[citation][nom]ProDigit80[/nom]Correction on my post above, not all will need a digital converter; I believe satellite already is digital, and cable too.I roughly estimate 15% of the population still having antenna, so that'd be more like 750.000Watt hour on added electricity.That's something![/citation]
But you are not thinking of how many millions of watts are used to broadcast in analog. With one digital transmitter, a broadcaster can send out several channels simulatniously. You simply cannot do that with analog. I also believe analog uses more power to cover the same distance. Also, if someone is in financial trouble, maybe television is the first thing they should be worried about. The internet is free at many locations (libraries and schools). The news you get from newsprint (which is mostly recycled now, if we are talking about the environment) and the news you can get from the internet is far more verbose than anything that the mass media gleans from The AP. Maybe a few million homes being "in the dark" might stimulate the economy again instead of having the TV to pipe in the mass media's fearmongering about how bad things are and we should "be afraid to spend." Broadcasting is a private business and they are now going to spend millions broadcasting in both formats for another few months now. There is no restriction on turning off the analog, there is only a time limit for how long (which has now been extended) If I were a broadcaster, I would turn off my analog transmitters on the 17th anyway, they have that freedom. Let's not waste all the power to cater to those who missed the bus, for whatever reason.