<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>I don&#x27;t agree... in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21035393</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:21:08 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:21:08 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>I don&#x27;t agree...</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035393</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/0"><b>anon</b></A> : <blockquote>Unfortunately, some say that the fact that the city is so ready could mean that it&#146;s not the best test city. Only seven percent of the city is using an analog-only signal which is a much lower rate than in other parts of the country.</blockquote><br><br>Isn't it better to do a city that is only 7% on analog as a <b>full</b> test of the transition?<br><br>Would you really want them to go to a rural area 5 months before the real cut over and cut off even more people that don't know the transition is happening that soon, much less in February?<br><br>It would be better to see on a small scale what needs to be done before February rather than to do it on a large scale and not be prepared to deal with tons of people that don't know what's going on, rather than a few.  So that you can learn from small mistakes and issues when it comes time to cut everyone over.  Instead of possibly having to rollback the test market.<br><br>Seems logical, but the opposition probably comes from the broadcasters still trying to get the February 2009 date pushed out.  The last thing those people want is a successful test 5 months early.]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21035393</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:24:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
