sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:11:26 -0600, Andy > wrote:
>
> >Pete C. said...
> >
> >> It began well before today. The date was always the date that analog had
> >> to be off, not the first day analog could be turned off. One of the
> >> local stations here turned the analog off permanently a couple weeks
> >> ago.
> >
> >
> >Pete C.,
> >
> >My house had a roof antenna with a rotation control box in the attic for when
> >necessary.
> >
> >I DID install true cable TV cables.
> >
> We installed cable as soon as it came to our area because the
> topography caused "ghost" images on some channels. Now this dumb
> digital thing comes along and frankly I can't tell the difference.
> Hubby claims he can. I can tell when whatever it is they film on is
> cheap, I can tell the difference between tvs... but I can't tell the
> difference between a high quality analog image (via cable) and a
> digital image on our newest tvs.

You're comparing the wrong things, you need to compare an analog
broadcast transmission with a digital broadcast transmission. At any
rate, the ghosts, snow, signal fade, etc. of the old analog
transmissions do not exist with the new digital ones. Digital of course
has it's own new issues, but at any rate you should take a look at OTA
digital and assess whether the $50+/month for cable is a reasonable
expense. I canceled cable TV last year and haven't missed it. Broadcast
TV is 99.99% crap and cable TV is 99.95% crap, in either case you are
better off actually getting off the couch and doing something.