment is available on the market to enable continued timeshifting of TV programs, if an individual wants to see more than one program which is show in the same time slot or in his or her absence. A lot of people are going to be forced to not be able to see television since personally I find
A) reception is not better than that which I already receive through my large nonremote controlled dialed tuner TV; in fact once maximized, even from the interior of a big city, with a rabbit ear antenna indoors in a rented apt., reception seldom maximum is often weak or absent even with optimal directing of the antenna and without continuous monitoring, which precludes recordings advantages, weather conditions tend to make reception intermittent.
B) There will be added costs to the public for signal enhancement or eventual purchase of programmable digital tuning apparatuses, if and when such are ever made available. Note: account is not made to reimburse for early breakdown of the inferior quality digital converter boxes and to reimburse the individuals in the public who need more than two boxes (e.G. One for each of 3 VCRs plus one for the (or multiple) TV (s) itself when multiple receptions are needed.
C) Sponsors will receive even less viewing when the public in some vast remote areas are not properly serviced.
D) Special antennas which frequently cost more will often be required to make the reception possible are not reimbursed and are not mentioned!
Maybe there are more channels to view ideally, but most of them are fluff, inferior like the worst of the cable channels. None of the additional channels will include quality sports events, education, movies, good prime time product or good quality local coverage.
Is this another example of the bad job of the outgoing chief of the FCC, already under increased scrutiny and budding censure. I suggest judicial hearings about his impropriety with regard this issue.
0 comments