On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:02:17 +0000, Paul Johnson
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:

Furthermore, my wife and rarely watch anything live (except for local
news), but use two DVRs for time shifting and commercial elimination.
So with my system, if I can get a picture at all, I would need three
STBs (set top boxes) that are programmable or a couple of new digital
recorders and a new TV set.

Odds are you'll need the STB for each PVR, not TV. PVR's are basically a
VCR with a computer instead of a video slot, same limitations apply with
the signal you feed it. The video coming out of the PVR isn't going to
change magically overnight, though.

(If I was poor enough, my idiot government would buy this stuff for me,
but instead, I believe I will be taxed to buy it for someone else.)

Show me where I can sign up for a free TV from the government...

Actually, I think that you already know that the gummit is talking
about furnishing STBs to poor folk and you're just being
argumentative.

From this source:

http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Dec/spectrum.asp

"The Senate DTV bill, passed on 3 November, calls for a 7 April 2009
analog shutoff, and would use up to $3 billion of the $10 billion
expected from the analog spectrum auction to subsidize most of the
cost for converter boxes"

After the governmental "handling charge" the $3B will eat up $6B of
the "windfall."

And after a natural disaster cable TV systems will be working about as
well as cell phones have. While the old analog TV and radio will keep
chugging along.

http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/PressRel.../WSJ101504.asp

4:3 aspect was a technical limitation that really should have died long
before my birth, much less now. Good riddance.

What "technical limitation"? Aspect ratios are arbitrary. Most were
set based on film sizes, not some CCD. Some of the finest images ever
produced are on 4 x 5 or 8 x 10 film negatives, often displayed with
vertical orientation, as are many of the masters' paintings; so much
for 16:9 horizonatal.