Re: US digital terrestial TV a disaster?

From: YD (yd.techHAT_at_techie.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:50:21 -0300

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:51:11 +0100, ddwyer <dd@ddwyer.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <tq7nd05gs19vi2mc65kh52n7ukthr5usqd@4ax.com>, PaulCsouls
><paulcsouls@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>Sounds about right. The major movie studios, wireless service
>>providers, and the cable and satellite companies are all the same
>>companies.
>In the UK we are catching up with the US as per the number of channels
>available.
>Assuming that there is a fairly fixed revenue for programming the money
>available for the program material is 1/the number of channels. So our
>program quality is deteriorating to US levels.
>High definition rubbish is still rubbish.

Around here the free channel programing is so atrocious I'm fairly
certain it'a a plot to force the move to paid serice.

- YD. 

-- 
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: US digital terrestial TV a disaster?
    ... >providers, and the cable and satellite companies are all the same ... In the UK we are catching up with the US as per the number of channels ... High definition rubbish is still rubbish. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: PUBLIC BEING MIS-SOLD HD
    ... But somehow there is enough content for cable and satellite companies to use 600 channels. ... Uh-huh. ... Or YouTube can generate 60,000 clips of content a day that somebody must want to watch. ... New owned channels such as 54 will have 50 programs squeezed into one channel for cell phone users. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: PUBLIC BEING MIS-SOLD HD
    ... But somehow there is enough content for cable and satellite companies to ... Uh-huh. ... Since most are showing different content, and there aren't 600 channels, you are wrong again, troll. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)