Pope Flick Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Why would I want to pay $50 for a converter antenna for a TV that isn't even worth $50 anymore? Plus, I don't want an antenna. I want to receive the same analog cable signal in that room that I'm already paying for. If Comcast supplies me with a free digital converter, that's fine. But I'm not paying for another one. I'm going to fork down about $1,200 for an HD to replace the 15-year-old RCA 27" in my livingroom later this year. So it's not a question of money, you condescending douchebag. Do you realize that with a good enough antenna you'll get a better HD picture quality from those broadcasting stations than you will over cable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) Do you realize that with a good enough antenna you'll get a better HD picture quality from those broadcasting stations than you will over cable? We're talking about a 7-year-old 13" here. It's not going to help much. Plus, isn't an antenna just going to get me the networks? I almost never watch the networks. I want HD in my livingroom and am taking care of that later this year. But I don't need digital or HD in my bedroom and don't feel inclined to pay extra for it just because a bunch of lobbyists got the FCC to completely change the broadcasting format. Edited May 16, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Ladies and Gentlemen... for your reading entertainment... I present Bill Swerski Argues With Himelf! However, I'm going to have to fork down a couple hundred dollars if I want to watch TV in my bedroom two years from now. Why would I want to pay $50 for a converter antenna...? If Comcast supplies me with a free digital converter, that's fine. But I'm not paying for another one. I... don't feel inclined to pay extra for it Interesting. Bill? Do you have a response? it's not a question of money, you condescending douchebag. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) Ladies and Gentlemen... for your reading entertainment... I present Bill Swerski Argues With Himelf! Interesting. Bill? Do you have a response? Thank you. You illiterate boob. However, I'm going to have to fork down a couple hundred dollars if I want to watch TV in my bedroom two years from now. Do you not know the definition of the word "if"? And, unless the digital antenna that you speak of is compatible with my cable outlet, getting a only handfull of network channels isn't what I was looking for. Nice solution. What don't you understand about me not wanting to pay extra money for something that I don't want? Edited May 16, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 What don't you understand about me not wanting to pay extra money for something that I don't want? It's not a question of money, you condescending douchebag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 So you'd be cool with paying an extra $1/gallon for gas, just because you could afford it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) So you'd be cool with paying an extra $1/gallon for gas, just because you could afford it? If that gallon of gas was vastly technologically improved, would last the entire life of my car, and would be subsidized by the government for people who couldn't afford it then yes... that fictional magical gallon of gas would be awesome. I would probably pay thousands for it. But I think that's a pretty bad comparison, because gas isn't magical. But man oh man... if it was... that would be AWESOME! Edited May 16, 2007 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Has a government body deemed that CDs should no longer be sold in stores because of mp3 technology? If not, that's an apples-and-oranges argument. Oh there's no doubt you can still buy CD's Bill, just like you could buy 8 track tapes after cassete tapes came out & cassette tapes & vinyl records after CD's came out...for a few years anyway. That's my point. When advances in technology occur that give us a superior product, the prior generation of inferior technology eventually fades away into history, regardless of Govt mandates. The switch over to all Digital Broadcasting would happen anyway. Maybe not by 2009, but trust me, it would happen. Besides it being a far superior delivery system for both audio & video ~ vs ~ anaolg broadcasts, Digital broadcasting opens up far more airwaves for broadcasting. But if you want an example of forced Govt technological intervention costing both the manufacturing industry & consumers, how about Leaded cars to Unleaded cars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 We're talking about a 7-year-old 13" here. It's not going to help much. Plus, isn't an antenna just going to get me the networks? I almost never watch the networks. Yep - but if you're a fan of 24 for instance you'll get a better looking product over the antenna than cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Gas is magical. :farts: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 If that gallon of gas was vastly technologically improved, would last the entire life of my car, and would be subsidized by the government for people who couldn't afford it Your argument that a government-supplied digital antenna would magically pick up all of the cable channels that I currently watch is retarded. In other words, pretty typical of your posts. Oh there's no doubt you can still buy CD's Bill, just like you could buy 8 track tapes after cassete tapes came out & cassette tapes & vinyl records after CD's came out...for a few years anyway. That's my point. When advances in technology occur that give us a superior product, the prior generation of inferior technology eventually fades away into history, regardless of Govt mandates. The switch over to all Digital Broadcasting would happen anyway. Maybe not by 2009, but trust me, it would happen. Besides it being a far superior delivery system for both audio & video ~ vs ~ anaolg broadcasts, Digital broadcasting opens up far more airwaves for broadcasting. But if you want an example of forced Govt technological intervention costing both the manufacturing industry & consumers, how about Leaded cars to Unleaded cars? IIRC, automobile manufacturers began the transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline several decades ago. How long has digital cable been widely-available? Maybe 7 or 8 years? How many TVs with analog receivers are still being sold? Maybe 30-40% of all televisions? I agree with much of what you're saying, but I just think that they're transitioning too quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 How many TVs with analog receivers are still being sold? Maybe 30-40% of all televisions? Try: zero. The Commission's digital tuner rule specifies that as of March 1, 2007, all new TVs must include digital tuners. This rule prohibits the manufacture, import, or interstate shipment of any device containing an analog tuner, unless it also contains a digital tuner. Despite this prohibition on manufacture and shipment, retailers may continue to sell analog-only devices from existing inventory. As a result, at the point of sale, many consumers may not be aware that this equipment will not be able to receive over-the-air-television signals after February 17, 2009. http://www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html I agree with much of what you're saying, but I just think that they're transitioning too quickly. And they're pushing the transition to happen quickly so they can auction off the freed up VHF's and make a ton of money for the lobbyists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Try: zero. http://www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html Wow, that's surprising. That said... Despite this prohibition on manufacture and shipment, retailers may continue to sell analog-only devices from existing inventory ... is a key point. Methinks that Best Buy and Circuit City will continue to sell analog TVs to those who don't know any better. Once again, the goverment screws the consumer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Wow, that's surprising. That said... ... is a key point. Methinks that Best Buy and Circuit City will continue to sell analog TVs to those who don't know any better. Once again, the goverment screws the consumer. After reading your posts I kinda wish your dad would not have screwed your mom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Your argument that a government-supplied digital antenna would magically pick up all of the cable channels that I currently watch is retarded. In other words, pretty typical of your posts. IIRC, automobile manufacturers began the transition from leaded to unleaded gasoline several decades ago. How long has digital cable been widely-available? Maybe 7 or 8 years? How many TVs with analog receivers are still being sold? Maybe 30-40% of all televisions? I agree with much of what you're saying, but I just think that they're transitioning too quickly. Maybe I'm just more in tune with technological advances than most, but it was back in the 1980's that I first began hearing about Hi Def & the resulting broadcast signal change. I'm ticked that they've taken so long to make the transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Maybe I'm just more in tune with technological advances than most, but it was back in the 1980's that I first began hearing about Hi Def & the resulting broadcast signal change. I remember that in the late '80s as well, but it was in Japan. I don't know how quickly they transitioned over there but, IIRC, HD broadcasts only began to be available here maybe four years ago. Not only were HDTVs way too expensive five or six years ago, but there was little incentive to purchase them since nobody broadcasted in HD back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Maybe I'm just more in tune with technological advances than most, but it was back in the 1980's that I first began hearing about Hi Def & the resulting broadcast signal change. I'm ticked that they've taken so long to make the transition. This has been a loooooong time coming. It's like saying a long suffering cancer patient died suddenly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Keeping 'broadcasting' alive is the biggest detriment to technical advances for this medium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I remember that in the late '80s as well, but it was in Japan. I don't know how quickly they transitioned over there but, IIRC, HD broadcasts only began to be available here maybe four years ago. Not only were HDTVs way too expensive five or six years ago, but there was little incentive to purchase them since nobody broadcasted in HD back then. Yeah, it's been awhile since the US was cutting edge in direct consumer technology The Japanese laugh their butts off at our snail like consumer broadband. Sometimes it takes our Govt giving big business a swift kick in the pants to get 'em moving. Kinda like the 2009 Digital broadcast switch over deadline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 This tipped the scale, and I've gone back to DirecTV I was a Directv customer for several years, until I got fed up with them promising and not delivering on local HD channels in my area. I switched to Comcast, and at first, I was impressed with their ON-Demand, but, eventually, I missed Directv and their cheaper pricing for more channels. Also, with word of various HD channels being available in the near future with Directv, I wanted to be on-board. So, my trip to cable was brief, and Directv has set me up with a sweet promotional deal for 'bringing me back' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.