FYI, a recent exchange with WGBH's supervisor of audience/member services--he refers to the letter posted earlier in this forum:
Thanks for the email Bill. The sad fact is that WGBH is in Boston, second only to silicon valley in high-tech industryand WGBH lags the rest of the country in digital broadcasting. Even New Hampshire broadcasts high-def. I am joining WENH because I watch their broadcasts now, not WGBH.
WGBH is out of touch with its Boston viewersespecially affluent, early adopters who would donate much more than typical members if WGBH showed its support of viewers' needs. How does every other station in the USA justify broadcasting digital PBS?
It's a shame that PBS produces such high-quality programming, much of it in high-definition, but WGBH won't pass it on to its viewers in a high-quality medium (digital TV). The letter below is contrived to justify a lack of progressive thought.
I challenge the $100k/year cost of electricity figure. Why not broadcast 2-3 hours a day, like WENH in New Hampshire?
PS I will join as a $300/yr member as soon as WGBH regularly broadcasts digital (unless WENH has me hooked). Broadcast 2 hours/day, electrical costs go to $8k/yrhow many members like me would it take to cover your costs then?
From: Bill Pimentel [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: WGBH'S DTV BROADCAST PLANS
Dear Mr. Pearse,
Thank you for contacting Audience and Member Services at WGBH this afternoon. I have included the letter I promised you, below. But first I've included a recent email response from David Liroff, WGBH's vice president and chief technology officer, to another (avsforum.com) respondent who questioned statistics cited in that same letter.
If you are interested, as I'm sure you are, I'll be happy to share those statistics with you, as well as any related updates, once these two gentlemen compare notes.