It always annoyed me how they advertised "HD" on the analog stations- I guess they didn't always have a separate feed for those, but it was still misleading.
These are the reasons why analog is better: 1)Analog can still show the picture even with a weak signal. Digital can't. 2)If you lose the remote with digital, then you're out of luck when it comes to changing the channels. With analog, you can go up to the TV and change the channels. 3)People who live far away from the watch towers may not be able to hear an emergency broadcast with digital. 4)We don't need 500+ channels. We're spoiled enough with the internet and our phones.
Alyssa Murray I know this is 3 years late but that's all wrong. Digital signal is lossless, so even if you live in a shit trailer home, you still get picture perfect signals. Losing the remote is irrelevant, practically all TVs have buttons on theirselves. And the last one is opinionated. The increased amount of channels is a definite improvement, being spoiled about it is not a disadvantage, it's your opinion.
Charles Campuz: Your first statement is invalid. Getting a good signal is all about effective radiated output. DTV transmissions are only a fraction of power output versus analog, thereby reducing signal distance. That affects reception. Lossless won't help that...picture will still suffer from artifacts and freezing.
@daheath144 I hear you! I think that the FCC should have forced all full-power stations to use that physical channel number instead of their virtual channel number. They could have, however, keep the same branding they have been using for local news.
