Reading the reports so far today, it appears the NAB and certain channels are implying that all is smooth sailing with the DTV transition. Just for the record, let me share with you my experience:

Let's do the math: Previous on-air channels- I had 7.

Pre switch-over DTV channels before the 17th- dropped me down to 3 channels.

Post transition last night and throughout the 18th and today- I am down to 1 channel. (and I've tried different antennas, non-amplified and amplified VHF/UHF, I've done my research online and at antennaweb.org, I've tried different locations...and rescanned as directed, AND it's not like I live in 'the sticks', I live within San Diego...a major metropolitan area.)

So that math tells me that we have a mass-imposed "solution" that does not have the station antenna deployment good enough, or strong enough, to even adequately support the communities they serve.

Certainly economics come into the picture for the public too in this difficult time. There are those who can't afford cable, those who don't want to buy into cable's pricing plans, those who live in apartments and can't put up expensive outdoor antennas, and those who, no matter what steps they take, are still unable to pick up a suitable signal for the continuation of what has always been "free TV".

Imagine if 15 to 20 years ago we were all forced to switch to the cell phone networks of the day. Unacceptable...especially when the technology is not proven enough to support a mass, mandated deployment. The results are proof of that. Seven on-air channels down to ONE. And it's not just about my experience, a "solution" that yields an 86% elimination of service for regular viewers is not a solution at all.

I'm curious to know what the individual stations, networks and advertisers will think (and do) when large numbers of viewers are no longer able to 'tune-in' once this conversion takes place. Are there plans to build new towers to support the viewership of their community? Are they willing to say farewell to all those viewers, or resign themselves that if those viewers are not going to get cable or satellite, good riddance?

Mark my words, imposing mass adoption of a technology that, regardless of the 'magic box', leaves vast numbers of people without programming will unleash a firestorm of anger and questions. Did the NAB not see this coming? Did a consortium of tech-geeks sell this lofty idea without having enough data to show how well...or how poorly...it would work?

I know from reading other reports, mine is far from an isolated incident. This is happening to untold thousands (perhaps millions) around the country who DID prepare for the transition. But will we ever hear that from NAB or the networks and stations themselves? (or is there too much invested to admit this plan's shortcomings) Again, 7 channels...down to 1. Will the whole story ever be told?

Let's do the math: Previous on-air channels- I had 7. Pre-digital switch-over DTV channels before the 17th- dropped me down to 3 channels. Post transition last night- I am down to 1 channel. (and I've tried different antennas, non-amplified and amplified, I've tried different locations...and rescanned, AND it's not like I live in 'the sticks', I live in San Diego...a major metropolitan area.)

So that math tells me that we have a mass-imposed "solution" that does not have the station antenna deployment good enough or strong enough to even adequately support the communities they serve.

Imagine if 15 to 20 years ago we were all forced to switch to the cell phone networks of the day. Unacceptable...especially when the technology is not proven enough to support a mass, mandated deployment.

I'm curious to know what the individual stations, networks and advertisers will think (and do) when large numbers of viewers are no longer able to 'tune-in' once this conversion takes place. Are there plans to build new towers to support the viewership of their community? Are they willing to say farewell to all those viewers, or resign themselves that if those viewers are not going to get cable or satellite, good riddance?

Mark my words, imposing mass adoption of a technology that, regardless of the 'magic box', leaves vast numbers of people without programming will unleash a firestorm of anger and questions. Did the NAB not see this coming? Did a consortium of tech-geeks sell this lofty idea without having enough data to show how well...or how poorly...it would work?

I know from reading other reports, mine is not an isolated incident. This is happening to untold thousands (perhaps millions) around the country. Nice goin'.