US TV stations say ready for '09 switch to digital (Consumers get ripped?)

[RamboLiberal]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050712/3/3tfmu.html

U.S. local television broadcasters said on Tuesday they would accept a 2009 deadline to switch to airing only higher-quality digital signals, a date being considered by lawmakers.

However, they urged Congress to give consumers the choice of receiving the new signals as-is or converting them to analog so that they would work on older television sets -- and to require cable companies to carry extra channels broadcasters offer.

<snip>

One of the biggest concerns confronting lawmakers as they grapple with setting a final deadline is that most Americans do not have new sets or converter boxes capable of receiving the digital signals. A subsidy program is one possibility under review.

"If you want an uproar from the people of this country, you have their televisions turned off," cautioned Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican.

Read further - some of the lawmakers are looking at a $$$$ windfall from selling the analog spectrum and moving up the drop dead date under the guise of Homeland Security conveniently using the London bombings.

[SaveElmer]

1. Gotta make the switch sometime...

People are going to be inconvenienced. Hopefully the gov will do something to help out those that don't have cable or satellite. Would seem only fair. In fact it should be their duty as the airwaves are public property.

[mccoyn]

5. Why should we force it?

Broadcasters are perfectly capable of sending both analog and digital. People just arn't willing to pay the extra expense to receive digital. Now they are hoping for a law to force people to pay that extra expense. Why can't we just let good old economics and compition work this one out?

[youspeakmylanguage]

10. BushCo wants the money...

...they'll make from selling the old analog frequencies (or is it bandwidth? I'm not up on the technical details) to mobile phone companies.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

19. I saw an estimate how much $ they'd make selling off those bands and

it surprised me how little it was. There must be more to it than just the initial auction proceeds.

[ret5hd]

20. the issue isn't how much the gov't makes...

selling those frequencies off at ridiculously low prices...

it's how much the buyers of those frequencies can sell the bandwidth on those frequencies to others...and thus fund huge under-the-table payoffs to those that helped them acquire them in the first place.

[youspeakmylanguage]

114. Yep! Just think how much the phone companies can charge for expanded...

...coverage and services? And imagine how much more they can contribute to political campaigns.

[SaveElmer]

27. Because airwaves are publically owned..

Broadcasters shouldn't be forced to broadcast both to accommodate those with older technology. TV manufactureres aren't going to keep producing analog TV's. At some point you have to cut the cord. The new technology is here, it's easily implemented, so the government should figure out a way to smooth the switch. If they implement what they are talking about, most people (even those with analog TV's) will be taken care of.

[Demonaut]

37. except step down converters are still not readily available

[Emerson]

39. That is because

they have little market. Wait until the switch and you will find them everywhere.

It's like IDE and SATA hard drives. When SATA drives were first released it was very hard (and expensive) to find an SATA->IDE converter. Now they're very easily found and are not very expensive.

[SaveElmer]

47. Exactly...

If the gov wants them they will be everywhere!

[Demonaut]

35. Tell that to the home owners near the current analog towers

In Denver we were supposed to one of the first ten markets to get the new signals in 99/2000, now were one of the last and still waiting, the issue is microwaves and the necessity of running both signals so the switch would be easier...the switch was supposed to happen in 06

[JCMach1]

84. Why????

There is no imperative to do so....

[rinsd]

2. I think the reason so many consumers do not have HDTV is...

...right now the product offerings are limited. I think the networks, ESPN, the various movie channels, and PPV events have channels with HD content. While that's great it still leaves a whole slew of channels not in HD.

4 times in the last 3 years when I or someone I know was looking at a new TV and considered HD they decided it wasn't worth it until more programming was in HD.

Granted this is only anecdotal but I think that's the main reason HD hasn't been flying off the shelfs.

[jayfish]

6. I Think You Are Correct.

There isn't much real HD content out here. One company that tried to set a new standard in HD (VOOM) promptly went under. It's a real chicken/egg situation.

Jay

[Roland99]

15. Oh that's a CROCK OF BULLSHIT! Enough with that CRAP!

Seriously.

Jesus Christ that pisses me off.


Ok....here goes:


Primetime lineups in HD on:

CBS (all but reality/news shows) Sports in HD (Golf, NCAA, NFL, etc.)
NBC (all but reality/news shows) Leno and Conan are in HD. NASCAR in HD
ABC (all but reality/news shows) Good Morning America also going HD this fall and the NBA was in HD
FOX
WB (Everwood, Reba, Smallville, and Gilmore Girls)
UPN (Star Trek: Enterprise, The UPN Friday Night Movie, Veronica Mars and Kevin Hill)
PBS HD

Premium channels with HD:

HDNet
HDNet Movies
Cinemax
Encore
HBO HD
Showtime HD
Starz
The Movie Channel
Bravo (now it's Universal HD)
ESPN HD
ESPN2 HD
InHD1
InHD2
Discovery HD Theater
HD PPV/Spice
TNT HD
USA Network
E!
Wealth TV

iNDemand in HD on some cable providers

Others coming soon:

NBC Cable Networks
HDNet Sports
Hallmark HD
A&E
The Tennis Channel
29HDNetwork
Outdoor Life Network
Gol TV (Hispanic soccer channel)
The Outdoor Channel HD

[rinsd]

18. Big deal I missed 3 channels in HD that mean anything....

What in the hell is there to be pissed off about unless you sell HDTV equipment (not implying that's what you do)

The fact of the matter is now I have 8 hob channels. There's only one offered with HD content. I can have 13 Starz, one is in HD. The list goes on with the other movie channels.

If you think its worth it now to immediately upgrade to HDTV vs. waiting until more content is HD, I'd like to hear the reasoning.

[Roland99]

28. There's no waiting needed. Damn...that's what I'm saying!

Every one of the major networks has the majority of their primetime shows in HD. Many movie channels, ESPN, Discovery, etc.

There's NO WAITING for content. It's HERE!

[rinsd]

111. This is getting ridiculous....

...if it is my opinion that there is not enough content offered via HDTV vs. what I have now for me to make the switch. I cannot be wrong becuase it is only my opinion.

I have decided to wait to almost all "broadcasts" are HD and I speculated in my OP that this may be the reason others are not going the HDTV route. You acted like I insulted your child.

Are you insane or are you really a salesman for HD?

[Booster]

34. I have HD, but according to Dish Network they aren't broadcasting

HDTV and said they don't intend to in the near future. So we should all buy a TV that's way ahead of the companies sending the signals. Makes sense to me.

[Roland99]

43. What? I had DISH several years ago and had several HD channels

Plus, DISH just bought out Voom which had a lot more HD channels.

[reprobate]

63. Of couse Dish is transmitting HD. I'm watching it now.

[AndyTiedye]

38. Just Because They Broadcast it Doesn't Mean You can Receive It

The digital signals are on UHF, with less than half of the range of a
VHF station (if that), and if the signal is weak you don't even get
a snowy picture, you get nothing.

I have a digital receiver. It is completely useless here.
There are NO digital signals that are stronge enough to receive
even with a big roof antenna and booster.

[Roland99]

45. I have a $15 Radio Shack double bowtie pointing through a full tree

and I get all of my locals. I'm about 12 miles from the towers.

Most cable providers offer local HD channels in addition to the premium HD channels.

[high density]

82. My cable company tried something out last year

They tried to decode and broadcast the 480i DTV signals from the local affiliates to the analog cable subscribers. These signals looked like crap with a lot of pixellation artifacts during high motion content. I'm not sure if this is a signal strength issue, just a lack of bandwidth, or a crappy encoder, but something was badly wrong. Sometimes the cable company's decoder would just drop to black entirely for ten seconds at a time, and of course we'd never have dropouts like this with the analog signals. That experiment lasted for a few months and then the real analog signals returned to analog cable.

For SD content I still prefer any analog artifacts to the DTV artifacts. (Especially when comparing highly-compressed and very soft digital cable or digital satellite picture to an analog signal.) But we're already steaming down the tracks in our conversion to digital, so I'm going to have to get used to the pixellation problems and the soft focus. Hopefully DTV encoders will continue to improve so that they can handle busy scenes more gracefully. I still think the main reason why digital is being rammed down our throats is so that these lame TV affiliates can broadcast a half dozen useless bandwidth sucking infomercial subchannels on their digital signal and make a little more coin every month.

[jayfish]

91. A Couple Of Questions,...

from someone who has had an HD set for going on three years. What percentage of programming on those stations you list is actual HD content? Very little. Look at NBC for example. Anyone who bought and HD set last summer for the Olympics had to sorely disappointed in the presentation. It was atrocious. Hell that might be an understatement. Look at TNT all their crap with the exception of some sporting events is cropped and stretched junk. Now the 2nd question; what service provider (Comcast, DTV, Dish) offerers anywhere close to all of those channels. None. The HD landscape is crap right now and I don't blame people for not buying it. I'm an early adopter so I take the good with the bad. Normal consumers will not, and should not, accept the bad.

Jay

[Patty Diana]

48. I Need a question answered please. I've heard these HDTV's

burn HUGE amounts of power. Yes or no. I know my digital computer does

[reprobate]

61. They consume no more power than analog tv's

[BiggJawn]

65. Jerry Springer in 1080i is STILL Jerry springer...

It's not the limited offerings, it's the CONTENT.

Shit doesn't smell better just because it's being presented on a silk pillow....

[Moose_head]

68. no...it's the PRICE.

I have a friend who has a HUGE Nakamichi HDTV- and although the picture is nice- to me it's definitely not worth the $6000.00 price tag.

I'm waiting another year or two- until the carbon field effect display tv's come out- better and cheaper than plasma or lcd...
I'm already saving for it.

http://news.com.com/Carbon+TVs+to+edge+out+liquid+crystal,+plasma/2100-1041_3-5512225.html

[high density]

71. Digital doesn't always mean HDTV

I'm sure a lot of programming is going to remain in the "standard definition" 480i or 480p format for a long time to come. Many people will buy non-HD digital TV sets when they become widely available.

[Rambis]

3. One bonus

the slack jawed mouth breathers that watch faux news won't be able to afford one.

[Oreo]

8. And for the ones that do....

Ann Coulter's stubble will be just that much more visible

[LiberalFighter]

12. All the better to drive her into oblivion

[Rambis]

13. It might kill Culture and mr loofah man

unfortunately HannaNazi is on radio or he might bite it too.

[jmowreader]

102. No stubble. Spray paint.

I'm not kidding: HDTV studios are big users of airbrush makeup. It looks "more natural."

In Coulter's case, they're gonna skip the airbrush makeup and go straight to Krylon. No runs, no drips, and the only errors come out of her mouth.

[HereSince1628]

4. But, but, but, shouldn't the marketplace determine the format???

I mean, I think I mean, well maybe I don't know what I mean, but isn't this really about a FAILED decade old political ploy to try to protect now non-existant television manufacturers?

[reprobate]

62. It's mostly about the gov't wanting to sell the rights to all those......

....analog tv frequencies to commecial interest. You're talking billions here.

As with most things with gov't the poor consumer gets squeezed in the middle.

[arikara]

7. The healthiest thing for everyone

would be to lose their television.

But does anyone seriously believe that they are going to do away with the greatest method ever devised of catapulting the propaganda to the masses?

[Gregorian]

14. One more reason to kill my tv.

Unfortunately, there is The Daily Show. And Cspan. And the annual Tour De France. And the independent film channel. OK, I'm addicted. Shit! I want to kill it so badly.

[HuckleB]

97. No, they will never do away with it.

But they've got everyone so hooked, as one can see by this board, that they can now devise new ways of making money off of television on a regular basis. It is amazing to see the priorities of some folks on threads like these.

Wow.

[supernova]

9. The TVs are still too expensive

granted, they are coming down in price, but still, 3K at a minimum is still too much for a TV. Unless you want little 13-inchers all over the house.

[Roland99]

16. Oh they are not!!! Whole lot of misinformation out there.

You can get an HDTV for well under $1,000.

Here's a boatload right here:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?type=category&id=pcmcat31800050030

[Blue Gardener]

21. Still way more than analog TV's

Even at $500 for the bare minimum, it's still more than many people in this country can afford. What if you have to replace each tv in the house? I currently have three, and hate to think of having to pay to replace each one.

[Roland99]

29. People have been buying more expensive TVs for years

Look at 4:3 projection TVs. They were into the thousands and people were buying them left and right.

A good 4:3 analog set still runs a few hundred dollars. A couple hundred more and you have widescreen HD.

[barb162]

31. You mean SOME people. A lot of people can't afford a

1000 bucks for a TV and others see no need for them when they have perfectly acceptable and working TVs.

[tammywammy]

32. But what about the people that don't buy expensive toys like this?

I don't, I have a perfectly fine 21" television. I've had it for 5 years, and it was my parents before that. Now, if my television breaks between now and then I'd have to buy digital, but $300 for a television is just a lot of money, but unless it breaks, why should I have to shell out that money?

[barb162]

33. Yes, especially if you're perfectly happy with them.

[Emerson]

40. You can get an HDTV card for your computer

VERY cheap.

Also when HDTV is more common they will be less expensive.

[Roland99]

42. It IS more common. Geez, people

What more content do you all want?

[SoCalDem]

25. My last TV was a 32" ...paid $310.00 at Best Buy

That's a HUGE difference ..if under $1000 means the smallest of the HDTVs.

[supernova]

26. Is it a flat panel?

I mean a plasma or LED screen. That's really what I was talking about. And yes, they are still expensive. I'm not buying no huge honking piece of furniture no mo'. ;-)

[HuckleB]

75. So what.

I have a perfectly good TV. I shouldn't have to dish out another $1,000 just because someone has figured out a way to make a profit off this type of lobbyist nonsense.

Sheesh.

[Not Me]

11. This is one of the very few luxuries I have indulged in recently

And I would never go back. 42 inches stunning enjoyment.
The local cable company includes HD at no extra charge with their digital package (~$50 a month.)

[2Design]

17. don't use cable - too expensive - if they go this route

that will be the end of tv
I use a antenna with amplifier

[HuckleB]

76. Exactly. Why bother? What a waste of money.

[maxwall]

22. Selling OUR airwaves to wireless companies?

You know, what really cheeses me off about this the most is that the airwaves TV stations foist propaganda to us (as well as only a few quality shows) are OUR airwaves.
I've felt that, since the airwaves are the property of the citizens of this country (and, like our public lands, should be held in trust for us) conglomo-media shouldn't be able to reap millions/billions in profit without returning some of that money (if not all of it) to the government that allows use of the airwaves.
It's ridiculous that they're planning on selling OUR airwaves to wireless companies. It's wholesale info-highway robbery! Cause I can guarantee we're not going to see any of that money...

[Throckmorton]

99. Our Airwaves, Ha Ha Ha

Just try and get a license to use "Our Airwaves", Try Coporate America's airwaves.

[timtom]

23. It's devilishly simple, for me...

I will simply turn off the television set and read a good book.

"Look, Master! The goose is out of the bottle!"

[SoCalDem]

24. Question....

We have Satellite but "regular" tvs.. Does this HDTV stuff even affect us??

If not, why would we even need to buy new sets..I like the reception just fine:)

[Blasphemer]

30. That's how I feel about it

I have satellite... I'm fine with my "regular" tv's. The HD stuff does not impress me in the least. I haven't ever spent more than $150 on a tv set and I never will. I'm even considering killing my satellite subsciption because last season I found that I was far more likely to d/l something after having it recommended than watching live or tivo'ing.

[AndyTiedye]

36. A Lot of Rural Areas Will Lose ALL TV Reception

In the fringe areas, instead of a weak signal, you get a blank screen with digital.

I have a digital receiver. I can pick up a couple of dozen analog
stations well over the air. I cannot pick up even ONE digital station.
All of the signals are too weak. I have a deep-fringe roof antenna
and a booster. Signal strength is still WAY too low. I have a booster
and a deep-fringe antenna on the roof.

Digital TV is all on UHF channels, mostly high ones, that have much
shorter range than VHF and are more affected by hills and trees. It
also requires a much stronger signal to deliver any reception at all.

[Emerson]

41. Satellite is dirt cheap

[AndyTiedye]

46. Did I Mention TREES? Satellite Signals Don't Travel Through Trees

[Emerson]

49. I hope that you are aware

unless the tree is OVER the satellite it will not cause any kind of interference.

[AndyTiedye]

51. The Satellite People Have Been Out Here Already

I said "trees". As in forest.
Hundreds of trees. Our trees, the neigbor's trees.

The satellite people have been out here already.
There is no place on our property that can see the satellite.

It does not help that all the DBS sats are at about the longitude
of Texas, which makes for a really low angle out here on the west
coast.

[Emerson]

53. You are a unique case then

most rural homes can get satellite with out a "forest" being an issue.

[AndyTiedye]

70. My Previous Home On the East Coast Couldn't Get Satellite Either

It's actually very common. A stand of trees, or a hill, or a building
in the wrong place, and you aren't going to be able to see the satellite.

[BiggJawn]

66. Uh, even the simple silvan folk here know how to trim trees...

I guess you think we all live in the deep woods or hollow trees making cookies or something.

Sorry, even the most Redneck of my neighbours can figure out how to get a dish working...

[BiggJawn]

67. Well, it's not like we didn't see this coming...

The FCC has been setting and moving back shut off dates for NTSC since what, about 1990?

If things had been run like this 60 years ago, we'd still be listening to the "Liberty Network" on 43 Mcs. FM, instead of "Phat Beat One-Oh-Three"

[HuckleB]

77. I don't call it cheap.

I call it money I can spend on much better things.

Please.

[Roland99]

57. As the analog broadcasting goes away, stations will switch back to VHF

[Roland99]

44. HDTV Programming Information Forum...All You Need to Know!!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=34

[krkaufman]

50. Yep, just another big privatization handout

This conversion may fail miserably, as most people won't be able to afford to buy new TVs or signal converters.

[RobinA]

52. No It Won't

People are addicted to TV. They will march out and buy the new technology so they can watch Survivor, or whatever the hell it is people watch these days, in digital. The people who get burned are people like me and the several other posters here who have little sets and see no reason to spend megabucks on the crap that's on TV, but don't want to dump TV altogether because it does give access to a few things we want to watch.

I was happy with vinyl.

[Roland99]

58. Bingo! "People are addicted to TV"

[Theres-a]

105. Bread and circus

How can they expect people to live without the circus?

[high density]

74. I have no clue what the coverters are going to cost...

...but given how cheap DVD players and other common consumer electronics are, I doubt that converter boxes are going to be that expensive once they're in mass production.

[krkaufman]

89. But think about the poorest among us...

... who barely have enough to scrape by. Their one information source, however tainted, will now be taken away, as well?

[droidamus2]

54. Been done before

I already have my HDTV. Ok true I like my gadgets. I don't see what the problem is. When we converted from black and white the new color TVs cost more and not everybody had them. As more and more programming was broadcast in color more and more people dropped their b&w sets for color. Now I would guess that b&w is a very small part of the market. There should be a period where sets can handle (required) both formats. Then at some point where the market for analog is small (lets say <5% of the market just for arguments sake) you convert to total digital and release the broadcasters from the requirement to broadcast in both formats. At that point there should be cheaper new HD TVs and even cheaper used HD TVs.

[tammywammy]

56. But the difference between B&W and color

is that people weren't forced to buy color if they still wanted to watch tv.

From what I understand, when this switch happens I won't be able to use my current tv, because it's not digital. Am I misunderstanding this?

A $100 is a lot of money for me, and I hate feeling forced to buy something, when the tv I have now is perfectly fine.

I agree with you that they should continue to broadcast both signals, until the analog market is low, then fully switch, not just switch it all at once.

[droidamus2]

79. How slow is slow

I am into computers and new gadgets so I have been aware of the arrival of HDTV for quite awhile, at least 5 years and probably more. They aren't proposing the full change for another 3-4 years. That isn't quite switching all of a sudden. The problem is they have not done a very good job of marketing the change to those people that don't keep up with the up and coming entertainment equipment. I have Dish Network and since I pay for the HD package I get some HD, but there are many shows that are available in HD but Dish Network doesn't broadcast them that way. They could start by requiring all networks be they broadcast, cable or satellite to carry all HD that is available at no additional cost. The more people are exposed to the superior picture and sound the more people will want a set of their own. The more people buying sets the more the price will come down (unless of course the makers create an artificial shortage). Also making sure there is a supply of digital to analog converters available at nominal cost. It has been mentioned that digital is not a strong signal and some people won't be able to get it. That is another problem that has to be solved before a complete switch over.

[HuckleB]

81. Hell, HDTV existed back in the late '80s.

It's amazing that they haven't come up with something better in the meantime. In fact, I'm wondering why it is that they haven't done so? Could it be because this is the way that the industry can make the most money off of folks?

:shrug:

[mccoyn]

88. B&W is a subset of color.

In the color format there are three signals. One of them is intensity, which is identical to the old black and white format. All three channels are required for color so they never had a reason to phase out black and white. In fact with the color format they couldn't phase out black and white. Today, a black and white television still works even though everyone is broadcasting color. They never had to dedicate extra bandwidth to continue supporting black and white.

HDTV won't work like that. If you broadcast HDTV an analog television simply can't show it. The signals are as different as night and day. They must dedicate extra bandwidth to continue supporting analog.

[Deja Q]

55. Oh, it's 2009 now. What happened to the 2006 mandate? Or 2008 even?!

And why no subsidies for the consumers who are going to have to switch?

Take your idea of a supply-side economy and shove it.

[napi21]

59. I DON'T WANT TO BUY A NEW TV!!!!!

One of mine is 3 years old and the other is one year old. They're fine, I'm happy, and I don't want to have to buy another one, or any other damn converter for that matter!

What's the deal here? There are thousands if not millions of people that are in the same boat I am.

My cable broadcasts quite a few chanels in HD NOW. Let it go at that! If someone wants HDTV that's fine, let 'em pay for it!

[Moose_head]

69. by 2009, you'll be ready for new tv.

how big are the screens on your tv's?
the bigger the screen, the shorter the lifespan, for crt-type televisions.

[HuckleB]

78. I won't.

You gonna buy me one?

[Moose_head]

86. I don't remember responding to you...

and why would i buy you a television?
2009 is a long way off- start saving your nickels.

[HuckleB]

90. Having problems working and playing well with others?

It might be time to get away from the tube and practice socializing.

Sheesh.

[Moose_head]

94. why would i want to socialize with a mooch?

buy your own television-

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

95. I have a television.

I shouldn't need to buy another.

Comprehend?

Got any more excuses for anti-social behavior?

[Moose_head]

103. again- i wasn't responding to you on that issue-

(unless you are also nap21)

got any excuses for your boorish behaviour?

if you don't want to buy another television, then don't.

I'm sure that there will still be radio for you to listen to-

if it were up to me, the mandatory crossover would occur by 2007.

[HuckleB]

112. Ah, so you do want to force me to have purchase a new product.

And I'm the one who is being boorish.

That's one bizarre little world you reside within.

LOL!

[high density]

72. Nobody's going to force you to buy a new TV

If you're on a cable system then you probably have nothing to worry about. If you're using over the air signals then you're going to need to buy a few converter boxes to use your analog TVs.

[dArKeR]

60. How about everyone just giving up TV!

[HuckleB]

80. I think I'm there.

I'm so tired of this bullshit.

[dArKeR]

83. I haven't owned a TV for 15 years. A couple apartments overseas had TVs

but I never stuck around to watch much with all that excitement going on. In America I don't have a TV. Whenever the news comes on the radio I shut it down.

My neighbor shuts off her TV whenever a report shows aWol's face or voice. There are a lot more of us around than you think!

[jayfish]

92. There Is Still A Bunch Of Good Programming Out There.

As a matter of fact there is so much good that I don't have time to watch it all. A good DVR makes TV worthwhile.

Jay

[HuckleB]

93. So you say.

It's funny, though. When I'm away from television for an extended period, what people call "good programming" quickly begins to seem like so much of a waste of time.

Try it. You might be surprised how much your perspective changes.

[mccoyn]

96. I've heard most people with DVRs watch less TV.

Because they don't watch whatevers on when they have time and they don't make time to watch the few things they like. I've noticed the same thing since I set up my DVR.

I work all day and when I'm home I'd like to relax. No intellectually stimulating activity will do because thats what I'm relaxing to recover from. TV fills that role nicely.

[HuckleB]

98. Good for you.

Ever tried anything else? I have. And I've never gone back. I guess it's amazing that folks found ways to relax before televison, though.

:hi:

On edit: Are there studies regarding the DVR claim you made?

[mccoyn]

113. I can't find any studies.

I heard that bit through the grapevine and it matched my own experience. I just did a bit of internet searching and it hasn't turned up anything. So I'll leave it at that, no study to back up my claim.

I've tried exercise as an alternative, which is hardly relaxing. I've tried reading. I enjoy it, but with my dyslexia it takes a long time to finish a book and TV is just more enjoyable for my time. I'm on a computer all day at work, I don't want to spend all my time at home on one too. I split my spare time between video games and TV. Have I tried giving up TV altogether? No, it fills a place in my life nicely.

[jayfish]

109. Like I said I Don't Have Time To Watch It All.

So that means I'm not in front of my TV all the time. I usually watch 1-2 hours of TV a day, if that much. With a DVR I only watch the shows I feel are worthwhile.

Jay

[readermostly]

64. Do the digital boxes that my cable company made me get about

2 or 3 years ago make my somewhat older TVs safe, or is this something else? Do we all have to get new TV sets?

[HuckleB]

73. Sounds like a good reason to stop watching altogether.

Heck, 95 percen of the time the box is on, we're watching DVDs or videos anyway.

This sounds like lobbyists rockin' the airwaves once again.

[Don Claybrook]

85. Much ado about absolutely nothing

My tv is connected to a dvd player and nothing else, no cable, no satellite, no antenna. I get lots more reliable news right here on my computer, and I also occasionally watch cspan and TDS clips. What's more, I've been in a hotel room for 3 days now, and I haven't turned the television on once. It's an utter waste of time.

It's really instructive to quit watching television. When you look back after 6 months or so, you'll wonder how you ever had the time or inclination to watch the garbage in the first place.

[hayu_lol]

87. Because of garbage programing and endless commercials...

I gave up TV altogether about 12 years ago. Don't have a working set in the house. Haven't missed it either.

HDTV is something I can easily pass on...there are just so many interesting things to do with the time formerly spent watching dumbass programing.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

100. Yikes! Landfill nightmare.

What are we supposed to do with our old analog tvs? Just trash them. I guess some sort of adapter/converter would work, is that right?. I'm not that interested in TV to spend the big bucks for the set. My husband would though and I just can't imagine what he would do with the giant set we have now.

[Moose_head]

104. did you expect them to last forever?

this has been in the works and talked about for years now.

btw- those analog sets will still work great for watching videos and dvds and playing games.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

106. Of course not. Nothing lasts forever is my motto

However. I do work hard to recycle and use stuff till it's done. I think there are lots of tvs out there that will still be working well. I guess we'll just relegate them to rec rooms or something.

[Moose_head]

108. they make GREAT paperweights too...

btw- with crt-type televisions(picture tube) the larger the screen, the shorter the lifespan.

[FlaGranny]

101. DirecTV offers HD

but it costs an extra $200 to start it up. It costs $11 a month extra to receive digital AND I would have to buy a new TV set to receive it. In addition to that, I would no longer be able to receive my local channels without an antenna, so I would have to buy an antella system, which, where I live, would get me 3 or 4 local channels, unless I bought an antenna rotator. Add all that up and ask me - a retiree - if I'm going to be able to spend all that money on my Social Security check.

Yes, there is a lot of programming that is bad, but there is a lot that is good also. I have about 150 channels to watch, but regularly watch about a half dozen of them. Wish I could get them a la carte.

[Zorra]

107. "If you want an uproar from the people of this country, you have their

their televisions turned off," cautioned Sen. George Allen, a Virginia Republican.

Sad but true. You can take destroy our democracy, just don't takeaway the propaganda box that helped destroy it.

[electricmonk]

117. In all the years I've had to put up with that idiot

First as Governor and now Senator that's the only smart thing I've ever heard him say.

Myself, I don't care one way or the other about HDTV. A good tv is in my long range purchasing plans but it has been for about 6 years now. Every time I save up enough I end up spending it on something else like a new camera or computer.

[Megahurtz]

110. This Sucks. n/t

[blackspade]

115. I have no Idea...

Why this is such an issue for the government over, say, well anything else.

This should not even be on the radar as far as I'm concerned.
I have 1 TV that my parents bought in 1982 that still works just fine and the other couple of TVs that I have, which are at least 7 years old, are perfectly serviceable.
Exactly how does all this HD crap benefit me anyway?
Sure it may look good, but does it really add that much to the TV watching experience?
I may need to buy a new set in a couple of years but to have the government force me to dispose of perfectly good TVs for a corporate giveaway is stupid.

[HuckleB]

116. Less TV, more likely to finish college

http://www.mydna.com/resources/news/200507/news_20050705_coll.html