The Switch To Digital Television

[Jim H]

Being that government has legislated it out of the hands of anybody who can afford any cheap TV they picked up at a yard sale and made it into something that is a luxury, I don't care for it.

It is kind of funny that TV isn't considered a luxury anymore.  It certainly was when it first came out.  Just wait a few more years, you'll start to see dated TVs with built-in digital tuners/antennae in yard sales.  Same with portables.  I personally think the switchover could have waited a while longer, but I can see why they wanted to free up the spectrum.  I really do hope it is used to make wider access wireless internet available.

This isn't when TV came out, though; this is over 50 years after the fact. It's taking an appliance common to most households already and pricing it out of range of many. Sure, it will drop in price over the next few years, maybe even to affordable levels, but I'm certain that doesn't mean much to an elderly person on a fixed income trying to fill their day with something.

The message from retailers has pretty much become clear: 'if you can't pay for it now, we don't want your business'. A good number of retailers, including Walmart, have done away with layaway leaving people who have to scrimp for spending money and having options for Christmas shopping taken away.

I can't afford one of these HDTVs. I guess that means I'm not welcome in these stores either. I at least have my old 20" TV for watching videos. I don't see any reason to pay 4 times as much for a TV set that seems tiny compared to the one I have.

Well, you don't actually need an HDTV, all you need is a converter box, and with the coupons the government was giving away, you were able to get them for $15 or so.  Are there really people with power, a home, running water, and food yet $15 is way outside their budget range?  It's possible, I guess, but seems unlikely to me. 

I know where you're coming from, but this is hardly an expensive proposition.  At full retail, I've seen them for $40 before. 

[Menard]

Being that government has legislated it out of the hands of anybody who can afford any cheap TV they picked up at a yard sale and made it into something that is a luxury, I don't care for it.

It is kind of funny that TV isn't considered a luxury anymore.  It certainly was when it first came out.  Just wait a few more years, you'll start to see dated TVs with built-in digital tuners/antennae in yard sales.  Same with portables.  I personally think the switchover could have waited a while longer, but I can see why they wanted to free up the spectrum.  I really do hope it is used to make wider access wireless internet available.

This isn't when TV came out, though; this is over 50 years after the fact. It's taking an appliance common to most households already and pricing it out of range of many. Sure, it will drop in price over the next few years, maybe even to affordable levels, but I'm certain that doesn't mean much to an elderly person on a fixed income trying to fill their day with something.

The message from retailers has pretty much become clear: 'if you can't pay for it now, we don't want your business'. A good number of retailers, including Walmart, have done away with layaway leaving people who have to scrimp for spending money and having options for Christmas shopping taken away.

I can't afford one of these HDTVs. I guess that means I'm not welcome in these stores either. I at least have my old 20" TV for watching videos. I don't see any reason to pay 4 times as much for a TV set that seems tiny compared to the one I have.

Well, you don't actually need an HDTV, all you need is a converter box, and with the coupons the government was giving away, you were able to get them for $15 or so.  Are there really people with power, a home, running water, and food yet $15 is way outside their budget range?  It's possible, I guess, but seems unlikely to me. 

I know where you're coming from, but this is hardly an expensive proposition.  At full retail, I've seen them for $40 before. 

Dude; have you actually been awake the past few years?

Escalating prices at the grocery store. Families having to cut back on even the essentials to pay rent. Escalating foreclosures. Escalating evictions due to people not being able to pay their increasing rents with decreasing wages.

There are elderly people who have to play the game of 'what prescription can I get by without this month' or having to cut the dose to spread it out.

Are these the majority of people? Of course not, but I guess these are the people that don't count, now do they?

What about families with multiple sets? Which kid do you select last?

If they can't afford it, they shouldn't have it?

There shouldn't be a damn penny required for anybody to maintain the television they have been able to watch for free with just a set of rabbit ears; yet, our government is mandating this.

I have several television sets: a 20" color TV, a portable B&W TV, and a handheld LCD TV I used for power outages during storms and such. In February, these will be worthless as TVs without a converter box, and do the converter boxes work when the power is out?

I'll do without. TV sucks anyway and I have not watched it in I don't know how long, so it is not going to affect me. I'm not alone in this, and I wonder with the growing lack of interest in television just how that is going to affect the broadcasters. Hey, maybe the government with have some more rich people to bailout, while not giving a damn about families losing their savings and their homes. Where's the family bailout?

Hey Jim, welcome back to Earth; you missed a lot while you were gone.

[Jim H]

I'll do without. TV sucks anyway and I have not watched it in I don't know how long, so it is not going to affect me. I'm not alone in this, and I wonder with the growing lack of interest in television just how that is going to affect the broadcasters.

I'm in general agreement.  Television peaked years ago, and it's going to go downhill (in amount produced, etc) in the future.  Somewhat like theatrical film in the 1940s.

If they can't afford it, they shouldn't have it?

Well, they wouldn't.  If they hadn't been able to afford a TV in the first place, they wouldn't have one.

Where's the family bailout?

If you don't have money, you can't lobby the government for more, can you?

Dude; have you actually been awake the past few years?

I'm aware of the conditions in the USA.  I still don't see how anyone able to pay for housing and utilities would be unable to scrape together less than $15 when they've known about the conversion months in advance - seriously, they could have saved $2 a month to cover it.  If someone really has a budget this tight (where a dime a day is too expensive), I don't understand how they can even afford to power their TV anymore.  Something like $1-$3 a month in power for a TV, depending on size and how much you use it.  On that note, I guess for those left behind when the switchover comes will have saved enough money in power bills within 6 months or so to pay for a box.  That's something I guess.

On a side note, I looked up the coupon site.  It's $40 off, and the converter boxes I've seen are $50.  So the actual cost is $10, give or take.  It sucks about the portables though, that's for sure.  As I said earlier.  I think the government should have waited longer on this.  I really do hope the freed up channels get put to good use though.

edit to add: One thing I'd forgotten about.  A number of local churches in the St. Louis area, where I live, gave hundreds of these away to disadvantages residents.  Thought that was cool.

[Derf]

We used to have cable, but we found that no one was watching anything, so we cancelled our subscription. All three of our TV sets are older (two of them are about 30 years old, and the other is close to 20), and right now the main one we use is for DVDs and video games. We don't miss not having television programming at all. We get our news from the internet and the occasional newspaper, entertainment from books, DVDs and the internet, and our educational material from various sources. I enjoy watching a few minutes of TV at other people's houses, just for the novelty, but I, like several others have said, don't find current programming to be anything worth watching.

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

[Menard]

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Nah...it's just a sign you're getting smarter.

[Derf]

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Nah...it's just a sign you're getting smarter.

  Or early onset dementia. 

[Menard]

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Nah...it's just a sign you're getting smarter.

  Or early onset dementia. 

Early?

[Derf]

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Nah...it's just a sign you're getting smarter.

  Or early onset dementia. 

Early?

You're right; you've been around plenty long enough to drive me over the edge. 

[Menard]

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Nah...it's just a sign you're getting smarter.

  Or early onset dementia. 

Early?

You're right; you've been around plenty long enough to drive me over the edge. 

 

[Jim H]

Oh, dear, I've just agreed with Menard about something else; that makes three or four times in a week. Isn't that a sign of the Apocalypse? 

Nah...it's just a sign you're getting smarter.

  Or early onset dementia. 

Early?

You're right; you've been around plenty long enough to drive me over the edge. 

 

Ah, Menard, your banter with everybody on this forum never gets old.   

[trekgeezer]

It's simple for everyone, as this video demonstrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w34nNux4Xw
	Small | Large

[Jack]

Reminds me of when my folks got their first DVD player.  I got a call that it wasn't working.  Due to my expert electronics skills, I was able to quickly diagnose the problem:  Insert DVD into player label side up.

[dean]

Digital TV is great, though you notice it much more if you have a good enough TV to go with it.  The main benefit from a technological perspective is that by eliminating the analogue broadcasts you free up more bandwidth, since digital takes up less space.  Thereby you get more channels. 

Sure, like others have pointed out, what's the point if all the extras you get are crap anyways, but I have to admit it can only be a benefit for us in Australia: We have 5 broadcasters on free to air, and already the digital tv has provided me with much more interesting programs.  On the HD channels we get good 'secondary' programs such as Documentaries during the day which is generally a lot better than what's normally on daytime TV.

Besides, the less things beaming around in the sky and into people's brains the better really... 

[BTM]

That reminds me, I still need to talk to my stepdad about helping me hook mine up.  Trying to figure out how to "piggy back" the DTV cables with the adapter for the DVD...

[Allhallowsday]

Sales!  Money!     Money!  Sales!  Buy!  Buy now!