I think Lunar is definitely arguing from a flawed standpoint -- i.e. "Change is bad!! -- but I think some of the ideas brought up in that thread are also flawed, especially the examples of black and white --> color television and 8-track --> cassettes --> compact discs.

The main flaw with that is those changes were not government-mandated; they were a natural evolution of technology and what consumers wanted (although companies had to appeal to the FCC for so damn long to get approval for their tech to be the standard for color TVs). I think the same should happen here. There is no arguing that digital is better than analog. It is basically a fact.

But I have problems with government mandates, especially in the realm of mass communication (not that I think this is some battle for free speech or something, mind lol). Because digital is so cheap to produce now, it will not be long before digital TV receivers are affordable for basically everyone (some of them are almost as cheap as DVD players at this point).

The government mandate is not really needed, I think. The market is well on its way to achieving what the mandate would. If people want to be stubborn and not switch over, then that's their choice -- companies also have the choice of refusing to devote resources to obsolete technology.

I'm in favor of the switch. A lot of media already has turned to digital so doing the same with broadcasts makes sense if you think about it. I understand that all new TV's and such are required to come with the necessary tuner to pick up digital signals so I don't see a problem with it. ^_^

-Sabrina

This is kinda like how we should give up and switch over to metric already. It'll make things easier in the long run, but at least two generations will have to go through the hassle of the switch. Sacrifice for the greater good, people.