dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Smokey wrote:

H-m-m-m...

a $50 converter for each TV or...

groceries. What a tough call to make, Dude.
And yet, they'll pay it. I've heard hundreds of stories about the "poor" who are
out buying the latest and biggest TV sets. Gimme a break, for a lot of those
folks, TV is the #1 priority.


In the US, the poverty level is defined such that many of 'the poor'
own homes, cars, have air conditioning, and not one, but two color TV's.

The 'poor' in this country, do not live in tribal conditions in the
veldt.

I'm always amused when looking for garage sales on the weekend, to
drive through low end neighborhoods, and count the number of highly
accessorized high end cars and SUV's in front of tiny boxes that haven't
been painted in this decade. And then drive through higher end
neighborhoods and count the number of Chevy Cavaliers in front of
McMansions.

People live according to their priorities. And they often define
quality living by the number of toys.
I like my 1977 Buick LeSabre.. still under 100,000 miles!


No ****. Excellent.

Yeah, and I bought it almost 5 years ago with 63K on it and brand new tires. Got it for
$600. Actually owned by a 'little old lady' who passed away at 90+ years.




That's a great find. I'm still looking for another Studebaker. I've
had 3 over the years, and they've been about as trouble free as any car
I've ever owned...and a lot of fun to drive.

D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Smokey wrote:

H-m-m-m...

a $50 converter for each TV or...

groceries. What a tough call to make, Dude.
And yet, they'll pay it. I've heard hundreds of stories about the "poor" who are
out buying the latest and biggest TV sets. Gimme a break, for a lot of those
folks, TV is the #1 priority.


In the US, the poverty level is defined such that many of 'the poor'
own homes, cars, have air conditioning, and not one, but two color TV's.

The 'poor' in this country, do not live in tribal conditions in the
veldt.

I'm always amused when looking for garage sales on the weekend, to
drive through low end neighborhoods, and count the number of highly
accessorized high end cars and SUV's in front of tiny boxes that haven't
been painted in this decade. And then drive through higher end
neighborhoods and count the number of Chevy Cavaliers in front of
McMansions.

People live according to their priorities. And they often define
quality living by the number of toys.
I like my 1977 Buick LeSabre.. still under 100,000 miles!


No ****. Excellent.

Yeah, and I bought it almost 5 years ago with 63K on it and brand new tires. Got it for
$600. Actually owned by a 'little old lady' who passed away at 90+ years.



That's a great find. I'm still looking for another Studebaker. I've
had 3 over the years, and they've been about as trouble free as any car
I've ever owned...and a lot of fun to drive.

Got lucky after the Dakota got crunched (and nearly me too), and I don't drive all that much
anymore anyway. Seems as though I saw a Studebaker for sale down the road in the past few
weeks.

On Jul 30, 5:34 am, "Smokey" wrote:
It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry
and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the
insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009.

I for one am telling every advertiser I do business with that I will not see
any of their ads after that date.

Jeez, Louise...hundreds of thousands of homes in foreclosure, the ****tiest
economy in my life, $4 for a lousy gallon of gas, a trip to the grocery
store is a painfully expensive process and every one I know has been layed
off.

AND THESE PRICKS THINK WE'RE GOING TO RUSH OUT A BUY EQUIPMENT TO RECEIVE
THEIR ASSININE DIGITAL SYSTEM?

The ones to blame are those in Washington but equally culpable are the
sycophants in the TV industry to sat by and allowed it to happen.

I'm glad I'm not spending any money on TV advertising that few people will
see after 2009. Besides, there are so few creative writers left in the
industry that TV has had to rely on this insipid "reality" shows. Yawn.

Converter boxes begin at under $50 and the government will give you
two $40 coupons, each coupon good for one box. The added channels you
get is worth a lot more than the ten bucks. I see you can afford a
computer and internet service, so what are you crying about?

wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 5:34 am, "Smokey" wrote:
It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry
and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the
insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009.

I for one am telling every advertiser I do business with that I will not
see
any of their ads after that date.

Jeez, Louise...hundreds of thousands of homes in foreclosure, the
****tiest
economy in my life, $4 for a lousy gallon of gas, a trip to the grocery
store is a painfully expensive process and every one I know has been
layed
off.

AND THESE PRICKS THINK WE'RE GOING TO RUSH OUT A BUY EQUIPMENT TO RECEIVE
THEIR ASSININE DIGITAL SYSTEM?

The ones to blame are those in Washington but equally culpable are the
sycophants in the TV industry to sat by and allowed it to happen.

I'm glad I'm not spending any money on TV advertising that few people
will
see after 2009. Besides, there are so few creative writers left in the
industry that TV has had to rely on this insipid "reality" shows. Yawn.

Converter boxes begin at under $50 and the government will give you
two $40 coupons, each coupon good for one box. The added channels you
get is worth a lot more than the ten bucks. I see you can afford a
computer and internet service, so what are you crying about?

The people he's referring to mostly do not have computers, internet service,
cable TV.. they are people that live outside of urban areas that typically
have very poor analog TV reception (gads, I've lived in so many of those
places...) and will not be able to receive digital signals with or without a
box. There are millions of these people out there that will simply lose
their (admittedly marginal) TV reception altogether.

Of course there are also a lot of little old ladies, etc. that can't afford
cable that live in the cities, and will not buy the boxes, either (many are
technophobes that can barely operate their analog sets... many still with
old rotary tuners). The analog switch-off will indeed disenfranchise a
large number of people across the country. But then, the stations don't
care, because their advertisers don't care.. these are not the people being
marketed to..

First, if you won't mind leaving your Fantasy Land for a moment.do you
really believe the force-feeding of digital TV has anything to do with
enhancement of the television viewing experience? ! Good grief! You
obviously are not paying attention.



When we are all straightjacketed into digital TV the handcuffs will go on.
Suddenly you will discover you cannot record TV shows or certain games off
of broadcast TV because they've done the same thing to the video that they've
done to copy guard DVDs.



Then will come the encoding of certain games and programs. Only paying
subscribers will be able to see them after phoning in their credit card
number, thanks to the new digital TV system. Once done, a data burst will be
broadcast on one of the digital sub carrier channels that will "unlock" the
chip on a digital TV that is similar to the "IP" identifier on your computer
(if you're running anything newer than a Pentium 3 processor). If you haven't
paid up, your "IP" number will not appear in the string of others who have
and, VOILA.you're S.O.L.



Carry it one step further, sheeple.



Like so many things today that are only "illusionary tests." "We'll see if
this will fly before we try that."



If they can sell making us all run out and buy pricey new TVs and converter
boxes or subscribe to overpriced cable or satellite service (which will
serve a double purpose of adding to the huge database dossier on ever
citizen about television viewing habits and interests).ESPECIALLY IN THE
****TY ECONOMY THEY HAVE GIVEN US.

it will be like shooting fish in a barrel to force us into buying new
fuel-economy vehicles under threat of a tax on how fast your odometer
rotates.



So, yeah. Go ahead, embrace digital TV.



Too bad the "big picture" you see on your new HDTV big screen is the
furthest thing from the real "big picture" here.



Did you REALLY think this was all about enhancement of the viewing
experience?

On Jul 30, 5:56 pm, "Smokey" wrote:

Did you REALLY think this was all about enhancement of the viewing
experience?

For me it is. Several new channels (sub-channels) of programming
already on the air. In fact, I watch the sub-channels more than the
regular ones. No need to pay for satellite or cable. We are told
that next year we could have over 80 channels (including subchannels)
of programming to select from here in Central California. I'm getting
networks I never heard of before with great programming. AND, I don't
have a big screen HDTV. I watch a 20-inch analog tv and am getting
the best reception ever.

Brenda Ann wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 5:34 am, "Smokey" wrote:
It will be interesting to hear the wailing from the TV broadcast industry
and its advertisers after a huge audience is eliminated by forcing the
insane HDTV nonsense down our throats in 2009.

I for one am telling every advertiser I do business with that I will not
see
any of their ads after that date.

Jeez, Louise...hundreds of thousands of homes in foreclosure, the
****tiest
economy in my life, $4 for a lousy gallon of gas, a trip to the grocery
store is a painfully expensive process and every one I know has been
layed
off.

AND THESE PRICKS THINK WE'RE GOING TO RUSH OUT A BUY EQUIPMENT TO RECEIVE
THEIR ASSININE DIGITAL SYSTEM?

The ones to blame are those in Washington but equally culpable are the
sycophants in the TV industry to sat by and allowed it to happen.

I'm glad I'm not spending any money on TV advertising that few people
will
see after 2009. Besides, there are so few creative writers left in the
industry that TV has had to rely on this insipid "reality" shows. Yawn.

Converter boxes begin at under $50 and the government will give you
two $40 coupons, each coupon good for one box. The added channels you
get is worth a lot more than the ten bucks. I see you can afford a
computer and internet service, so what are you crying about?

The people he's referring to mostly do not have computers, internet service,
cable TV.. they are people that live outside of urban areas that typically
have very poor analog TV reception (gads, I've lived in so many of those
places...) and will not be able to receive digital signals with or without a
box. There are millions of these people out there that will simply lose
their (admittedly marginal) TV reception altogether.

Of course there are also a lot of little old ladies, etc. that can't afford
cable that live in the cities, and will not buy the boxes, either (many are
technophobes that can barely operate their analog sets... many still with
old rotary tuners). The analog switch-off will indeed disenfranchise a
large number of people across the country. But then, the stations don't
care, because their advertisers don't care.. these are not the people being
marketed to..

Hmmmm... seems as though we've heard that refrain before... wait! Isn't it
'Eduardo' who tells us all about those who don't matter, those who are not being
marketed to?

wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 5:56 pm, "Smokey" wrote:

Did you REALLY think this was all about enhancement of the viewing
experience?

For me it is. Several new channels (sub-channels) of programming
already on the air. In fact, I watch the sub-channels more than the
regular ones. No need to pay for satellite or cable. We are told
that next year we could have over 80 channels (including subchannels)
of programming to select from here in Central California. I'm getting
networks I never heard of before with great programming. AND, I don't
have a big screen HDTV. I watch a 20-inch analog tv and am getting
the best reception ever.


You're fortunate. Many areas outside of a city don't get DTV at all. Also,
if you have a lot of subchannels, you're not getting HDTV, as it is an
either/or situation. Subchannels mean that the bandwidth is not available
for HD (anything over 720p) signals.

On Jul 31, 1:16 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:


You're fortunate. Many areas outside of a city don't get DTV at all. Also,
if you have a lot of subchannels, you're not getting HDTV, as it is an
either/or situation. Subchannels mean that the bandwidth is not available
for HD (anything over 720p) signals.

Like I said, I use an analog tv, so even the hdtv channels are not hd
for me. But I can definitely tell a difference between the analog
channels and the digital channels. The digital signal, even converted
to analog, are a higher resolution than the analog channels.

For those outside of a city where reception is a problem -- they will
contine to get their LP translator stations for a few more years.
Most of the major stations here have translator transmitters that
relay their signal to the outlining areas.

For some people who don't subscribe to satellite tv (I subscribe to
DirecTV, To much money for the amount of bread) or cable tv, there will
be no tv at all for them.I think some of those people will be highly
pizzed off too.It will not be an easy transition from Analog tv to HD
tv.I predict there will be, Katrinas all over America, there will be
Hell to pay! fed govt F..ks up again! Wearethegovtandweareheretohelpyou.
cuhulin