Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That said, it's hard to see how this forced change is about anything
> else but money:
No, it is not hard to see. A lot of people appreciate the benefits of HDTV,
as evidenced by the number of people with cable who are willing to pay
extra for HD service. Without digital broadcasting, people cannot receive
HD programming.
Given the limited amount of bandwidth available to television broadcasters,
it is not surprising that they would want to switch from analog to digital
to give many of their customers what they demand. The current situation
is clearly inefficient, where multiple copies of the same signal are broadcast
in analog and digital. Some of that bandwidth can be used more effectively
for other useful purposes. I think it is easy to see why the switch is
occurring, and it is primarily because many customers want digital TV,
and secondarily because the current redundant broadcasting is inefficient --
in other words, people want to use some of that poorly used bandwidth
for other useful purposes.
> under a similar title but we also have enough wireless bandwidth
> already for people to yak on the phone and even send and receive text
> messages rather than paying attention while they're supposed to be
> driving, so what else is needed in that area?
I certainly want more wireless bandwidth. I know a lot of other people
who do, too. I would like to be able to stream video to and from my
laptop wirelessly wherever I am, and that takes quite a bit of bandwidth.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
