🚀 go-pugleaf

bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes:

>In article <1990Mar15.090214.9871@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu> gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu (Glenn C. Brown) writes:
> 
>>  I'd be perfectly happy to settle for the telivision picture tubes of today!
>>It's the signal that's so horrendous!  

>The output of a laser player isn't awesome.  It's good...

HA!  I knew this discussion would get people going!
  My point was not that Laser Discs are awesome.  My point IS that
when *I* watch TV (not too often, mind you) It doesn't bother me that
I can't get 6" from the sceen and still not see pixels:  If I got a 6'
screen, I would just sit 3 times further away from it than a 24" set.
  Sure, a few years after graduating from Caltech, I MIGHT be able to
afford a HDTV set.  But will it be WORTH it?  Will I want to spend
$5000 on a HDTV set, or would I rather spend $500 plop a box on the top
of my TV that decodes digital broadcasts, and gives me a noise-free
picture on my lower Res. monitor?  I'd go for the $500 box!

  And what of the MILLIONS of people who won't be able to afford the
HDTV sets?

  I say, there should be a middle-of-the-road solution in addition to HDTV.
There should be HDTV, but I DON'T NEED HDTV!

>I spent years in broadcast, and have seen many changes in the FCC, and I am
>not too particularly impressed with their performance in the past few years.

I can't argue w/ that!  In fact, where does the FCC claim to get the 
legal authority to regulate speach over the airwaves?  e.g. why will
a HAM who says F**K on the airwaves almost surely lose his license?  So
much for freedom of speach!  It's a form of government censorship.  I 
have nothing against CENSURE, but censorship by the gov. is WRONG.