 DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to ThrowDemsOut
Re: Really...... said by ThrowDemsOut:NO. It was because the ongoing switch from analog channels to digital channels made that drop non-serviceable. So digital is better how? |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | said by DavePR:said by ThrowDemsOut:NO. It was because the ongoing switch from analog channels to digital channels made that drop non-serviceable. So digital is better how? IF YOU GET the signal, it is better & clearer on digital. Digital is pretty much you get it or you don't. But if it is a weak signal, then analog will still work, even though the picture may not be very good.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
HuttRiver US
kudos:11 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| reply to DavePR
Digital downside said by DavePR:So digital is better how? Yup, digital is better for most people, but as this thread indicates, some users will be worse off.
This switch to digital is ALSO affecting over-the-air TV broadcast saturation. Some antenna users who were able to receive adequate analog signals will not be able to receive adequate digital signals after the change.
For example, see this:
FCC Identifies Hundreds Of Stations With DTV Coverage Gaps
»www.broadcastingcable.com/articl···975.html |
|
