«

The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1, 2004.

As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be airing can't
even air because of it.

It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off, although it's
supposed to be on.

At first I thought it might have been cancelled, but it wasn't. The production
company said the reason it's been off is because they're "experiencing
technical difficulties.

It turns out that the problem is that the production company's tape format is
not compatible with WB's new tape format that the WB is requiring all of their
affiliates to use now, now that digital tv broadcasting is a must.

That's according to the production company itself.

I was wondering what kind of "technical difficulties" would knock a show off
the air for over a month.

Now I know.

At first I was wondering what was going on, since I've never ever in my whole
entire life seen or even heard of technical difficulties at tv stations lasting
that long. Usually only minutes or hours, a day at the max, but this was over a
month.

Now I know the problem is because of "digital tv broadcasting being required by
the FCC"

And the production companiy's equipment isn't compatible with WB's new format.
So even though the show wasn't cancelled, and is supposed to be airing, it
can't because the production company's tape format isn't compatible with WB's
new tape format.

And the production company can't afford the new tape format, since it's a
smaller production company, and so the show isn't able to air even though it's
supposed to be airing, because of that.

so that's what the "technical difficulties" they were and are experiencing are.

over the air digital tv broadcasting is a bust.

tv shows that are supposed to be currently be airing aren't even able to air
because of it.

not even on the analog station because of it, (even though the show is produced
on analog tape), since the tape isn't compatible with WB's new tape format.

The FCC's required digital broadcasting is making shows that are supposed to
air on analog stations not able to air at all on either the digital station or
the analog station.

I can't pick up the digital signal from that station anyway even though I pick
up the analog signal fine.

I don't get watchable reception on any digital station. And I have tried
several different antennas, both non-HDTV ones AND ones made specificaly for
HDTV, both outdoor antennas and indoor antennas.

Ironically, the best digital HDTV reception I got out of any of them was with
an anaog indoor non-HDTV rabbit ears antenna that had only one ear because the
other ear was broken off of it. (Insert Van Gogh jokes here).

Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because the digital tv stations aren't
even watchable while the analog ones are completely watchable. ( You can't even
follow a story with digital, while you can with analog. I know. I've tried
both from here.)

Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because digital tv prevents tv
programs that are supposed to air from airing, while with analog, they usually
air when they're supposed to, while with digital, the shows can't even air.

with techinal difficulties lasting for months because of digital tv while
technical difficulties on a completely analog system last only a day at the
most (usually, although there's probably some exceptions to that that lasted
longer).

therefore, analog tv is far superior to digital tv.

that is, the show isn't even able to air on the analog tv station it's supposed
to be airing on, because the production company's tape format isn't compatible
with WB's new tape format that WB requires all of their affiliates to use now,
now that all tv stations have to broadcast digitally, as required by the FCC,
as of January 1, 2004. (which is the exact time that started the show that
is supposed to be airing as not being able to air any more, even though it's
supposed to be on.

Just what show would that be?



"Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
> The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1,
2004.
>
> As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be airing
can't
> even air because of it.
>
> It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off, although
it's
> supposed to be on.
>
> At first I thought it might have been cancelled, but it wasn't. The
production
> company said the reason it's been off is because they're "experiencing
> technical difficulties.
>
> It turns out that the problem is that the production company's tape format
is
> not compatible with WB's new tape format that the WB is requiring all of
their
> affiliates to use now, now that digital tv broadcasting is a must.
>
> That's according to the production company itself.
>
> I was wondering what kind of "technical difficulties" would knock a show
off
> the air for over a month.
>
> Now I know.
>
> At first I was wondering what was going on, since I've never ever in my
whole
> entire life seen or even heard of technical difficulties at tv stations
lasting
> that long. Usually only minutes or hours, a day at the max, but this was
over a
> month.
>
> Now I know the problem is because of "digital tv broadcasting being
required by
> the FCC"
>
> And the production companiy's equipment isn't compatible with WB's new
format.
> So even though the show wasn't cancelled, and is supposed to be airing,
it
> can't because the production company's tape format isn't compatible with
WB's
> new tape format.
>
> And the production company can't afford the new tape format, since it's a
> smaller production company, and so the show isn't able to air even though
it's
> supposed to be airing, because of that.
>
> so that's what the "technical difficulties" they were and are experiencing
are.
>
> over the air digital tv broadcasting is a bust.
>
> tv shows that are supposed to be currently be airing aren't even able to
air
> because of it.
>
> not even on the analog station because of it, (even though the show is
produced
> on analog tape), since the tape isn't compatible with WB's new tape
format.
>
> The FCC's required digital broadcasting is making shows that are supposed
to
> air on analog stations not able to air at all on either the digital
station or
> the analog station.
>
> I can't pick up the digital signal from that station anyway even though I
pick
> up the analog signal fine.
>
> I don't get watchable reception on any digital station. And I have tried
> several different antennas, both non-HDTV ones AND ones made specificaly
for
> HDTV, both outdoor antennas and indoor antennas.
>
> Ironically, the best digital HDTV reception I got out of any of them was
with
> an anaog indoor non-HDTV rabbit ears antenna that had only one ear because
the
> other ear was broken off of it. (Insert Van Gogh jokes here).
>
> Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because the digital tv stations
aren't
> even watchable while the analog ones are completely watchable. ( You can't
even
> follow a story with digital, while you can with analog. I know. I've
tried
> both from here.)
>
> Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because digital tv prevents tv
> programs that are supposed to air from airing, while with analog, they
usually
> air when they're supposed to, while with digital, the shows can't even
air.
>
> with techinal difficulties lasting for months because of digital tv while
> technical difficulties on a completely analog system last only a day at
the
> most (usually, although there's probably some exceptions to that that
lasted
> longer).
>
> therefore, analog tv is far superior to digital tv.
>
>

(Waterperson77) wrote:

>The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1, 2004.

Well, you're wrong there for a start.

>It turns out that the problem is that the production company's tape format is
>not compatible with WB's new tape format that the WB is requiring all of their
>affiliates to use now, now that digital tv broadcasting is a must.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

And the lack of specifics in your article brands it as completely phony.


--
Reply address munged. You can figure it out.

Look up the word REDUNDANCY in the dictionary. While you have a valid
point of view, it is not necessary to write a thousand word post to
put across 50 words worth of information.

Russ


On 18 Feb 2004 09:19:33 GMT,
(Waterperson77) wrote:

>The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1, 2004.
>
>As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be airing can't
>even air because of it.
>
>It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off, although it's
>supposed to be on.
>
>At first I thought it might have been cancelled, but it wasn't. The production
>company said the reason it's been off is because they're "experiencing
>technical difficulties.
>
>It turns out that the problem is that the production company's tape format is
>not compatible with WB's new tape format that the WB is requiring all of their
>affiliates to use now, now that digital tv broadcasting is a must.
>
>That's according to the production company itself.
>
>I was wondering what kind of "technical difficulties" would knock a show off
>the air for over a month.
>
>Now I know.
>
>At first I was wondering what was going on, since I've never ever in my whole
>entire life seen or even heard of technical difficulties at tv stations lasting
>that long. Usually only minutes or hours, a day at the max, but this was over a
>month.
>
>Now I know the problem is because of "digital tv broadcasting being required by
>the FCC"
>
>And the production companiy's equipment isn't compatible with WB's new format.
> So even though the show wasn't cancelled, and is supposed to be airing, it
>can't because the production company's tape format isn't compatible with WB's
>new tape format.
>
>And the production company can't afford the new tape format, since it's a
>smaller production company, and so the show isn't able to air even though it's
>supposed to be airing, because of that.
>
>so that's what the "technical difficulties" they were and are experiencing are.
>
>over the air digital tv broadcasting is a bust.
>
>tv shows that are supposed to be currently be airing aren't even able to air
>because of it.
>
>not even on the analog station because of it, (even though the show is produced
>on analog tape), since the tape isn't compatible with WB's new tape format.
>
>The FCC's required digital broadcasting is making shows that are supposed to
>air on analog stations not able to air at all on either the digital station or
>the analog station.
>
>I can't pick up the digital signal from that station anyway even though I pick
>up the analog signal fine.
>
>I don't get watchable reception on any digital station. And I have tried
>several different antennas, both non-HDTV ones AND ones made specificaly for
>HDTV, both outdoor antennas and indoor antennas.
>
>Ironically, the best digital HDTV reception I got out of any of them was with
>an anaog indoor non-HDTV rabbit ears antenna that had only one ear because the
>other ear was broken off of it. (Insert Van Gogh jokes here).
>
>Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because the digital tv stations aren't
>even watchable while the analog ones are completely watchable. ( You can't even
>follow a story with digital, while you can with analog. I know. I've tried
>both from here.)
>
>Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because digital tv prevents tv
>programs that are supposed to air from airing, while with analog, they usually
>air when they're supposed to, while with digital, the shows can't even air.
>
>with techinal difficulties lasting for months because of digital tv while
>technical difficulties on a completely analog system last only a day at the
>most (usually, although there's probably some exceptions to that that lasted
>longer).
>
>therefore, analog tv is far superior to digital tv.
>

respond here or email responses to cruzincat"deletethis"@cruzincat.com

"Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
: The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1, 2004.
:
: As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be airing can't
: even air because of it.
:
: It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off, although it's
: supposed to be on.
:
===================================
Did you major in redundancy in high school?

Probably the one featuring 2.35:1 tube sets in his county.

===================
"Mark B." <> wrote in message
news:...
: Just what show would that be?
:
:
:
: "Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
: news:...
: > The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1,
: 2004.
: >
: > As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be airing
: can't
: > even air because of it.
: >
: > It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off, although
: it's
: > supposed to be on.
: >
: > At first I thought it might have been cancelled, but it wasn't. The
: production
: > company said the reason it's been off is because they're "experiencing
: > technical difficulties.
: >
: > It turns out that the problem is that the production company's tape format
: is
: > not compatible with WB's new tape format that the WB is requiring all of
: their
: > affiliates to use now, now that digital tv broadcasting is a must.
: >
: > That's according to the production company itself.
: >
: > I was wondering what kind of "technical difficulties" would knock a show
: off
: > the air for over a month.
: >
: > Now I know.
: >
: > At first I was wondering what was going on, since I've never ever in my
: whole
: > entire life seen or even heard of technical difficulties at tv stations
: lasting
: > that long. Usually only minutes or hours, a day at the max, but this was
: over a
: > month.
: >
: > Now I know the problem is because of "digital tv broadcasting being
: required by
: > the FCC"
: >
: > And the production companiy's equipment isn't compatible with WB's new
: format.
: > So even though the show wasn't cancelled, and is supposed to be airing,
: it
: > can't because the production company's tape format isn't compatible with
: WB's
: > new tape format.
: >
: > And the production company can't afford the new tape format, since it's a
: > smaller production company, and so the show isn't able to air even though
: it's
: > supposed to be airing, because of that.
: >
: > so that's what the "technical difficulties" they were and are experiencing
: are.
: >
: > over the air digital tv broadcasting is a bust.
: >
: > tv shows that are supposed to be currently be airing aren't even able to
: air
: > because of it.
: >
: > not even on the analog station because of it, (even though the show is
: produced
: > on analog tape), since the tape isn't compatible with WB's new tape
: format.
: >
: > The FCC's required digital broadcasting is making shows that are supposed
: to
: > air on analog stations not able to air at all on either the digital
: station or
: > the analog station.
: >
: > I can't pick up the digital signal from that station anyway even though I
: pick
: > up the analog signal fine.
: >
: > I don't get watchable reception on any digital station. And I have tried
: > several different antennas, both non-HDTV ones AND ones made specificaly
: for
: > HDTV, both outdoor antennas and indoor antennas.
: >
: > Ironically, the best digital HDTV reception I got out of any of them was
: with
: > an anaog indoor non-HDTV rabbit ears antenna that had only one ear because
: the
: > other ear was broken off of it. (Insert Van Gogh jokes here).
: >
: > Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because the digital tv stations
: aren't
: > even watchable while the analog ones are completely watchable. ( You can't
: even
: > follow a story with digital, while you can with analog. I know. I've
: tried
: > both from here.)
: >
: > Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because digital tv prevents tv
: > programs that are supposed to air from airing, while with analog, they
: usually
: > air when they're supposed to, while with digital, the shows can't even
: air.
: >
: > with techinal difficulties lasting for months because of digital tv while
: > technical difficulties on a completely analog system last only a day at
: the
: > most (usually, although there's probably some exceptions to that that
: lasted
: > longer).
: >
: > therefore, analog tv is far superior to digital tv.
: >
: >
:
:

"Richard C." <post-> wrote in message
news:40337d54$0$168$. ..
Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
: The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of
:January 1, 2004.
:
: As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be
: airing can't even air because of it.
:
: It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off,
: although it's supposed to be on.
:
===================================
<<Did you major in redundancy in high school?>>


What I don't understand is how Waterperson77 managed to find the time to
compose the 35 highly-repetitious posts that he made on February 17,
2004. Obviously, he is interested in quantity, not quality.

His last flurry of redundant posts were made on January 16, 2004. My
guess is that he has gotten another 5-day pass and he intends to make
the most of it.

Change 2004 to 2007 and you might be right.....

Except for that part with analog being better than digital.

Yes, I must admit I love analog TV. It's lower resolution, and signal noise
is much prettier and sharper than the 1920x1080 MPEG-2 files that are
streamed along in HDTV land. Plus, the academy film ratio from the 30s and
40s is far superior to the modern widescreen aspect and makes viewing things
so much more life-like because our eyes are set to view in a perfect 4:3
rectangle, not the one the doctors say (y'know, 2:1).

I sure hope analog prevails as the clear winner in all this, since it is
clearly superior.....


"Waterperson77" <> wrote in message
news:...
> The FCC required all tv shows tto broadcast digitally as of January 1,
2004.
>
> As soon as this happened, a local show here that is supposed to be airing
can't
> even air because of it.
>
> It's been off over a month now because of it, and is still off, although
it's
> supposed to be on.
>
> At first I thought it might have been cancelled, but it wasn't. The
production
> company said the reason it's been off is because they're "experiencing
> technical difficulties.
>
> It turns out that the problem is that the production company's tape format
is
> not compatible with WB's new tape format that the WB is requiring all of
their
> affiliates to use now, now that digital tv broadcasting is a must.
>
> That's according to the production company itself.
>
> I was wondering what kind of "technical difficulties" would knock a show
off
> the air for over a month.
>
> Now I know.
>
> At first I was wondering what was going on, since I've never ever in my
whole
> entire life seen or even heard of technical difficulties at tv stations
lasting
> that long. Usually only minutes or hours, a day at the max, but this was
over a
> month.
>
> Now I know the problem is because of "digital tv broadcasting being
required by
> the FCC"
>
> And the production companiy's equipment isn't compatible with WB's new
format.
> So even though the show wasn't cancelled, and is supposed to be airing,
it
> can't because the production company's tape format isn't compatible with
WB's
> new tape format.
>
> And the production company can't afford the new tape format, since it's a
> smaller production company, and so the show isn't able to air even though
it's
> supposed to be airing, because of that.
>
> so that's what the "technical difficulties" they were and are experiencing
are.
>
> over the air digital tv broadcasting is a bust.
>
> tv shows that are supposed to be currently be airing aren't even able to
air
> because of it.
>
> not even on the analog station because of it, (even though the show is
produced
> on analog tape), since the tape isn't compatible with WB's new tape
format.
>
> The FCC's required digital broadcasting is making shows that are supposed
to
> air on analog stations not able to air at all on either the digital
station or
> the analog station.
>
> I can't pick up the digital signal from that station anyway even though I
pick
> up the analog signal fine.
>
> I don't get watchable reception on any digital station. And I have tried
> several different antennas, both non-HDTV ones AND ones made specificaly
for
> HDTV, both outdoor antennas and indoor antennas.
>
> Ironically, the best digital HDTV reception I got out of any of them was
with
> an anaog indoor non-HDTV rabbit ears antenna that had only one ear because
the
> other ear was broken off of it. (Insert Van Gogh jokes here).
>
> Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because the digital tv stations
aren't
> even watchable while the analog ones are completely watchable. ( You can't
even
> follow a story with digital, while you can with analog. I know. I've
tried
> both from here.)
>
> Analog tv is far superior to digital tv, because digital tv prevents tv
> programs that are supposed to air from airing, while with analog, they
usually
> air when they're supposed to, while with digital, the shows can't even
air.
>
> with techinal difficulties lasting for months because of digital tv while
> technical difficulties on a completely analog system last only a day at
the
> most (usually, although there's probably some exceptions to that that
lasted
> longer).
>
> therefore, analog tv is far superior to digital tv.
>
>

>Change 2004 to 2007 and you might be right.....
>

no, thee beginning og 2007 is the date when all over-the-air analog tv
broadcasting must stop.

January 1, 2004 was the date when all over-the-air tv stations must be
broadcasting digitally (must have their digital transmitters on-the-air.)

although they can keep their analog tv stations until the end of 2006-beginning
of 2007, ther digital tv stations must also be on te air as of January 1, 2004