OK I'll bite!

How did this become a lib vs con issue? What makes you think that just because Robert is asking about where the beef is, that this is a rant against Mr. Harper et al?

Many remote communities are reliant on the CBC for programming. Yes, satellite is/will replace that, but just because we have cable here in Hogtown doesn't mean we shouldn't give a damn about Bob up in the Yukon not getting to watch the news or his leafs play.

Don't get me wrong -- You could tow the CBC into lake Ontario today and I wouldn't even know it's gone and if I did I'd clap, but the same can not be said for parts of rural Canada. Before we slough this off, maybe we should consider walking a mile in someone's snow shoes. Those with the least voice will be impacted the most by this.

This isn't party politics and the problem would still exist even if this was a liberal government. It's not that there aren't smart people in government who know digital - often, according to insiders I know, it's that they just can't get anything done.

Whoa!

This isn't a Lieberal vs Conartist issue. At least I didn't take it that way.

It is however, an OLD issue that's been around for years.

I was in the north when many living up there chipped in to put satellite dishes on high ground, and shared the cost of running cables to their homes. And that was 30 years ago.

Yukon Neal, Bob, and Jack have had plenty of time to prepare themselves to continue watching the Leafs lose.

At issue is taking money from some so that others can watch television. I'm completely against using tax dollars to provide idiot boxes.

Television is a desire... and too many in the west confuse desires with rights.

Sorry for not being clear.

And FWIW...
1. I don't live in the big smoke.
2. I don't have access to television.
3. I don't care what anyone watches, unless it's child porn and non-consensual activities.
4. While I admire your example... and I'd be clapping along with you... poor Lake Ontario has enough garbage dumped in it.

Wow, I certainly did not intend to make this political, merely pointing out that we have a problem.

It's important to remember that people in the remote areas most affected by the digital TV transmission generally have limited Internet access as well.

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist wrote a column over the summer suggesting that the problems with this transition could lead to a new "digital divide"

Link

My bad and thanks for the clarification Dave! As well, I just got the play on words on both party names, so I get it;).

As for the big smoke - I was just using that as an example since I live there - see how this kind of thing can confuse the heck out of people?

Now I understand where the sarcasm was coming from. I understand your POV if you are not a TV fan.

However, since this initiative is basically being driven to increase potential profits for content providers/broadcasters, it seems to me they should be bank rolling the move or not doing it at all.

You're right, TV is not a right, but it is a prime information source and to deprive people of that source only because of their location seems wrong to me. I agree with Giest about the potential digital divide. Another "have and have not" situation.

On the upside! Look at us having an animated almost heated discussion on this forum! Now that rocks!

since this initiative is basically being driven to increase potential profits for content providers/broadcasters,

I'm not sure about that... perhaps only because no one has explained to me the profit-driving features of buying millions of dollars of new transmitting equipment.

Or the difficulty of getting parts and qualified service personnel necessary for the maintenance of ancient analog broadcasting gear.

IMO the move is about technological advancement. I may be wrong.

it seems to me they should be bank rolling the move or not doing it at all

Then the firms that brought out compact discs should've been forced to send vouchers to 8-track and cassette users?

TV is not a right, but it is a prime information source and to deprive people of that source only because of their location seems wrong to me.

Ah, so they're being deprived... like the owners of 8-track and cassette players were "deprived" of new music by those evil, profiteering record companies.

And now those same record companies are being "deprived" via downloaded mp3s.

If they truly want to watch the Maple Laughs lose, Yukon Neal and Bob and Jack can shoot a few more seals and caribou, and trade the additional skins at the trading post for a satellite dish and receiver.

Or they can bring alcohol into "dry" communities. I read in the mainstream media that a bottle of booze sells for $500 there, so it must be true.

Regardless, they don't deserve tax dollars to watch television. They can move if they want it so bad.

This is so inconsequential to my life that I actually thought we had switched in 2009 with the Americans. I'm not suggesting that it's not an important issue to lots of people, but a lot of the preceding debate seems to focus on informing people of the change and I do wonder if the American awareness campaign may have already put this on the radar of impacted Canadians. After all, I knew it was happening (and not from anything I saw on TV, incidentally). If it actually mattered to me I would have been looking for information last year about what was happening in Canada. Does anyone actually know for sure that there is widespread ignorance in the great white North, or is the lack of a public awareness campaign possibly just a case of prudent fiscal restraint?