Do you care about HDTV?

[Herman Munster]

I don't know anyone who has one. A couple grand for a TV I barely watch a few hours a week? I'll pass on that. The problem is they are going to pull the plug on the regular analog signals in a few years, although they keep postponing the deadline.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. No

Right now, I watch two programs-Judge Judy for the comedy, Law & Order because a friend works on the show. If they keep podcasting and the new technology up, there will be no need of TV in a few years, anyway.

[bbinacan]

2. If I could afford it

I'd love it. My brother has it and the picture is awesome.

[davepc]

3. I love it

Hockey is so much better on HD.

[OKNancy]

4. I love it

My TV wasn't That expensive. We get about 12 -15 channels already and even PBS broadcasts their progams on a beta basis every now and then.

Also, you can watch HD signals on a regular TV, just like in the old days if you had black and white only, but the signal was in color. ( I think.. on edit, maybe not - lol )

[napi21]

5. Yea, but when they do the switch over, you are supposed to be

able to buy a converter for your TV at a fairly low cost. Last I heard they were talking about $20-$30.

I just bought a new TV a month ago because lightening burned my old one. I looked at the various TV's available, and opted for an old fashioned 27" SDTV that cost me $200. I didn't have the $$, nor would I PAY several grand for a TV!

The only reason I ever wanted HDTV was that I heard Dan Rather is going to have his own news show on a chanel that only broadcasts via HDTV. But, sorry Dan, as much as I like you, I'm not paying THAT MUCH!

[Rosco T.]

41. for another $100 you could have had a Digital Set..

.. which gives you the same information as HDTV, just not as high res.

as of 7/1 all sets 25" and larger had to have an ATSC digital tuner (most were there in Jan).

[napi21]

54. Well, I asked the idiot at the electronic store to explain digital tuner

to me. I thought it simply meant that you can enter up to digit chamels directly into the TV, as opposed to the old ones that only accepted up to chanel99. He said YES, that's what that means. Well, this TV had that.

So much for being able to get a good answer at the store!!!!!

[Rosco T.]

57. Yeah.. well.. I can't help that.. YOU SHOULDA COME HERE FIRST!

(grin).

The magic letters you want to see on the box/information is ATSC tuner.

[napi21]

75. I know, you're right. I asked the wrong people!

Who'da thunk the people who sell the stuff might know what the heck they're selling?????

Too bad all retailers will now hire anyone who's willing to work cheap!!!! Seems to be the only qualification necessary!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. Love it #2

Sound and picture are great!

[Mz Pip]

7. We have one

It's terrific for movies.

With movies coming out in DVD so soon after release we hardly ever go to the theater. With all the movies we've watched on it we've probably paid for it in theater expenses.

Besides I really don't like going to the theater anymore. It's expensive. I hate standing in line. The overpriced food sucks and you're not supposed to bring in your own munchies. The sound is too loud and people are always talking. So for us a good HDTV has been a good deal.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[libhill]

8. With this planet going to hell in a hand basket

TV of any type is the least of my worries. I seldom watch TV anyway, my TV is little more than a screen for my movies.

[Greyhound]

9. No, the technology gets better and better, but the content gets less

and less worth wasting time with. I disconnected the dish 6 months ago and haven't missed a thing. In fact, I believe we actually have a much better idea of what's going on with out the M$M.

[Selatius]

10. You will have to transfer to HDTV in 2009, so the issue is irrelevant

The FCC wants the current radio spectrum devoted to television broadcasts repartitioned for other communications. As a result, you will have to go to HDTV anyway. All stations will broadcast in HDTV by then.

[Rosco T.]

18. INCORRECT.. you have to transfer to DIGITAL TV in 2009...

HDTV does not equal DTV.

You can buy a STANDARD, 27" TV right now with a DIGITAL TUNER for about $300.

You get the SAME PICTURE as an HDTV would get, but at a lower resolution.

as of 7/1/06, all new sets with a picture > 25" have to have the digital tuner

as of 7/1/07, all new sets with a picture > 13" have to have the digital tuner

what you want to get the digital signal is an ATSC tuner (look on the box)

so the 'have to spend a coupla of grand' arguement is flawed..

matter of fact, I saw a 32" widescreen HDTV over the weekend for $699. Prices on real HDTV is dropping fast and the SDTV digital boxes are already reasonable.

please don't continue the misinformation that DigitalTV=HDTV

[Selatius]

Forgive my ignorance, i wasn't aware there was a misinfo. campaign afoot.

[Rosco T.]

23. Yup... minsinformation by the Luddites of the world...

and want to stand in the way of progress and then is picked up by innocents to be spread further.

The Digital changeover is long overdue. A better use of the spectrum, 1000% better picture and reception (no ghosts, no snow).

[Ravenseye]

149. if you have cable you might already be ok, too

my cable's digital tuner acts as a converter. We can watch the HDTV channels that are free (like the broadcast channels). The picture is better than regular TV, though it isn't HDTV because our TV isn't HDTV.

But we can watch them. I actually prefer to watch the HDTV channels already, even though I dont' have the HDTV yet. Even that looks better.

And yes, the costs are plumetting. Top of the line flatscreem LCD TV's are now under 5 grand which is a quarter of what they used to be, ore more. You can get a decent sized HDTV for under 500 if you shop around.

[Tesha]

152. Satellite is also okay.

This all only affects people who get their TV "over the air"
(by a broadcast that they directly receive with an antenna).

For everybody else, it is "status quo".

DirecTV and Dish Network is already digital, converted by the
set top box to the good-old analog format your TV understands.

Same for everyone with Digital cable.

Analog cable can still carry good-old NTSC analog TV, although
you've certainly seen the cable companies pressuring folks to
switch over to digital cable.

DVDs and VCRs already in existence aren't going to vanish in 2009,,
and DVD is already a digital format.

For most of us, this will be a non-event except for those rare
moments when the cable/satellite goes out and there are no DVDs
we want to watch again.

Tesha

[Ravenseye]

154. Exactly "non-event"

Something like 87 percent of Americans now get Cable or Satellite (and 3 percent apparently have both...though I don't know why....)

So really if the broadcasts were turned off today it'd only affect 13% of 110 million TV households. Still significant (over 10 million homes) but cable and satelite are expanding as much as 3.6 percent annually so by 2009 who knows.

Then there is the quesiton of how many of those people who only get broadcast these days actually care? I know someone who has a big HDTV but they don't have cable, satellite, or even an antenna. They don't watch television at all, just movies on DVD. How many other people either don't care or it wouldn't affect them, has to be a significant number. Supposedly 6 of 10 people who rely on broadcast do it out of choice, not cost, because it's not a high priority in their lives. Less than 30% indicated that funds played a role.

So basically it's a non-event except for a very very small percentage of homes (like 3-4%...probably the poorest households who will be able to go out and get a new antenna for something like 30 bucks instead of subscribing to cable)

Non-event.

[Tesha]

157. (Off on a tangent: We're one of the 3% with "both".)

> and 3 percent apparently have both (satellite and cable)...though I don't know why...

We're one of the 3% with "both".

Several reasons:

o Comcast would charge us *MORE* for just cable broadband internet
than they charge us for the same cable broadband internet *PLUS*
basic cable. Insane, but go figure...

o There are several channels on the cable (New England Cable News;
a French-language station from Sherbrooke, PQ; the local traffic-cam
and public meeting channel; and soon, a public access channel) that
we'll never get on DirecTV.

o DirecTV often fails during heavy thunderstorms or just because
on or the other of the receivers has decided to blow its access
card again.

o DirecTV's encoding of several of the local broadcast channels
sucks. Crummy color, warbly sound, etc.

But given reason #1, why would we *NOT* get cable TV? The real
question is: would we subscribe to DirecTV except for its
effects in helping to ensure domestic tranquility with its
very broad range of channels and the presence of the full
Starz/Encore package?

Tesha

[Ravenseye]

159. I think i'm still confused

I understand all your reasons for having Comcast from price to channels.

I just still don't understand why you have DirectTV as well. I mean my Comcast here has the full Starz/Encore package...We used to have it before we realized that it made us watch too much television..

So you're saying that your Comcast up there doesn't have the full Starz/Encore package and that's why you get DirectTv? If Comcast carried them would you get rid of the satellite?

[Tesha]

161. Last time I looked...

It's been a while since I looked, but the last time I
*DID* look, either Comcast wasn't carrying some of the
channels we watched on DirecTV (and this might have
included the full line-up of Starz/Encore including
the East/West-scheduled channels) or the Comcast deal
wasn't financially attractive enough to make us jump.

Perhaps I should look again? ;-)

Tesha

[Ravenseye]

162. Whatever's cheapest

That's my motto when it comes to tv providers. heh. Still who knows. Comcast seems to have different channel lineups in every city, so you might not have it, but I'd be surprised.

[Wcross]

11. My TV is capable but I can't justify doing it yet.

It cost an extra 9 bucks a month for only 5-10 hdtv channels. The reciever (satalite) is around 200 bucks on top of that. Not worth doing in my opinion.

[arcane1]

12. I don't even care about TV

[helderheid]

13. yes. It's be-a-u-ti-ful. Now I can't wait to get a receiver. Get it via

rabbit ears.

[livvy]

14. There is a big difference in picture quality.

My old TV died, so I went with an HDTV, knowing the change was coming. I haven't signed up for HD cable services, but my TV does somehow scramble/unscramble (whatever), and picks up the HD signal. I can really see the difference because on one channel I get an analog signal, but if I go up one channel, I get the same station in HD.
There is a certain clarity, or right there quality to the HD picture, very crisp. Nature programming is very cool.
I wouldn't rush out to get one. I think the prices will come down quite a bit before the switch, and if you don't watch much TV, I'd wait. There aren't that many stations that broadcast in HD right now. I do prefer it, when available, because of the difference.
Just my 2cents!

[Rosco T.]

22. Many Cable/Sat services give you the HD signal..

.. if you're paying for the Analog.

DirecTV for instance, if you have regular HBO, you get HBOHD freebie..

[livvy]

28. Hmm...maybe that's what's going on.

I know I can get some kind of cable card that slides in the back, or I can get a box from the cable company. I haven't done either because the channels that are offered, I'm receiving in HD.
Now if I could only get C-Span 3. I did for a while, but now it seems to be blocked.
Maybe they're on to me! LOL :hide: I'll have to start watching out for the cable police!

[Rosco T.]

30. It depends...

sometimes they will send some signals in the clear, some TV's can decode open QAM channels for HD (if your cable company offers you LOCAL station in HD, they (IIRC) MUST be in the clear. Sometimes they will leave a channel open for a while when it first comes online to give you a taste (the 1st one is always free).

If you've got CableCard, then wait a little bit till the Tivo Series 3 comes out. It's CableCard ready and will give you a PVR 100 times better than what the cable company has.

[livvy]

63. Thanks for the tip!

Here's some links to the Tivo Series 3:
http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2006-07/tivo-confirms-series3-testing-hitting-retail-soon/
http://www.pvrblog.com/pvr/2006/01/hd_tivo_series_.html
http://www.pvrblog.com/pvr/2006/07/time_warner_and.html
This one's interesting considering all the stuff about data mining lately.
http://cellphones.engadget.com/2006/07/26/tivo-launches-division-to-collect-sell-data-on-ad-viewing/

[longship]

15. It's very nice for DVD movies.

I am a huge cinema fan. My wife bought a widescreen LCD HDTV with her retirement bonus. We have a Denon HDMI DVD player. Works well. I'd like to do the HD reception to get the three HD PBS stations, but that means a roof antenna. Maybe this autumn.

[Initech]

16. Nope, not worth the money

[fujiyama]

17. It's cool

I love the video quality.

I have a display that would take advantage of it, but I'm not sure the extra few dollars a month are worth it considering I watch little TV anyways. I've considered buying a set top box with rabbit ears for local stations. That way I wouldn't have to pay extra for the HD Dish service.

[MissB]

19. If they do finally make the switch, I won't follow.

I find spending massive amounts of money on such an "activity" to be abhorrent.

[Rosco T.]

26. You don't have to (read above)..

you've been badly mis-informed.

[Redstone]

20. Could not POSSIBLY care less.

Redstone

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

56. You'd probably shoot it anyway....

(Laughing at my own joke....)

Meant tongue in cheek and good naturedly.

:toast:

[Redstone]

65. Nah, I just don't watch it. Though I should catch Olberman more than

every other month. That's a good show.

Redstone

[Rosco T.]

66. get a Tivo

- tell it what you want to watch
- watch it when you want, skip the commercials
- never miss Olbermann

[Redstone]

71. You don't know me, do you? I'd forget at least two of the steps. I'm not

real good at adult stuff like consistency or routine or remembering.

Good suggestion, though. People who have a TIVO seem to really like it.

Redstone

[Rosco T.]

73. That's why I suggested a Tivo (grin)..

all you have to do it tell it ONCE and it takes care of the rest.

You can get a TiVO for FREE if you agree to a year of service http://www.tivo.com/2.1.1.0.ws.asp

[Redstone]

104. But I'd still have to remember to watch the show. Or that I HAD a TIVO

in the first place.

Yes, I'm hopeless.

Redstone

[K8-EEE]

21. My Husband Likes It, Don't Know Why!

Then again I'm one of those people who only wears my glasses when I'm driving, I like to live in a pleasant, impressionist like blur. My house is spotless when I don't put the glasses on!

[DemonFighterLives]

97. Good one

:rofl:

I grew up with 2 channels that both had NBC. A little scratchy was normal. We took a tv up to our cabin and can only get sometimes 3 channels and mostly snowy. My wife can't see how I can watch it- guess I'm used to snowstorms.
That said, I usually am an early adapter but may take my time on this. I'm on get by mode.
:dem:

[NNN0LHI]

24. I watch very little TV but when I do it is HDTV n/t

[democrat_patriot]

25. Best.TV.Ever

It rocks. I could never go back.

Well could if I had too I suppose, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

[porphyrian]

27. I do not care about it at all.

What good is a paying too much for a bunch of channels of shit I don't like split into sixtieths to pack ten minutes of commercials between each piece just because it's got crystal clear definition?

[Rosco T.]

Obvoulsy you've never watched PBSHD...

best bang for the buck of HD out there..

PBSHD
DiscoveryHD Theater
HDNet (soon to home of Dan Rather)
HDNet Movies (uncut, no commericals)
UNiversalHD

[porphyrian]

45. You're right, not that it would change my mind necessarily.

I've only got cable TV because it was cheaper to get the cable ISP with a TV package, and I invariably get frustrated and angry at it when I do watch it because of the lame programming and lamer commercials, which are barely distinguishable anyway if you pay attention. I'm sure I'll get it one day, when it's been out for years and is as cheap as cell phones are now, but I just don't really care until then, and I can't afford it anyway.

[MercutioATC]

32. Ever watch Discovery HD? It'll change your mind.

The Discovery Channel in HD is truly amazing.

[Rosco T.]

34. You Betcha!

[Rosco T.]

35. (mouse hiccup)

oops

[porphyrian]

48. Oh, I'm sure, for the five minutes until you cut to commercial.

If you haven't already seen the program for the thirtieth time that month.

I'll break down one day when it's gone the way of cell phones and DVD players, but I'm happy with high speed internet and DVDs for now.

[Rosco T.]

50. (wonders when the last time you watched PBS)

with NO COMMERCIALS

and the 'already seen the program for the thriteth time that month' arguement is specious now-days, more programming available.

[porphyrian]

68. I haven't watched PBS since 3-2-1-Contact.

All of the things they air that I find interesting usually end up available on DVD, so I don't really see it as a big loss. I watch things when I want, not when a programmer says I should. And, while you might see that redundant programming argument as specious, I do watch enough to know that every channel does it to a certain extent, so even channel surfing can't get you away from crap you've already seen (or intentionally ignored) before. You aren't getting a little defensive about your TV-poo, are you? I'm messing with you, but you are trying to sell it.

[Rosco T.]

74. "I watch things when I want, not when a programmer says I should"

TIVO

end of that arguement.

[MercutioATC]

76. Love my TIVO, too...

...

:)

[porphyrian]

77. Who's paying for all this shit?

Yeah, if I pour thousands into an entertainment system, it'll be a badass entertainment system. Unfortunately, I'm broke as fuck, dude. Unless you plan on giving me a grant or something, these aren't even close to being achievable goals for me at the moment. I'm glad you have the luxury to buy all this shit, but c'mon.

[Rosco T.]

79. Free TiVo here...

http://www.tivo.com/2.1.1.0.ws.asp

just pay the monthly charge, or prepay a year and the box is yours

[porphyrian]

83. Dude, I'm getting divorced.

I need another monthly payment like an ass-raping from an elephant.

[Rosco T.]

86. You just asked...

.. there are deals out there for everyone (and as a point of reference, you could prepay the whole thing up front if you wanted).

Chill brother.. I feel you pain in that regards.

[Solon]

115. I still don't get why people don't think TIVO is a scam...

I have ALL the same functionality of a TIVO right at home, with NO MONTHLY FEES.

[Rosco T.]

118. what are you using???

[Solon]

122. A mythTV box...

Linux, which is Free

Hardware, about 150 bucks, for an old computer, and a TV Tuner card, even got it in a spiffy case, which looks no different than any other TV accessory, also plays MP3s, CDs, DVDs, browse the internet with a remote, etc.

Then the MythTV software for the DVD, TV Tuner, Commercial Skip, live TV skip forward and back functionality.

No monthly fees, can record a program, E-mail it to a friend, and do whatever else I want with it, no restrictions or limitations.

[Rosco T.]

128. You're not the 'typical' viewer....

nothing wrong with MythTV.. but the average joe want's something to open box and plug in.

[Solon]

133. Actually that sounds like a great idea for a business...

Selling MythTV boxes, preconfigured, ready to use, just plug in and play. I figure if I used a generation out of date computer hardware, I could probably sell the thing for about 150 bucks, maybe less. Maybe that could give TIVO a run for its money.

[Ravenseye]

156. I hear you.

Personally I love the HDTV but just wanted to say that I understand exactly where you're coming from. 10 bucks a month for a tivo service might seem like nothing, but when you're scraping just to be able to pay all your bills and you might be under 20 bucks next month, that 10 bucks a month for tivo is huge. Same with expanded cable, or even any cable. If TV just isn't that important to your life, AND the money is tight.

Well fuck that shit, who needs it. Seriously.

If I were a multimilionare I'd have a movie theater in my house with nice massage chairs and a massive screen and THX certified surround sound...an 60" HDTV flat screen on a rotating panel in the family room with every cable channel and satelite hookup I can find with 20 different remotes...

But i'm not a multimilionare, so we have a tv and basic basic cable (23 channels).

It's ok to not like television, and while it's not wonderfull to be scraping pennies, both are valid reasons not to go out and blow 500-600 bucks on a brand new basic HDTV and 100 bucks a month on TIVO and a good digital HD package.

[NYCGirl]

138. Ah, Rosco. I'm a total TiVoholic — I have the Humax with the built-in

DVD recorder. With TCM and that, I have a fantastic movie collection!

[LoKnLoD]

37. the high def channels

that I get on Dish Network are mostly educational, National Geographic, Discovery Channel, a travel channel, a channel about art, a channel of Monster movies, a channel about collecting and a awesome music channel featuring Soundstage and Later with Jools Holland. I love my HDTV Dish Network satellite. If you enjoy tv you will like it, if you don't watch much tv it will be a waste.


http://www.voom.com/vhdo/index.jsp

[porphyrian]

49. Yeah, I'm not much of a TV watcher.

I invariably get pissed at it and have to shut it off, and I can do that for cheap at the moment.

[NMDemDist2]

91. don't miss FSTV and Link with DishNetwork they are down in 9415

area and the best news available with Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! and I love GayUSA. Mosiac rawks too!

[LoKnLoD]

93. Been a fan of both channels for awhile

found them accidently about a year ago.... :dem:

[NMDemDist2]

98. yup they're hard to find but well worth it! n/t

[MercutioATC]

29. I have one and it's amazing.

The first day I got it, I sat in front of it for hours and watched HD nature shows. It's like sitting in front of a window looking at something on the other side.

LOVE IT!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. I Love My New HDTV! $900 At Walmart For A 32" Widescreen!

I'm quite pleased with it so far. Dvd's look great and the HiDef channels are a pleasure too.

[Rosco T.]

39. I saw a 32" LCD this w/e for $699 at Costco..

and $1250 for a 47" Plasma. Prices are dropping like rocks.

[u4ic]

33. Nope - way down my list

I don't watch much tv - and what I do watch is news, documentaries, etc. The information given to me is much more important than the picture quality, which isn't particularly great with my older tv.

I can live with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. I need a new TV. My tube's going.

My TV's breaking down too. So I can either be a tightwad and get one that's going to be obsolete in the next few months, or spend a little more and get the upgrade.

Plus, with things like blue-ray players coming out on the market, it just makes sense.

[Rosco T.]

38. IF you buy a new TV now, it will NOT be 'obsolete'..

looks at the message I put above starting with INCORRECT

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Not that kind of obsolete.

Obsolete like black and white TVs. You can still use them, but there's not much point.

The new HD-DVDs, Blu-Ray players, and video game consoles can be played on older TVs, but you'll miss a huge amount of the quality. It'd be like watching the Wizard of Oz on a black and white TV.

That said, it's probably better off to wait a few more months, since prices are dropping, and they're still working on standardizing the electronics.

[Rosco T.]

47. Well, yes,. there's that., but...

as I pointed out, I saw 32" Widescreen LCDTV for $699 over the weekend... that's getting in the 'affordable' range...

[Solon]

117. 700 bucks is affordable?

LOL, I'm waiting until 36" or better sets are down to 200 bucks, no sooner. Hopefully that will happen BEFORE 2009.

[Rosco T.]

119. You're dreaming...

you can't get a REGULAR 36" for less than $400 now. a year ago the 36" Wide LCD's were over $1400... quite a drop in a year.

[Solon]

125. I got my 36 inch TV a few years ago...

it cost about 170 bucks at Best Buy, its a Panasonic.

[Jim Warren]

40. I t's NOTV for me

sorry, it's all crap.

[MercutioATC]

44. Just a question...

I agree that a lot of commercial program/MSM news is crap. However, a lot of cable programming (like TLC, Discovery, etc.) is really great stuff, IMO.

When you say "it's all crap" do you mean {b] all of it or just the major networks/MSM?

[Jim Warren]

70. For me, all TV is crap

Listen, if you enjoy some of the programming, fine for you.
For me, it is not worth the time mostly nor the money for equipment and cable or dish.
IMO, the better programming, TDC, TLC, PBS nature shows etc. might be something that comes in handy if you have little kids.
I'd just rather put the resources into a good computer and relevant software/connections.

[MercutioATC]

78. That's cool, just asking.

We all have different preferences.

:)

[Eric J in MN]

42. No. TV companies and consumers will have to spend

...money for little benefit.

[survivor999]

46. I hope I'll never catch HDTV

:)

[moc]

51. Nope, but my husband wants one in a bad way. We were

visiting my brother who has one, and husband was mesmerized. I say no dice.

[survivor999]

52. Why do you need to see the pores

in people's face? Not sure I get it...

[Rosco T.]

55. Watched the last Shuttle launch in HD...

.. staggering.

Never mind the programs out in the plains of Africa, the underwater documentaries.. so much to see in way's youve never seen before...

and you have to throw out the canard of 'pores on the faces'.

Go down to Circuit City or Best Buy and see what's out there.... they will usually be running HDNet or DiscoveryHD in the stores.. then try the 'pores on the faces' arguement again.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

59. I watched it as well...

And then again on CNN...

The difference was staggering. You could see the individual tiles in many shots in HD. In standard, it was just a solid color.

[survivor999]

67. Oh, I just got one myself!

And I love the pores, really! :)

[MercutioATC]

80. Shark Week in HD...'nuff said.

:)

[mikeytherat]

160. Have you seen the underwater cave dives in Florida?

Deep within the aquifer caves of the Florida panhandle, it is some of the most stunning HD filming I have ever seen!

mikey_the_rat

[girl gone mad]

Pores are good.

It can only help our collective self-esteem to see that even our Hollywood betters are flawed.

[conflictgirl]

53. I really don't care at all

I hope I don't have to switch TVs, because I don't watch enough TV to justify spending the money to get a whole new TV set. I like to watch a show here or there, so I would be a little disappointed if I didn't get to watch it anymore. But even if the price goes down to $100 for a set by then, I will be pissed off to have to buy a whole new TV. Am I understanding this correctly, that *everyone* will have to switch to HDTV because they won't have the regular analog signals anymore? Or does that only apply to cable subscribers, rather than standard network TV?

[Rosco T.]

61. OK, here's the short version.

- in 2009, the ANALOG (what we have now) is going to be SHUT OFF.

- the broadcast in changing to DIGITAL, this is NOT THE SAME THING AS HDTV (read that for our five times)

- as of 7/1, all TV's 25" or bigger MUST HAVE AN ATSC DIGITAL TUNER (most had them since Jan). You can get a 27" ATSC set RIGHT NOW for < $299.

- as of 7/1/07, all TV's 13" or bigger must have the ATSC tuner

- as of 7/1/08, ALL DEVICES THAT RECEIVE BROADCASTS (TV's, VCR, Tivo's, DVD Recorder's) MUST HAVE AN ATSC TUNER

- you WILL be able to get an adapter for a very low cost (by the time it goes volume, I expect $30 or less, if not FREE when subsidzed by a local station SO YOU CAN SEE THEIR SIGNAL). There is no such thing as a SINGLE CHANNEL converter, so one box will decode all stations).

- STATIONS ARE BROADCASTING IN DIGITAL NOW.

- HDTV is a SUPERSET of DIGITAL TV. If you get an ATSC tuner set now, you get the SAME PROGRAMMING as HDTV, just in a lower resolution.

[MercutioATC]

85. Keep saying this. Digital and High Definition (HD) are different things.

By 2009 you will be required to own a device with a digital tuner ( NOT High Definition)...

...UNLESS you choose to keep your analog set and get a low-cost converter that will convert the digital signal to an analog signal that your TV can read.


The most anybody will have to do is keep the same picture quality and TV they have now and spend $20-$30 for a converter.

[tammywammy]

101. So, let me make sure I've read all of this right

The TV I have now is a few years old. If it makes it all the way to 2009, all I would need to do is buy a converter for it and it would be fine?

And if I decided so blow money on a new TV now, it would be good for the change too.

[Rosco T.]

107. You got it...

[MercutioATC]

110. We're talking about digital vs. analog tuners, not 'high definition".

Your current TV may or may not have a digital tuner. If it does, you have nothing to be concerned about. If it doesn't, you're looking at (at most) an inexpensive converter box when they go to all-digital signals to convert the signal back into analog for your tuner.

If you buy a new TV, just make sure it has a digital tuner (I believe they all do now, anyway).


None of this has to do with high definition TV which involves a higher resolution picture.

[Adelante]

137. Is ATSC the transmission format?

In Mexico there is something called NTSC, but I don't see ATSC. NTSC is described as Formatos de transmisión de TV - are they the same things? Thanks.

[Rosco T.]

140. ATSC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC

[Adelante]

141. Thanks, Roscoe T.

ATSC replaces NTSC.

[msongs]

58. higher quality trash is STILL trash nt

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

60. Just watched Cinderella Man in HD...

I didn't think it was trash.

I will not watch American Idol in HD, Standard or any definition.

Selective viewing habits will sheild you from Trash.

[Rosco T.]

62. the don't watch trash.. there are TONS of quality programs out there..

go check the listings at National Geographic HD and Discovery HD and tell me that.

[Touchdown]

106. Not impressed with NGHD too much

Got a 4 day preview a couple of weeks ago. Very grainy (I'm a photographer, kind of anal on that). One show about a 400' roller coaster being built at a Six Flags was widescreen, but in standard definition. Discovery and that Voom nature channel (I think it's called Equator), are fantastic though. DiscHD is the most bbeautiful pic on HD right now. The Video Game channel is a total waste of spectrum, IMO. So far, Dish doesn't carry the local Denver PBS in HD yet, so I have to go with an antenna for that...dammit!

Watching Daily Show and Colbert is like slumbing it now. I keep thinking "I know they have pores." :D

[high density]

64. Not really

What I've seen of it are compression artifacts, compression artifacts, and compression artifacts. It's kind of sad, too, because I think I'll probably be dead before another TV standard comes along and ditches the already aging MPEG2 video codec.

[Rosco T.]

72. already here...

.. they're switching to MPEG4 as we type. Most HD locals on DirecTV are MPEG4 already (except New York/LA), their new RSN's are MPEG4. If you want to see a lack of compression artifacts, then spend some time on HDNet/HDNet Movies (and if it looks shitty, email Mark Cuban and he will climb down the necks of whoever the program provider is.. their contract says no messing with their signal).

[SmokingJacket]

69. No.

But then again, the last time I watched TV regularly was 1977. I can't see how a clearer picture would improve that crap.

[Bluebear]

81. Everyone should be vaccinated against HDTV.

It's the only responsible thing to do in this and age. Oh, wait..

[Pugee]

82. No, I dont watch much TV, but the big reason the government

is forcing the issue is because the frequencies they will then sell to corporations will bring more than 10 Billion dollars. That is why this is under the Deficit Reduction Act.

----- President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, a bill that contained a law stating that by February 17, 2009, television broadcasters across the country will be required to shut down their analog transmitters. At that point, the frequencies on which those transmitters operate will be transferred back to the government, which will then auction off those frequencies to the highest bidder. Those frequencies will be worth at least $10 billion and probably more, a windfall where much of that money will go directly into the coffers of the US government. That's why this bill is part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, because it's expected that the proceeds from such an auction will help to reduce the federal deficit.

http://www.dtvprofessional.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=38809

[Rosco T.]

88. Geeze Louise People.. you think the US is the only one doing this???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television

[Jim Warren]

90. Right

and, somewhere I heard that the broadcasters are going to have a choice whether to go with HDTV or split the digital signal into several programming options essentially multiplying their output into various targeted channels. IOW, the HDTV equipment people are rushing out to buy will be made unnecessary in lieu of multiple advertising streams for the broadcasters.

[Rosco T.]

92. Not exactly...

what you're talking about is "MULTICASTING".. you still have the MAJOR CHANNEL with the primary programming (being broadcasdt at HDTV resolution (that is downrezed on an SDTV ATSC tuner). They can elect to split off a portion of the bandwidth to have additional service (which will ALWAYS be in SDTV resolution).

One local station here has a subchannel (primary channel is 14-1, secondary is 14-2) that does nothing but run the live weather service weather radar and national weather service audio).

The PBS station here runs PBSHD on the primary channel (32-1) and the 'regular' PBS channel (with different program) on 32-2 in SD

So your permise (and pessimism) is wrong, nothing will be made obsolete or unnecessary.

[Jim Warren]

96. Oh, OK

You seem to know what you're talking about, I sure don't :)

I heard the blather I referred to on NPR one day coming home. I do remember the guy saying though, he thought the economic implications of the change for the broadcasters would prevail in a way that some consumers will be disappointed.

[TheCowsCameHome]

84. No.

[NMDemDist2]

87. hubby loves his and I don't begrudge him

he has two hobbies, TV and astronomy

keeps him home nights :shrug:

[crim son]

89. Can't afford HDTV, and don't care that I can't afford HDTV.

Ergo: I don't care about HDTV.

[JackDragna]

94. I have an HDTV for my movies.

It's already great with a progressive scan DVD player. It'll be even better when HD DVD's come out.

[Rosco T.]

95. WHEN HD DVD's come out? Brother...

you're a month or so behind...

[Solon]

120. I'm waiting out these format wars...

To be honest, HD DVDs probably are the better deal, at least their players are slightly cheaper than Bluray, and they can at least play standard DVDs, however, its still up in the air as to whether or not one or the other will win. Plus, since I have no HDTV, its not worth it anyways, probably around 2010 or so, when they are affordable.

[JackDragna]

145. Well, they're out..

..but they're not exactly common, and the players are ridiculously expensive. :P

[Rosco T.]

146. You can pickup HD-DVD in flipping WAL-MART... that's common..

and the RCA Player is $399....

[MercutioATC]

111. Cables make a difference, too...

I went from the cable company-supplied cables to Monster cables (expensive, but impressive).

The difference was HUGE.

[NoPasaran]

99. Love it, love it. love it

I work in the systems integration racket and the arrival of HDTV had poured a huge amount of money into my industry. Without it, I'd probably be one of those shmoes begging at an intersection with a cardboard sign.

Do I watch it? Uh, not so much.

[Touchdown]

100. Yes. You just met one, and get over it.

80 year old technology has to die sometime. Time to move into the 90s.

[Liberal In Texas]

134. Actually, it's 80's tech. Saw it demonstrated at the NAB conv.

sometime in the '80s. I was blown away by the quality. One vendor I remember had a room set up with blue walls and a model sitting on a stool. Outside the room they had a window and next to it a monitor. When you stood looking through the window and at the monitor, you couldn't tell any difference in the quality. It was amazing.

The only reason it's taken so long to get to the public is that the broadcast interests have been dragging their feet. They've been throwing up roadblocks at every turn because they didn't want to have to spend the money converting.

[Touchdown]

142. Analog HD was 80s tech.

Pioneered by the Germans and Japanese. They've had analog HD since then. Our system is all digital. Research with Government grants on the leapfrogging tech began in 1992. Nobody in Britain even buys square TVs anymore.

Same resolution, same aspect ratio, but different mode of transfer. Spielberg stuck his nose into it after Jurassic Park because he wanted a 2:1 aspect for it (wider that the 16X9 aspect that was agreed upon). He lost that.

[Don Claybrook]

102. I don't watch the tv I have

really, never.

The only "moving pictures" I watch are on this pc or my wife's laptop. We watch dvd's on these, along with streaming stuff from the internet. That's it, at least since Bill Moyers left Now awhile back. I still get to see the good Jon Stewart stuff, etc, just by coming to these pages.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

103. Its awesome

Our TV went out last year so we had to buy a new one.

It didnt make sense to buy an old technology model so went ahead of bought a Sony Trinitron with the Wega tube.

The clarity is absolutely amazing, especially with outdoor or sports scenes.

[Raine]

105. I LOVE TV

so if I have to get HDTV I will, I'll do whatever so I can keep watching.

[smoogatz]

108. Not for TV tv.

Like a want to see Russert's blackheads up close and personal? No thanks. But I wouldn't object to having one for watching the old Netflix. Just waiting for the price to come down on the LCDs, which it's supposed to do any year now.

[tlsmith1963]

109. I Have HDTV

I watched a lot of the World Cup in HDTV. It looked great. There *is* a difference. The picture looks clearer, & the colors are sharper. But yeah, TV isn't very interesting anymore, what with all the reality-shows & newscasts that say anything Bush wants them to say.

Tammy

[Liberal Veteran]

112. I bought an HDTV set a few years ago, but only got a reciever around xmas.

That I bought second-hand for 80 dollars and I LOVE it.

I love watching PBS in HD (and anything else I can find). The difference is quite noticable.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. If you don't watch sports or premium cable

it isn't worth the expense. If you do, there just is no comparison with fuzzy tv.

If and when they pull the plug on analog there is no indication that digital broadcast will actually be all HD. Instead it will be lodef digital and a convertor will transform that back into an analog signal your old tv can understand.

I actually can't stand watching lodef sports. Fuzzy people chasing a blob. Very exciting.

I can just barely tolerate sopranos, deadwood, weeds, huff, rome, the wire and the rest of the Golden Age of TV Dramas in lodef but I ain't happy when I have to.

[Swamp Rat]

114. Nope

[ecstatic]

116. i'm not a visual person, so no

As long as the picture is clear (as in cable signal) with no obvious snow then I'm OK. Plus my biggest TV is only 35 inches. I just wish Congress would focus on more important issues!

[KharmaTrain]

121. Digital & HDTV Aren't The Same Thing

Let me add to the many here who have HDTV and love it. Initially I got a WIN-TV digital card for my puter...getting the digital channels on my puter screen and the card only cost $150.

HD isn't digital. Digital is just the means to transmit the signal...HD is the picture quality. FCC rules now state that all American TV stations have a digital signal on the air (and most do). The advantage is a clean, clear picture without the snow and other interference of analog TV and the colors...even on a digital signal viewed on an analog set, looks sharper and more vivid.

HD refers to the 1080i or 720p 6:9 theater-like picture you can get on a high quality digital TV...just like how color changed black & white TV. Right now a majority of digital programming is still in 4:3 aspect ration (regular TV) with just primetime and sports programming in true HD.

Supposedly there will be cheaper digital TVs coming onto the market later this year...table-top and smaller/cheaper models should be available. As the Jan, 2009 shut-off date gets closer there should also be converters available that will cost $50-$100 that will convert a digital signal to analog.

The law doesn't involve cable, thus if your old TV is currently hooked up to the cable, they'll do the digital converting for you and your old TV will still work.

Last year I had the option of buying World Series tickets...at about $2500 a throw...I decided if I'm gonna throw that kind of money away, I might as well see ALL the games and went and bought the HDTV instead...I've enjoyed it immensely...especially all the great PBS shows that already are in Hi-Def.

[populistdriven]

123. HDTV bwahahahahaha no interest at all

[Deja Q]

124. Looks nice but I could care less for the content...

Unless they remaster stuff from the 60s-80s and take out the video drops, film grain, line noise, improve color and sound fidelity, and put it on disc in a pristine format that almost looks as good (or better) than how it did originally...

Still, DVD was once sold as being better than VHS. Now companies tell us it's just a replacement for VHS. :puke: And many DVD titles (especially tv shows) are given shite treatment.

Given the history of the beast, I'll keep my current setup and forget about any new standards.

[Rosco T.]

129. They are doing that...

UniversalHD runs remastered/restored Knight Rider, The Equalizer and Quantum Leap

[Roland99]

150. Did you ever catch Charlie's Angels on HD Net?

Wow, did that look good!


:D

[oasis]

126. I had a Best Buy salesman go over it .They're paid to be "in the know"

;-)

[Roland99]

127. HDTV - The ONLY way to watch TV!!!

I've had mine for 5 1/2 years and wouldn't give it up for anything! ;)

[NNadir]

130. In a word: No.

[OnionPatch]

131. It's just another way to squeeze more bucks out of us

OK, I know some of you love it. But I can think of about a gazillion other things I'd rather spend my money on.

[Gregorian]

132. Nope. And I don't care about STEREO either. It's all about content.

If I were into computer generated thrill movies, I might care. But why would I need hdtv when there's nothing worth watching?

I love The Avengers. I love The Young Ones. I love The Fast Show. I love the Daily show. Do any of those need hdtv? Nope. It's about content. Grapes of Wrath? That doesn't need to be in hdtv.

[Liberal In Texas]

135. HD is great. You don't have to spend 2 grand for a TV either.

There are now many available for under a thousand. I know this is still expensive for many.

Bought one a year or so ago for about 1K. It didnt have an HD tuner in it. A couple of months ago I got a HD tuner box and get the local stations broadcasting on HD off the air with rabbit ears. One advantage, no ghosts. Since it's digital, you either have it or you don't. Many stations run secondary channels that have weather radar or news 24/7. One has some sort of MTV clone on the secondary. This is free off the air with a tuner. I'm not paying for cable.

Of course, network programming is still crap (PBS is tolerable.) And not all shows are being produced in HD yet.

I'm waiting for HD DVD recorders/players to come down in price as most of what we watch is on DVD and not off the air.

[Marnieworld]

136. best thing to happen to tv since color

i love it and watch it all of the time. Sports are wonderful.

[Egalitariat]

139. If you're a sports fan, you have to get one. It'll change your life on...

college football Saturdays.

[NoSheep]

143. No.

[Triana]

144. No.

I have a regular television that I haven't even turned on at all in two years and I don't have cable TV. The television is brand new (well not anymore) but it was used for less than a year before I turned it off except for the occasional video or DVD-watching - and that's it. I haven't even had it plugged into the wall for two years.

I have no use for TV/cable TV/HDTV/whatever. Waste of money for me.

[rman]

147. Currently among the least of my concerns

[displacedtexan]

148. Yes! I care!

My daughter is one of the first to be trained and
certified in HD makeup artistry in Hollywood.

Her per diem salary doubles when the production
is in HD.

[lectrobyte]

151. No. Even in high def, it's still gonna be 500 channels of shit, to

paraphrase Pink Floyd.

[BigMcLargehuge]

153. Ugh... it's not HDTV that's mandated, it's digital SDTV

you won't need an HDTV/Analog downconverter, you'll need a Digital/Analog converter but ONLY if you ONLY receive signals over the air.

Cable customers won't notice the switch because the cable box does it already. Satellite customers won't notice the switch because their Satellite set top box already does it.

The significant difference between Digital and Analog transmission of TV signals is capacity. A standard analog channel is 5Mhz wide and can carry ONE channel. A standard Digital channel is also 5Mhz wide, but can carry 10 or 15 channels in TDMA format, and can reprovision them almost at will. The reason the over-the-air broadcasts are mandated to move to digital broadcast is to maintain feature parity with cable and satellite offerings in areas where such services are not offered.

The benefits of digital (to the broadcaster)

Cable -

Increased channel capacity
Provision of spectrum for upstream services (such as on-Demand and High Speed Internet)
Less signal attentuation between headend and neighborhood node (i.e. digital signals are easier to reconstruct, resistent to interference)
Less attentuation between neighborhood node and home (i.e. digital signals are easier to reconstruct, resistent to interference)
Significantly decreased cost to connect multiple homes to hybrid fiber/coax network

Satellite -

Increased channel capacity
Provision of spectrum for upstream services (such as on-Demand and High Speed Internet)
Less signal attentuation between satellite and receiver dish on home (i.e. digital signals are easier to reconstruct, resitant to interference)
Significantly decreased cost to connect multiple homes to hybrid fiber/coax network

Over the Air Broadcast -

Less resistent to interference
Increased channel capacity

Customer -

Increased channel offerings
Access to broadband Internet services (Cable)
Access to digital phone service (Cable)
Improved signal quality means better picture in SDTV
Access to upstream services (On-Demand)
Access to digital applications such as DVRs, Interactive viewer guides, interactive scheduling, customer home pages
Increased offerings of HD programming (improvements in compression make this possible) to customers with HD sets

[TheFriedPiper]

155. I LOVE mine, and it was only $600

26" Magnavox. The difference in picture is absolutely amazing, especially with the HD cable tuner/DVR and the HD-only channels from Comcast.

World Cup was amazing, NBA Finals were amazing, and I CANNOT WAIT for football season. GO FALCONS!!!

[Kashka-Kat]

158. Nooooo! What would I do with my black and white Quasar?

[Ioo]

163. I have 2 - LOVE it

[lonestarnot]

164. no.

[electron_blue]

165. I've only seen one HDTV, and i wasn't impressed

Maybe if I was a regular tv watcher I'd notice the improvement?

[ProfessorGAC]

166. Not Particularly

I've seen them. They're better. I can't justify, even though i can afford it, that much extra money for a TV. And, on the cable, i get 400 of normal and there's only about 25 highdef. So, i'd then have to pay extra so i could watch one-sixteenth of the programming in that format.

It's just doesn't seem like a big enough difference to spend that much money.
The Professor