Are we all buying a TV soon?

the part that's baffling to me is this:

Unless you actually own an HDTV, the difference between Digital & regular cable is well....nothing. More channels to flip through. The reception's EXACTLY the same....but digital still runs ya 20-40 bucks more a month...it's a ripoff.

Stingray said:

the part that's baffling to me is this:

Unless you actually own an HDTV, the difference between Digital & regular cable is well....nothing. More channels to flip through. The reception's EXACTLY the same....but digital still runs ya 20-40 bucks more a month...it's a ripoff.

Click to expand...

This is only until the analog is replaced by digital though, so you won't have a choice but to have the best picture quality available if you want to watch tv after congress steps in.

Hey Stingray,

Good points. Its going to be interesting to see what happens with this.

WiP,

"TELLING us that we HAVE to have digital cable now?"

This is the only article that I've seen on the subject so far so I'm no expert on this, but supposedly there will still be over the air broadcasts, you'll just have to either buy all new HDTV's or set top boxes for each television you use. That could add up to a few bucks.

I am glad that a few people are looking at this because everyone that watches the tube will be effected.

I disagree Stingray. I had digital cable for a year before I got my "fancy" TV and I noticed a difference between the regular cable and the digital. Have a closer look and you can notice a quality difference. The audio is also a lot crisper and clearer on digital.

The easiest way to compare is if you can find the same show that is simultaneously broadcasted on each channel, like a sports game or a sitcom rerun or something and flip back and forth.

But I will agree with you that its still not as good without the appropriate technology. Digital isn't digital without the right TV.

Hey CMan,

I agree that there is a small difference in quality with a digital set top box but not all that much. Its not like the difference between a normal TV and HDTV. I think Stingray's question is valid in that, is the $20 to $30 per month (multiplied by the number of TV's you will be using) to have a set top box on an old TV worth the cost. If a family has four or five sets and have to pay that cost, you'll be hearing some howling.

The nerd at work says that "digital" is only another means of tranfering data, not better, not worse without the right circumstances. But it sure costs a hellofa lot more. I do know that the folks i know with digital cable have alot of green square breakups. And i've always hated dvd's for their fragileness and constant breakups as well. Is that a word?

mindido said:

I think Stingray's question is valid in that, is the $20 to $30 per month (multiplied by the number of TV's you will be using) to have a set top box on an old TV worth the cost. If a family has four or five sets and have to pay that cost, you'll be hearing some howling.

Click to expand...

Its not worth it for the quality, but I dont' think you're paying for the quality in that case. You're paying for the extra channels (and the rental of the box)

The "nerd" at work is wrong. It is another way of transferring data, but its a completely different way. Its analog vs. digital. Its like comparing a VHS tape to a DVD. Both can play the same movie, but which would you rather watch.

cman said:

Its not worth it for the quality, but I dont' think you're paying for the quality in that case. You're paying for the extra channels (and the rental of the box)

The "nerd" at work is wrong. It is another way of transferring data, but its a completely different way. Its analog vs. digital. Its like comparing a VHS tape to a DVD. Both can play the same movie, but which would you rather watch.

Click to expand...

Goes back to the quality of the tv if someone told you you were watching a dvd but it was a high quality vcr you'd have to be superman to see a difference. You might have just paid 10 dollars to watch Star Wars on a reel projector, a few million others have. The Difference between cd and tape...pretty much zilch if they're both high quality. Dolby took care of the hiss of analog years ago. And since analog is "true" sound it is used in studio's by all most of your favorite artists. Along with foot pedals instead of processors. Not all but alot. And yall are dissin beta hehe its higher quality than tape is and you watch it everyday on the news. Also think of camera's.. digital vs. regular. I'm just sayin today's digital is better because of convienance not necessaraly quality. There's alot of hype in it.

Duke E. Pyle said:

And yall are dissin beta hehe its higher quality than tape is and you watch it everyday on the news.

Click to expand...

I never dissed BETA. I'll give you that one. BETA was always better than VHS, but the tapes are fucking huge and the machines are expensive, so thats why it didn't catch on in the home market.

Consumers will always choose whichever option is smaller and cheaper when its that kind of choice.

When I got my T.V. about three or four year ago.I called up the RCA head office to talk to someone about this.I was tranfer to some big office guy.That told me not to worried RCA was working on a box.So it's been some time that it's been going to happen.I am not worried.To many people would go crazy if the T.V. all of a sudden didn't work.

Hey Dillon,

Thats the point of this thread. The date, if it sticks, is not very far away.

I wish it was tomorrow, so I could get some fucking use out of my TV :lol:

(proper use for which it was designed, that is)

cman said:

I disagree Stingray. I had digital cable for a year before I got my "fancy" TV and I noticed a difference between the regular cable and the digital. Have a closer look and you can notice a quality difference. The audio is also a lot crisper and clearer on digital.

The easiest way to compare is if you can find the same show that is simultaneously broadcasted on each channel, like a sports game or a sitcom rerun or something and flip back and forth.

But I will agree with you that its still not as good without the appropriate technology. Digital isn't digital without the right TV.

Click to expand...

I'll give ya the sound difference...the sound did come off better, in the sense that all the channels broadcast at the same level, rather than say...NBC at 20 (tv volume 20, of course), and say...TBS at 12...which is the irritation with reg. cable at the moment. (Well...it irritates me anyhow).

But....Like um Mindido mentioned, when ya balance out the cost..it's just astronimical. And a few companies (Adelphia & Time/Warner locally for me) charge an almost literal arm & leg for the digital service...Time Warner's recently even kicked it up from 65 to almost 80 a month, and that's sans PPV or any "premium" channels. I'm sorry...but there's just not enough on tv--regardless of the kind of tv you have--that's worth 80 bucks a month to watch.

Hey Stingray,

"...but there's just not enough on tv--regardless of the kind of tv you have--that's worth 80 bucks a month to watch."

Can't agree with you more! I pay about $45 per mo. for about 80 provided channels, of which I actually watch less than half (I've deleted those I never watch from my playlist). If enacted, my bill will go up at least $10 to $20 per mo. just for the two set top boxes I will need. $65 per mo. for TV? I don't know about that. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking that there is a point at which I will just scrap cable (or satellite) and go back to the old rabbit ears. There just isn't enough quality TV out there to make it worthwhile. 90% is basically crap.

Indeed....If it were just me livin' here, I'd scrap the TV cable, and use the funds to get cable for the comp...lol. I think I watch a grand total (discounting football season, of course) of 7 hours of TV a week....mebbe more if there's a mini-series or movie on I wanna watch, like Revelations over the last month or so. And as much as I enjoy Lost & WWE....it's just not worth the $$ I gotta pay for it...

CMan,

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you in Canada? If so, then I don't think this will affect you at all. This will be up to your Parliament and TV stations, won't it?

mindido said:

CMan,

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you in Canada? If so, then I don't think this will affect you at all. This will be up to your Parliament and TV stations, won't it?

Click to expand...

It will totally affect us because all we watch is US tv stations lol (canadian tv for the most part, sucks ass). Also, technology wise, we'll probably follow your lead.

Reading all of this takes me back to 2002 when I interned at a local TV station and first heard of the digital changeover. It's funny thinking back because at the time the station was going through growing pains trying to switch everything over to digital (and I was scared to death that my TV wasn't going to work anymore). The tech guys there all hated it because basically ALL of the current hardware had to be replaced in order to send a digital signal and that meant more work for them and more expense for the station all because of government mandates. To put it into perspective, at the time I was there the station only owned 1 digital tape editing machine compared to at least 20 Beta machines, and those puppies were not interchangable. Editing machines were only the beginning of the cost for a station to meet their federally mandated deadlines.

I agree that this is like the government meddling, and dictating what we will watch, and I don't like it, but thanks to the FCC the govt. currently has its hands in everything from your Television to your clock radio. Almost all electronic equipment has to be approved by the FCC in order to ensure that it won't cause interference, etc, etc, etc.

I see. Hummm. Thats weird. I keep seeing Fox News always knocking the Canadians for not allowing them up there. I wonder whats up with that?

mindido said:

I see. Hummm. Thats weird. I keep seeing Fox News always knocking the Canadians for not allowing them up there. I wonder whats up with that?

Click to expand...

Yeah, we don't allow that particular channel because its full of partisans propaganda. We're interested in real news, not careful crafted spin Since when is Fox a leader in news anyway.

We have all the rest though: CNN, CNNHN, MSNBC, CNBC blah blah

I fucking hate Tucker Carlson with an unyielding passion and I would stab him repeatedly with an ice pick if I ever came within 10 feet of him.

Its pretty sad when The Daily Show is the most trusted name in American news.