scott wrote:
>> Eeeps! So it's completely possible for the fancy new "digital 
>> channels" to have far lower quality than the old analogue ones? o_O
> 
> Yup, if you work for budgetcrappyshoppingtvchannels.tv and you've just 
> bought a chunk of bandwidth, do you broadcast 5 top quality channels, or 
> 10 pixellated ones? :-)

Also... Has anybody noticed how digital TV gives you, like, 500 
channels, but 98% of them are just showing repeated of Fawlty Towers?

> Imagine if 500 kW of DIGITAL signal 
> was transmitted - you wouldn't need an aerial!
> 
> In fact, here in Germany in my previous apartment, I could just stick a 
> small bit of wire in the aerial input and I would receive all digital TV 
> channels perfectly :-)

That's nothing. My old mobile phone had this stubby little arial that 
was nearly broken off, but my new one diesn't even need an arial at all 
and it still works. ;-)

(OTOH, the transmitter isn't that far away...)

> There are two free HD channels via satellite (BBC HD and ITV HD, with 
> more surely to come), if you have Sky there are loads of HD channels for 
> films, sports etc but of course you need a subscription.

Mmm, OK. I didn't think anybody had filmed much in HD yet.

> You can get a bluray player for 150 pounds

Ah, but would you want to?

> or just get a play station 3 
> and you get an uber amount of computing power too.

And the ability to not run any programs that might take advantage of 
that power. :-}

Post a reply to this message