« DTV Vote Delayed; Virus infects over 9 million PCs | Main | DTV delay likely to be decided this week »

Friday, January 23, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sity

YES you will nead a DTV box for your analog TV,VCR and DVR reeordcr if you have comcast. How many billions of dollars will comcast make requiring so many people to get a box for each analog tuner in what video you have in your home over 3.

Jimmy

This really IS all you need to know. Nice post, and I love the orfwchalt.The big broadcasters could potentially lose some market share of television viewers, but most people will be okay. It's really just a tiny percentage that will be affected, and frankly they should know by now (after the massive amount of public announcements) that they need to do something about it.I'm still expecting calls at my shop, and I'm sure the TV broadcasters are gearing up for calls.

bofkentucky

Steve, the feds got billions for that spectrum from wireless carriers, kicking back a small precentage of that to keep the landfills from being filled with TV's is a good investment.

Steve Huff

This whole DTV upgrade is being made way to complicated as usual. Why in the world is it the goverment's job to give out money for ppl to get a converter anway? Is having TV a right???

When people realize they can't pick up anything the will go to the store and buy a converter.

sineswiper

Hmmm...I understand the need for old-school businesses trying to get a new flavor to keep their business model afloat, but I'm not so sure about this Britannica wiki. I'm not sure it will take off.

Part of the success of open-source (in this case, open-source editing) is that it's the single source, with everybody dedicated to one project. Yes, it's a monopoly, but since everything is open, you can change it, or take the whole code & data, and fork it into a new project. Competition is actually discouraged, since it would split the work, and the "benevolent dictators" of open-source projects try to keep everybody happy, so that a code fork doesn't happen.

Either people will mostly ignore Britannica, or it will split the audiences between the two. If the latter, there's going to be plagiarism going on in both camps, and then you get into the dicey legal ground of GNU-protected text entering Britannica, or copy-protected text entering Wikipedia.

Or it could fail as horribly as LA Times's Wikitorial offering several years ago.

The comments to this entry are closed.